Improve Your IQ: Practical Exercises & Tips from John G.

[FSC729]

Hello, nearly everyone in this forum likes to talk about IQ. They cite sources, books, theories, IQ maps and whatnot, but no one does anything about it.

Well I have developed a series of mental exercises to raise your IQ, please take a look at it:

http://fsc729.ifreepages.com/mentalexercises.html

People will scoff at the idea and state how I'm only increasing people's score on an IQ test, but not their "g". But then we have a logical dilemma, if IQ tests measure intelligence or "g", and you raise your score on an IQ test then by the purposes of the test you have raised your intelligence or "g". If you claim that raising your IQ score does not raise your "g" then the IQ test fails to be a test solely of intelligence or "g".

Some may claim that the test should only be taken by those without preparation and those who do prepare invalidate the test. But what constitutes preparation? How can you tell if someone has prepared for an IQ test or not just by looking at them? What if you inadvertently prepared for IQ tests by solving related puzzles for fun? If this is the case then we may have to invalidate the IQ scores of nearly all famous scientists and mathematicians for many of them engaged in activities that inadvertently prepared them for IQ tests. For instance mental experiments, solving math puzzles, studying problem solving books, etc.

John G.

Feel free to email me at mathtutor3141@bigfoot.com

 

[Mandrake]

People will scoff at the idea and state how I'm only increasing people's score on an IQ test, but not their "g".

Those people are correct.

But then we have a logical dilemma, if IQ tests measure intelligence or "g", and you raise your score on an IQ test then by the purposes of the test you have raised your intelligence or "g". If you claim that raising your IQ score does not raise your "g" then the IQ test fails to be a test solely of intelligence or "g".

If you teach someone the answers to a test, either directly, or by destroying the novelty of the questions, the test becomes invalid.

Some may claim that the test should only be taken by those without preparation and those who do prepare invalidate the test.

The people who make that claim are informed and correct.

But what constitutes preparation?

That depends on the nature of the test. If the test has a vocabulary section and you drill someone in the definitions of the words you know are on the test, the test becomes a validation that they have remembered the drill (rote learning). But if you test people without preparation, their ability to deal with vocabulary is known to be mostly dependent on eduction.

How can you tell if someone has prepared for an IQ test or not just by looking at them?

You can't. So, if they have been drilled in the specifics of the test, they will appear to be smarter, but the measurement is false. That is why you can't go out and buy a personal copy of a standard IQ test, unless you can demonstrate that you are a person who gives the test professionally (or you are a crook).

What if you inadvertently prepared for IQ tests by solving related puzzles for fun?

The g loading of the test would be low and the score would be inflated.

If this is the case then we may have to invalidate the IQ scores of nearly all famous scientists and mathematicians for many of them engaged in activities that inadvertently prepared them for IQ tests.

Would this matter? Which famous scientists and mathematicians care about their IQ scores? Do you think they became famous because they practiced for IQ tests and scored above their true intelligence?

 

[FSC729]

What up "g"??

This is analogous to weight training there are people out there who even without weight training have bigger and stronger arm muscles than I do. If I go out and weight train you will claim, that the muscle I developed is invalid because it is not my "natural" unprepared state. People may say the weights I am lifting aren't a true measure of my natural strength because I trained beforehand. But you are completely missing the point; one can increase their physical strength by weight training.

Though it might not have been your "natural" state does it matter? If your goal is to become stronger who is to tell you that by weight training you are invalidating the measure of your true strength? If you have increased the amount of weight you can lift then for all intents and purposes you are stronger, whether it is your natural state or not. Whether it is your true strength or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you can lift more weight than you could before.

This is exactly the same with IQ, who is to tell you that by learning and practicing solving problems you are invalidating the measure of your g?? If you can solve a wider range of problems not only on tests but in almost any area of your life, in a less time, then for all intents and purposes you are more intelligent, you have technically increased your g.

Nearly all of the exercises I have described target the aspects of the mind one ties to "g"; concentration, visualization, memory, problem solving and creativity. In addition I'm working on an exercise to help develop one's verbal g. The more you practice the better you get.

