Short answer, yes you can get better at IQ tests by learning the common patterns and practicing the tests. Some people do so, and reach very high IQ scores. But there is essentially no reward for doing this, and thus almost no one bothers to do it. In the absence of practice, IQ is an empirically relatively stable metric which correlates with a number of other empirical outcomes, about as well as anything in the social sciences ever does.
Things people want are are not gated by certified IQ scores. Think of jobs, sexual partners, popularity, etc. Except in extraordinary circumstances there’s just no incentive to do better on IQ tests for any reason other than just being smarter.
For the purpose of bragging rights, its easier to just lie about your score than it is “cheat” by prepping for the test.
In the U.S., things people want are no longer gated by IQ scores because the Supreme Court has ruled that doing so violates the Civil Rights Act (Griggs V. Duke Power). Prior to 1971 IQ scores were commonly used in hiring decisions; my mother got the highest score her employer had ever seen and was fast-tracked to management.
I heard at local Mensa that there is a guy who keeps coming to take the IQ test every year, and every year he fails to pass the Mensa limit. And he’s been doing this at least for a decade.
For me, it is difficult to imagine, because Raven’s matrices (the IQ test my local Mensa usually uses) is like the same two or three patterns over and over again. How could anyone take the test twice without noticing this? And if you notice the pattern, then you should get at least 80% of questions right very easily, which probably should be enough to pass the Mensa limit...
...but then, from my perspective, it doesn’t make sense how anyone could get a result other than “random answers” and “almost everything correct”, and yet apparently most people end up somewhere in between, which means that I am confused about something.
Maybe noticing that “it’s the same two or three patterns over and over again” is how high IQ feels from inside; and if you have average IQ, it just seems like a sequence of independent puzzles with increasing difficulty, dunno. Or maybe most people only take the test once, and essentially run out of time before they recognize the repetitive pattern, and don’t take the second try where they could score higher by applying the knowledge of (the existence of) the pattern from the very beginning. Or a bit of both.
By the way, after you do the test, you are told the IQ and maybe the number of questions you answered correctly, but you are not told which ones you answered wrong and what was the correct answer. So if your problem was lack of time, then repetition can help… but if your problem was being unable to tell the difference between the right and wrong answer, then repetition does not help. (Other than introducing some random noise, so if your real IQ is e.g. 120, if you roll the dice often, once you get lucky on the questions you answered randomly, and pass the 130 limit—but that’s not “getting better” in the strict sense.)
Maybe I am in the minority, but I think that I in my teenage years I would definetely have studied for an IQ test if I had had to take one.
Let us say that only 1% of people are like me, and the other 99% does not care. With your premises, that 1% would get a very high IQ. This is still a lot of people; is it possible that they are the majority of the people with high IQ? Or do you think that most of the people with IQ > 130 are “natural” (in the sense that scored high without solved made similar exercises before)?
This isn’t a case where we need more research. This is a case where we have over a century of credible data(1) and the strongest theoretical constructs in psychology or any other social science. We just ignore the answers we have because nobody likes them. We’d rather believe that effort matters more than genetics.
(1) The US military in WWI and WWII tested tens of millions of men from broad swaths of society.
I love the social sciences, but they tend to tell you more about the people studying them then they do about the actual subjects they study. I’m a believer that much of the data in the Social Sciences would benefit from reexamination using recalibrated metrics, as the political shifts in the world of the last 50 years have caused seismic shifts in the ways data is collected, organized, and interpreted. I’ve got some ideas of major areas of the Social Sciences which need to be reconsidered, as they have significantly impacted legislation in ways that have caused almost immeasurable suffering around the world IMO.
IQ is one of those ‘classic’ metrics which has in some ways fallen out of favor as being meaningful for large portions of society. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest it is akin to phrenology, but what exactly it measures in relation to practical ideas of intelligence is in debate. Short of diagnosing potential Developmental Disorders, they are part of a battery of tests these days, as by themselves IQ test results don’t tell much useful information.
