Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually nodragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually no dragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
:)