Why can't we claim g is malleable instead of fixed?? Has anyone tried to modify their g using the appropiate exercises. Why can't we say that g is analogous to a muscle?? You are born with tendency to a certain adult size and strength but you can increase both by lifting weights, the only question is what constitutes exercise for your g? (I think I have answered that).

Of course there are limits you aren't going to make a mentally handicapped person into a high IQ individual. The most important thing is that you can increase your g. The entire conversation is moot anyway, the more people who practice my exercises the less valid the IQ test will be for general populations.

Thanks for the response

John G.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

It is too idealistic to believe an average individual can achieve a high-genius IQ score because of hard work and education, however, I would argue that believing IQ tests to be 100% accurate is also irrational. IQ tests are based on knowing and applying information. You can say that everyone knows the alphabet, therefore, you can say questions involving letter patterns are fair; however, this may not always be true. Some people have memorized that n comes after m, or that t comes after s. Many people begin reciting the alphabet to determine orders such as that, I have not bothered to fully memorize them myself. Someone with a high education level may have constantly used a dictionary and memorized the alphabet patterns. In timed situations this can make a difference;furthermore, time saved knowing the patterns might prevent someone from giving up and skipping a question.

With today's education system many common knowledge facts are not instantly known. Calculators are used in schools - I haven't even bother to memorize all my multiplication tables, we were taught to take the nearest one we knew and start subtracting/adding.

Little things make a difference when someone is in a timed test situation. Not only does the decrease in time help, but also the knowledge of the material better prepares an individuals for testing (both intellectually and emotionally).

On the other side, you simply can't disregard the scientific backing of IQ tests and the accuracy of them within certain average standard deviations. Someone who hasn't bothered to learn basic facts probably won't, therefore, the likelyhood of an IQ test score increase is unlikely. You can say IQ doesn't truly measure intelligence; however, you can also say it measures intelligence that is actually applied. Someone who can learn massive amounts of information might not. If they don't do so they might have the "ability to learn and apply knowledge", but it's fairly clear they won't appear as intelligent as they are in reality.

Intelligence is fairly arbitrary from a philosophical perspective. Inless it's an argument against using IQ tests to measure people in society, I don't believe IQ's legitimacy is very significant.

 

[jammieg]

Those are some good ideas, but which is more important, getting a highier IQ score or knowing that you are getting smarter? I don't disagree that studying for IQ tests will improve one's IQ by helping them become familiar with the fundamental ways of thinking as well as provide good puzzles, but even if after much practice you found a way to get a 160+ IQ score would you actually be more intelligent or would you be more so experienced, wouldn't you rather know you were more intelligent without needing any authority to tell you so?
Here's another thing to contemplate, do intelligent people study IQ test or read lots of learning books or really care so much about all stuff society wants, or do they find a love for thinking in life so deep that for them everyday life becomes similar to questions on an IQ test? How else would they get so good at brain lifting if they had no natural and unbiased love for it?
My main point is that the more naturally one learns the more likely a love of all aspects of learning and thinking is to grow, so these exercises you've come up with are going to be good for you, but they are likely to frustrate others because they did not choose them...the more society in all of it's highly intelligent teachings forces knowledge and learning down people's throats the dumber they will get because hardly anyone likes to do those things that we are forced or feel compelled to do, unless we do them for our own reasons and interests. Also I would suggest finding better authorities on learning, even if they've been dead for thousands of years, because most of today's expert knowledge is likely to be tommorro's junk mail but then for most people money is more important than truth.

 

[Mandrake]

This is analogous to weight training there are people out there who even without weight training have bigger and stronger arm muscles than I do.

Intelligence is not analogous to weight training; it is analogous to height training. Do you prescribe exercises for people who want to be taller or shorter?

Learned skills (education) are analogous to weight training, but are not the same as intelligence.

Though it might not have been your "natural" state does it matter?

Intelligence matters a lot with respect to the statistical nature of the important outcomes in life, including educational level, rate of learning, career thresholds, income (even within a single profession), health, and longevity.

This is exactly the same with IQ, who is to tell you that by learning and practicing solving problems you are invalidating the measure of your g??