Short answer, yes you can get better at IQ tests by learning the common patterns and practicing the tests. Some people do so, and reach very high IQ scores. But there is essentially no reward for doing this, and thus almost no one bothers to do it. In the absence of practice, IQ is an empirically relatively stable metric which correlates with a number of other empirical outcomes, about as well as anything in the social sciences ever does.
Agreed.
Things people want are are not gated by certified IQ scores. Think of jobs, sexual partners, popularity, etc. Except in extraordinary circumstances there’s just no incentive to do better on IQ tests for any reason other than just being smarter.
For the purpose of bragging rights, its easier to just lie about your score than it is “cheat” by prepping for the test.
In the U.S., things people want are no longer gated by IQ scores because the Supreme Court has ruled that doing so violates the Civil Rights Act (Griggs V. Duke Power). Prior to 1971 IQ scores were commonly used in hiring decisions; my mother got the highest score her employer had ever seen and was fast-tracked to management.
I heard at local Mensa that there is a guy who keeps coming to take the IQ test every year, and every year he fails to pass the Mensa limit. And he’s been doing this at least for a decade.
For me, it is difficult to imagine, because Raven’s matrices (the IQ test my local Mensa usually uses) is like the same two or three patterns over and over again. How could anyone take the test twice without noticing this? And if you notice the pattern, then you should get at least 80% of questions right very easily, which probably should be enough to pass the Mensa limit...
...but then, from my perspective, it doesn’t make sense how anyone could get a result other than “random answers” and “almost everything correct”, and yet apparently most people end up somewhere in between, which means that I am confused about something.
Maybe noticing that “it’s the same two or three patterns over and over again” is how high IQ feels from inside; and if you have average IQ, it just seems like a sequence of independent puzzles with increasing difficulty, dunno. Or maybe most people only take the test once, and essentially run out of time before they recognize the repetitive pattern, and don’t take the second try where they could score higher by applying the knowledge of (the existence of) the pattern from the very beginning. Or a bit of both.
By the way, after you do the test, you are told the IQ and maybe the number of questions you answered correctly, but you are not told which ones you answered wrong and what was the correct answer. So if your problem was lack of time, then repetition can help… but if your problem was being unable to tell the difference between the right and wrong answer, then repetition does not help. (Other than introducing some random noise, so if your real IQ is e.g. 120, if you roll the dice often, once you get lucky on the questions you answered randomly, and pass the 130 limit—but that’s not “getting better” in the strict sense.)
Agreed. I am pretty sure practise can increase IQ scores, but people don’t do it.
Well, IQ tests used to be common in assessment centers. I haven’t heard about this being still used but if so studying for the test would make sense.
Maybe I am in the minority, but I think that I in my teenage years I would definetely have studied for an IQ test if I had had to take one.
Let us say that only 1% of people are like me, and the other 99% does not care. With your premises, that 1% would get a very high IQ. This is still a lot of people; is it possible that they are the majority of the people with high IQ? Or do you think that most of the people with IQ > 130 are “natural” (in the sense that scored high without solved made similar exercises before)?
While I would tilt towards the ‘natural’ option, this question is worthy of some research.
This isn’t a case where we need more research. This is a case where we have over a century of credible data(1) and the strongest theoretical constructs in psychology or any other social science. We just ignore the answers we have because nobody likes them. We’d rather believe that effort matters more than genetics.
(1) The US military in WWI and WWII tested tens of millions of men from broad swaths of society.
I love the social sciences, but they tend to tell you more about the people studying them then they do about the actual subjects they study. I’m a believer that much of the data in the Social Sciences would benefit from reexamination using recalibrated metrics, as the political shifts in the world of the last 50 years have caused seismic shifts in the ways data is collected, organized, and interpreted. I’ve got some ideas of major areas of the Social Sciences which need to be reconsidered, as they have significantly impacted legislation in ways that have caused almost immeasurable suffering around the world IMO.
IQ is one of those ‘classic’ metrics which has in some ways fallen out of favor as being meaningful for large portions of society. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest it is akin to phrenology, but what exactly it measures in relation to practical ideas of intelligence is in debate. Short of diagnosing potential Developmental Disorders, they are part of a battery of tests these days, as by themselves IQ test results don’t tell much useful information.