From what I know, there are high correlations between an individual’s IQ test scores at different times, especially in the short run. Depending on the study, it ends up being something like 0.95 in the short run and 0.7-0.9 between different ages (I’m just quoting rough ballpark figures from memory—they of course differ between studies and age spans). Some impressively high correlations were found even in a study that compared test scores of a group of individuals at 11 and 77 years of age.
On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people.
Then of course, as with all issues where you might want to make some sense of what IQ scores exactly imply, the Flynn effect throws a wrench into any attempt to come up with a neat, plausible, and coherent theory.
But even regardless of all this, one should still not forget that the connection between IQ and any realistic measure of success is itself just probabilistic. This is especially true for high-scoring individuals: instead of worrying whether one’s score is 120, 130, 140, or whatever, one would be better advised to worry about whether one is deficient in other factors important for success and accomplishment in life.
On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people.
I’d point out that this should be extremely obvious a point, given how some subtests are Gc-loaded. You can ‘improve’ your IQ by studying some vocab, quite aside from the usual practice effects.
(And one of the standing questions about dual n-back is whether it doesn’t (partially) amount to training for matrix-style Gf IQ tests.)
From what I know, there are high correlations between an individual’s IQ test scores at different times, especially in the short run. Depending on the study, it ends up being something like 0.95 in the short run and 0.7-0.9 between different ages (I’m just quoting rough ballpark figures from memory—they of course differ between studies and age spans). Some impressively high correlations were found even in a study that compared test scores of a group of individuals at 11 and 77 years of age.
On the other hand, people can be coached to significantly improve their IQ test scores. At least so says Rushton, of all people.
Then of course, as with all issues where you might want to make some sense of what IQ scores exactly imply, the Flynn effect throws a wrench into any attempt to come up with a neat, plausible, and coherent theory.
But even regardless of all this, one should still not forget that the connection between IQ and any realistic measure of success is itself just probabilistic. This is especially true for high-scoring individuals: instead of worrying whether one’s score is 120, 130, 140, or whatever, one would be better advised to worry about whether one is deficient in other factors important for success and accomplishment in life.
I’d point out that this should be extremely obvious a point, given how some subtests are Gc-loaded. You can ‘improve’ your IQ by studying some vocab, quite aside from the usual practice effects.
(And one of the standing questions about dual n-back is whether it doesn’t (partially) amount to training for matrix-style Gf IQ tests.)