The people who have devoted their entire careers to answering such questions are the ones "to tell you." The answer is that there is no way, that has been found, to improve g in an adult. There are no social or institutional or educational means of increasing g. It is possible to invalidate some forms of psychometric testing, but that does not constitute a change in g.

If you can solve a wider range of problems not only on tests but in almost any area of your life, in a less time, then for all intents and purposes you are more intelligent, you have technically increased your g.

If you can show that training in one g loaded task causes a proportionate increase in the measured g, based on another task, I would agree. For example, we know that pitch discrimination and reading comprehension are significantly g loaded. If you can use your suggested training to cause whatever results you can achieve (assuming they do not include some specialized attempt to automatize the two abilities I listed), then can demonstrate gains in these two items, you may have altered g. If so, you have been the first person to have done so and you should publish your findings in a prominent scientific journal.

Nearly all of the exercises I have described target the aspects of the mind one ties to "g"; concentration, visualization, memory, problem solving and creativity.

What do you think is the g loading of creativity? What is the best measure of creativity? This subject has been addressed in the past year in the journal Intelligence.

In addition I'm working on an exercise to help develop one's verbal g. The more you practice the better you get.

Most abilities can be learned in such a way as to decrease the g loading of the ability, while increasing the s loading. Are you able to demonstrate that the s loading is constant, before and after training?

Why can't we claim g is malleable instead of fixed??

You appear to have already claimed that. A person may make any claim he likes. Demonstrating the validity of the claim is another matter. If you can do that, you owe it to humanity to bring your findings to the attention of the specialists in psychometrics.

Has anyone tried to modify their g using the appropiate exercises.

Yes. Is there some reason you have claimed that it can be done, without already knowing the answer to your question?

Why can't we say that g is analogous to a muscle??

You already did say so. You are wrong. It is analogous to bone length.

The most important thing is that you can increase your g.

I assert that your comment is incorrect and in disagreement with everything that has been soundly demonstrated and reported in the literature. Please write up your important findings and publish them. I suggest the following journals: Intelligence, Nature, Science, or New Scientist.

 

[Mandrake]

IQ tests are based on knowing and applying information.

Some culture free tests do not use any words, numbers, pictures, drawings, or recognizable diagrams. IQ can be determined as well by response time measurements as they can by paper and pencil tests.

You can say that everyone knows the alphabet, therefore, you can say questions involving letter patterns are fair; however, this may not always be true.

If a person is to be given an IQ test, the test must be appropriate to that person. It is the job of the test administrator to determine that all of the conditions for test validity are met. These may include language, age, ability to hear, ability to see, etc.

With today's education system many common knowledge facts are not instantly known.

Tests involving knowledge are accurate because of eduction, not education.

Little things make a difference when someone is in a timed test situation. Not only does the decrease in time help, but also the knowledge of the material better prepares an individuals for testing (both intellectually and emotionally).

Timed tests work, if the time allowed is adequate. As the time allowed is decreased, the g loading of the test necessarily degreases as the time limit places a premium on s loading. Jensen uses untimed tests, such as the Raven's or other standard tests (even when they usually use time limits). The only thing that really matters is measuring g.

Intelligence is fairly arbitrary from a philosophical perspective. Inless it's an argument against using IQ tests to measure people in society, I don't believe IQ's legitimacy is very significant.

The word "intelligence" is not scientifically defined. For that reason, it is better to simply discuss g. The power of IQ tests is a known commodity. If it was not substantial as a means of prediction, it would be of no use to anyone and would not be studied or discussed. Have you noticed that people here do discuss it - a lot? Would they do so, if they thought it was meaningless? Do you know many people who would readily accept a trade for IQ points, if that were possible? Would you be willing to give up 10 or 20 IQ points in exchange for a new television set, or tickets to a concert? If those points were meaningless, you would do so without hesitation.

 

[FSC729]

Good Points

Thank you jammieg, Dooga Blackrazor, and Mandrake for responding.

First, psychometrics is not a hard science as such their theories are fraught with subjectivity and are subject to revision. Think about it, even physics, arguably the most objective experimental science, is subject to revision. So don't be surprised if one day most of the theories in psychometrics are revised. The only human endevor that deals with truth is mathematics everything else is simply a human model of reality.

Second, Just because researchers haven't been able to find a method to raise your IQ, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In no research paper have I seen anything that even comes close to my training techniques. There has been some research indicating that a baby's IQ may be raised by providing an intellectually stimulating atmosphere or that listening to Mozart increases one's IQ, but the gains weren't permanent. The problem, in my view, is assuming the gains should be permanent without putting in some training everyday.

Third, my training techniques do not increase the s loading of peoples abilities to solve problems. Nowhere do I develop an algorithm or a method to solve problems because no such thing exists yet. The books I advocated have some guidelines but no algorithms either. I don't train people on one specific g loaded task rather the person himself or herself develops the ability to solve problems in general and in their own manner, over time. Hence I predict the g will increase across all tasks.

To jammieg, you're right the exercises have to be done voluntarily. Working out isn't always fun and it takes time to see results, but think of the gains you will make. I think the tone of the webpage is a little dictatorial, I might change that.

As to publishing, I will need time, money, and test subjects, neither of which I have. I will probably suggest the idea to a researcher and see if he/she takes it up.

P.S. There are techniques to increase one's height, it involves breaking your bones then, over time, stretching them out. Sorry if I have been a little late in reply's I have much QFT homework due.

 

[Mandrake]

teaching to the test

First, psychometrics is not a hard science as such their theories are fraught with subjectivity and are subject to revision.

All of science is subject to revision. All science also requires researchers to understand the science as a means of understanding their own work. Your comments here suggest that you have not taken the time to master psychometrics, but you are willing to make comments about unsubstantiated findings.

Second, Just because researchers haven't been able to find a method to raise your IQ, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In no research paper have I seen anything that even comes close to my training techniques.

I expect there is a good reason for that. It is that real psychometricians understand the subject and would not waste their time conducting experiments that they know are not scientifically sound.

There has been some research indicating that a baby's IQ may be raised by providing an intellectually stimulating atmosphere or that listening to Mozart increases one's IQ, but the gains weren't permanent.

No method of raising IQ has ever been shown to be permanent. Besides that, no technique that is accounted for by the macro environment has been found to be present in adults.

The problem, in my view, is assuming the gains should be permanent without putting in some training everyday.

The impact of adoption should be the result of an everyday experience. It does not alter the IQ of the adopted child past the age of 17. The contribution at that age is zero.

Third, my training techniques do not increase the s loading of peoples abilities to solve problems.

This is a fascinating observation. Can you explain to us the exact procedures you used to measure the _s_ loading? Your other comments here suggest that this sort of analysis is beyond your experience. How did you do it?

Nowhere do I develop an algorithm or a method to solve problems because no such thing exists yet. The books I advocated have some guidelines but no algorithms either.

Do you have some reason to believe that the only way to increase specificity is to teach an algorithm? If someone practices throwing a dart or a horseshoe, do you think that they can improve their performance only if they employ an algorithm or method? Most of us have found that we can improve performance by practice alone.

I don't train people on one specific g loaded task rather the person himself or herself develops the ability to solve problems in general and in their own manner, over time. Hence I predict the g will increase across all tasks.

If you seriously want to do this, there are many ways to demonstrate it. I have suggested some already. It would naturally help to demonstrate that the gains can be shown with passive tests, such as RT, IT, and EEG amplitude methods.

As to publishing, I will need time, money, and test subjects, neither of which I have. I will probably suggest the idea to a researcher and see if he/she takes it up.

If you present it to someone else, it would help if you design a methodology that is consistent with accepted psychometric research and which can demonstrate that any claims made are accurate. A competent researcher will immediately see that your plan is sound or not.

 

[FSC729]

Blinded by theories

I expect there is a good reason for that. It is that real psychometricians understand the subject and would not waste their time conducting experiments that they know are not scientifically sound.

What is considered scientifically sound is highly dependent upon your theory, if you believe that IQ can't be raised and have designed an entire theory to show how it can't be raised then it is no surprise that any experiments regarding how IQ can be raised will be seen as scientifically unsound. If I went back to the 1800's and asked a physicist whether a particle can be in two places at once and whether an object could be both a wave and a particle and then suggest an experiment to determine this he would say no and "prove" why its not possible. Of course he would be wrong but to him and his theory the question would be inconsistent a priori with the tenets of Newtonian mechanics and hence the experiment would be scientifically unsound.

The impact of adoption should be the result of an everyday experience. It does not alter the IQ of the adopted child past the age of 17. The contribution at that age is zero.

Just because you live in an adoptive home doesn't mean they train your mind everyday.

Do you have some reason to believe that the only way to increase specificity is to teach an algorithm? If someone practices throwing a dart or a horseshoe, do you think that they can improve their performance only if they employ an algorithm or method? Most of us have found that we can improve performance by practice alone.

Partially true, but, practice alone isn't enough, just ask any Olympic athlete; perfect practice technique is what counts. If you practice with bad technique don't be surprised if your performance in competitions doesn't improve. Solving problems is a kind of practice, but it is not specific to anyone type of problem or problems, rather their focus is on the solving problems in general. Once again the right practice technique will help your ability to solve problems in general.

If you seriously want to do this, there are many ways to demonstrate it. I have suggested some already. It would naturally help to demonstrate that the gains can be shown with passive tests, such as RT, IT, and EEG amplitude methods.

I predict there will be a change in the brains of subjects who have trained using my methods. Just like weight training changes the biology of your muscles.

All I'm saying is to keep an open mind, even the most successful theories have their faults, and it’s just a matter of finding them. In fact I will ask you a question, how would you test my theory in a scientifically sound manner?

 

[Mandrake]

ducking the question

What is considered scientifically sound is highly dependent upon your theory, if you believe that IQ can't be raised and have designed an entire theory to show how it can't be raised then it is no surprise that any experiments regarding how IQ can be raised will be seen as scientifically unsound.

You are apparently under the misunderstanding that people believed that IQ could not be raised. The opposite is true. After huge efforts in different times and places, they discovered that all attempts to raise IQ produced only limited duration and even the small gains that were reported were most likely due to teaching to the test. Eventually, the conclusion reached was much like that which applies to gravity. We do not find instances in which uncharged masses repel each other, nor do we find instances in which macro environmental factors increase IQ.

I am interested in why you replied to my previous comments, but elected to quietly edit out the following:

You: Third, my training techniques do not increase the s loading of peoples abilities to solve problems.

Mandrake: This is a fascinating observation. Can you explain to us the exact procedures you used to measure the _s_ loading? Your other comments here suggest that this sort of analysis is beyond your experience. How did you do it?

So, why is it that you made the assertion concerning specificity, but then deleted it and presumably figured we would not notice what you had done? Did you make scientifically sound measurements of specificity or not? If so, please tell us your procedure. I am guessing that you do not know how to do this and that your assertion is false.

 

[FSC729]

Points

You are apparently under the misunderstanding that people believed that IQ could not be raised. The opposite is true. After huge efforts in different times and places, they discovered that all attempts to raise IQ produced only limited duration and even the small gains that were reported were most likely due to teaching to the test. Eventually, the conclusion reached was much like that which applies to gravity. We do not find instances in which uncharged masses repel each other, nor do we find instances in which macro environmental factors increase IQ.

Lack of evidence doesn't mean such a method doesn't exist. In mathematics lack of evidence has never proven the nonexistence of an abstract object, rather in order for something not to exist you have to prove that it either contradicts previous proven results, or that it can't happen for every single possible case imaginable. Obviously raising ones IQ doesn't contradict any of the tenets of your theory, and one can't say that every single scientifically sound attempt to raise IQ has been made either. Hence logically you have not disproved the idea of raising one's IQ.

So, why is it that you made the assertion concerning specificity, but then deleted it and presumably figured we would not notice what you had done? Did you make scientifically sound measurements of specificity or not? If so, please tell us your procedure. I am guessing that you do not know how to do this and that your assertion is false

I've done some research on specificity I found a clear explanation of specifity http://members.cox.net/sidelock/pages/Telicom090299.html

Here is his definition:

Test item measurement of specificity, is a measure of specific learning that is directed at the question that is asked, is not correlated to other items, and is lumped together with measurement error.(18) So, a test of problem solving would contain more of the IQ components and less specificity, unless the task at hand were taught to the point where the problem being solved contains little novelty. Questions concerning dates, names, and other memorized material will be less g loaded and reflect greater specificity. The latter may indeed be more a matter of achievement, for the simple reason that specificity is not a measure of intelligence. The problem is that when an individual learns by rote, the material that is learned is not transferable to any other task and is not a good indicator of future accomplishment, especially in the general sense of academic achievement.

My techniques train someone how to think like a good problem solver not only on IQ tests but in other areas as well. We focus on problem solving strategies and guidelines, and then we apply both to examples so that the person may learn how and when to apply them. My techniques do not focus on solving one type of problem(s), nor do they focus on revealing the novelty of certain problem (novelty is so subjective), nor do they emphasize memorizing problems for the sole purpose of using them on a test, nor do they emphasize practicing problem solving for the sole purpose of doing well on a test. Rather the techniques develop and strengthen one's intuitive ability to solve problems in general (there is an entire field of study dedicated to problem solving it is called "heuristics"). One way to avoid teaching to IQ type problems is to make sure that the problems that people practice with are not IQ type problems, one can make sure the problems are strictly mathematical or puzzles.

Since general problem solving is a trait usually regarded as transferrable to other intellectual tasks, and my techniques strengthen the ability to solve problems in general, then applying my techniques will strengthen a trait transferrable to other intellectual tasks. So theoretically my techniques do not increase specificity.

I have realized my ideas are more of a theory, and the claims are mere predictions, of course I will not be able to say with certainty that my techniques do not increase specificity, but theoretically the prediction has a good foundation.

 

[Charles Darwin]

New prescription drug to boost your IQ: http://www.strattera.com/

 

[hitssquad]

New prescription drug to boost your IQ: http://www.strattera.com/

Why are you calling a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NERI) an IQ booster?

 

[Aquamarine]

It is certainly possible to affect intelligence and "g" through the macro environment. Examples being deficiency in vitamins and minerals and excess of alcohol and lead. This can affect the infant or the mother. Or also in adults, like for those abusing alcohol.

Just on example,
http://www.unilever.com/brands/healthnutrition/annapurna.asp

 

[Mandrake]

My techniques train someone how to think like a good problem solver not only on IQ tests but in other areas as well.

This is commendable and may be of great value to the students. Your claims that this increases g and does not increase s are totally unsupported and are inconsistent with the findings of real experts.

One way to avoid teaching to IQ type problems is to make sure that the problems that people practice with are not IQ type problems, one can make sure the problems are strictly mathematical or puzzles.

The question I have raised is with respect to increasing g. Every test item that involves cognitive ability is loaded on g. I have mentioned abilities, such as pitch discrimination, that are significantly g loaded, which is measured by a method unrelated to reasoning. If a training program actually increases g, the result will be seen in all cognitive abilities in proportion to the true g loading of those abilities. There is no evidence of any training technique that can do this.

Since general problem solving is a trait usually regarded as transferrable to other intellectual tasks, and my techniques strengthen the ability to solve problems in general, then applying my techniques will strengthen a trait transferrable to other intellectual tasks. So theoretically my techniques do not increase specificity.

The claim that your techniques increase g has not been demonstrated. As I have previously suggested, you should seek publication of the finding in a serious scientific journal. Such a discovery would be of great interest to serious scientists and you would become a hero and a scientific idol. This is not going to happen because you are deluded about something you have not even bothered to measure with proper tools.

I have realized my ideas are more of a theory, and the claims are mere predictions, of course I will not be able to say with certainty that my techniques do not increase specificity, but theoretically the prediction has a good foundation.

You seem to be softening your story. Previously you wrote: Third, my training techniques do not increase the s loading of peoples abilities to solve problems.
There was no way you could make that statement without having made measurements to demonstrate that it is a fact. I challenged you to explain how you made the measurements and you edited out my inquiry. Now we learn that you didn't make any measurements (as I had guessed).

 

[Mandrake]

It is certainly possible to affect intelligence and "g" through the macro environment.

No, it is not possible.

Examples being deficiency in vitamins and minerals and excess of alcohol and lead. This can affect the infant or the mother. Or also in adults, like for those abusing alcohol.

The examples you gave are micro environmental effects, nor macro environmental effects. You do not understand the difference. For a proper explanation see
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

[Aquamarine]

No, it is not possible.


The examples you gave are micro environmental effects, nor macro environmental effects. You do not understand the difference. For a proper explanation see
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Those factors you call "macro" affect intelligence. Institutional factors will affect general poverty in society which will affect the family environment. A wealthy family/society environment will provide better "micro" factors which will affect intelligence.

 

[Mandrake]

Those factors you call "macro" affect intelligence. Institutional factors will affect general poverty in society which will affect the family environment. A wealthy family/society environment will provide better "micro" factors which will affect intelligence.

I disagree and so does Jensen.

From Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of
mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger:

Sandra Scarr, after conducting the Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study:
"Within the range of 'humane environments,'variations in family
socioeconomic characteristics and in child-rearing
practices have little or no effect on IQ measured in
adolescence." P. 476

"There is simply no good evidence that social environmental
factors have a large effect on IQ, particularly in adolescence
and beyond, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation."
P. 476

By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between
biologically related persons is genetic. P. 178

Phenotypic _g_ closely reflects the genetic _g_, but bears
hardly any resemblance to the (shared) environmental _g_. P. 187

 

[FSC729]

What is g??

I retract the statement about s loading. Like I've said before I have not performed any experiments, I will first perfect my theory, make some predictions, and then peform the experiments in a scientifically sound manner. One of the first predictions I can make is that my techniques will not increase s loading.

Now I have a couple of questions for you Mandrake.

What is your definition of g Mandrake? (Try to do this without using the term intelligence) Do you even know the defintion of g? How do you know what is "g loaded" and what isn't? Tell me one aspect of g that is not trainable?

If g is general intelligence then you have simply pushed its definition down one level to the definition of intelligence. General intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, or the faculty of thought and reason. The ability to apply knowledge generally refers to the ability solve problems that deal with the knowledge you just acquired. The ability to apply knowledge is equivalent to the ability to reason which is actually badly defined for it uses intelligence in its defintion.

My training techniques work on people's memory and concentration thereby making it easier to acquire knowledge. In addition they use books and practice techniques that strengthen one's ability to solve problems, which is synonymous with applying knowledge. Since the techniques increase both the ability to acquire knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge, by the definition of intelligence, they must increase one's intelligence, theoretically. In addition it should not increase s loading, theoretically.

There are many ways to increase one's problem solving ability, one way is through the study of heuristics. The field of heuristics isn't new, it was popularized by George Polya back in 1944 with his book "how to solve it". George Polya's books have helped many students increase their problem solving ability, all I've done is simply improve his technique by perfecting the practice techniques that's all. I'm not trying to be famous, or an idol I'm simply looking for a way to help people, that's all. Once I perfect the theory I will suggest it to researchers and have them test it.

As to pitch discimination, from the studies I've seen there is only a modest correlation between pitch discimination and g. So pitch discimination is not a strong indicator of high g.

I am going to keep on perfecting my theory, keeping in mind the s loading question.

Thanks for the input.

John G.

 

[Aquamarine]

I disagree and so does Jensen.
From Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger:

1. That study refers only to people within the US. Most people live in the rest of the world. For example, iodine deficiency is not a problem in the US, not even for the (somehwat) poor. It is an enormous problem in the developing world, mostly for the (really) poor.

2. Twin studies will not detect factors affecting all people equally. For example, an general decrease in iq due to more lead or other heavy metals in the environment will not be detected. Or a general change in alcohol consumption. One other example being that height is almost purely genetic according to twin studies, but has increased far beyond any genetic explanation due to better nutrition.

3. There is no reason to exclude iq in childhood and adolescence. Most human learning take place in those periods, so even only a temporary increase will have a long term effect beyond the temporary increase.

 

[Mandrake]

factor analysis

One of the first predictions I can make is that my techniques will not increase s loading.

How is it that you are able to make that prediction, when you have made it clear that you have not yet learned the definition of _g_?

What is your definition of g Mandrake? (Try to do this without using the term intelligence)

We can extract a single factor from any set of measures in which all measures are correlated. It is rare to find this outcome. For example, it does not happen with personality measurements. So, in the context of this discussion it only makes sense to discuss g as the single factor that emerges from a hierarchal factor analysis of a set of IQ measurements. Psychometric g is simply the third order factor. In some special cases, this single factor emerges at the second order. Any attempt to define g independently from factor analysis is inappropriate.

Do you even know the defintion of g?

Yes I do. It is apparent that you do not. There are good explanations of g in the following books:

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Brand, C. (1996). The _g_ Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Chichester, England: Wiley

Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

How do you know what is "g loaded" and what isn't?

A factor is g loaded when it correlates with all other measures of cognitive ability. The degree of loading can be determined from the factor analysis.

Tell me one aspect of g that is not trainable?

Please list the "aspects" of g. It is obvious that you need to do some reading. I suggest the three books I listed above. After 100 years, no person has been able to demonstrate that any training causes a permanent and worthwhile increase in g. Your claims to have done so are very difficult to believe, especially since you have not learned the meaning of g.

If g is general intelligence then you have simply pushed its definition down one level to the definition of intelligence.

The only way in which g is "general intelligence" is that it is a resource that is common to all cognitive abilities.

General intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge,

Please don't confuse a dictionary definition of intelligence with the indisputable meaning of psychometric g. The reason Jensen argued that we should not bother to use the word "intelligence" is that it does not have a scientifically precise definition; that is not the case with g.

My training techniques work on people's memory and concentration thereby making it easier to acquire knowledge.

Great. If you want to tell people you are increasing g, please don't talk to informed people or else be prepared to defend your statement in a rigorous manner. I suggest restricting your claims to people who don't know any better than to believe that g is malleable.

In addition they use books and practice techniques that strengthen one's ability to solve problems, which is synonymous with applying knowledge. Since the techniques increase both the ability to acquire knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge, by the definition of intelligence, they must increase one's intelligence, theoretically. In addition it should not increase s loading, theoretically.

If you want to use a nonscientific approach to science, you are going to be in for a rough ride when you encounter people who understand the science. You seem to confuse education with intelligence. They are not one item.

As to pitch discimination, from the studies I've seen there is only a modest correlation between pitch discimination and g. So pitch discimination is not a strong indicator of high g.

"Spearman was particularly concerned to find that the _g_ loading of pitch discrimination was as high as .673 and would be even higher, if corrected for attenuation. This suggested to him that the _g_ factor reflected something more basic than scholastic attainments ..."
Page 29, The _g_ Factor

Many studies have confirmed Spearman's finding that pitch discrimination is g-loaded, and other musical discriminations, in duration, timbre, rhythmic pattern, pitch interval, and harmony, are correlated with IQ, independently of musical training.
Page 223, The _g_ Factor

During a recent presentation, psychometrician Nat Brody commented that the "passive tone mismatch task correlates at 0.40 to g, even in a restricted range and even when the test subject is reading a book." After the presentation, I discussed this with one of the best known researchers in this area (Tim Bates), who confirmed Nat's comment. When you see differences in r reported in various sources, you must resolve the differences between test procedure and test group. There is always going to be a difference, if the procedures are somewhat different. Unless the researchers are intentionally trying to duplicate a prior procedure, they are likely to change the measurement protocol in an attempt to find something new.

The pitch correlation to g is much higher than typical test item correlations. A typical IQ test consists of a large number of test items, which are typically designed to have additive variances. It is the sum that matters. If that were not the case, we would only need one test item per test.

The passive tone mismatch that Brody mentioned correlates at the same level as brain volume (to g). This is a very significant correlation.

The Bell Curve:
Page 67 -- "A crucial point to keep in mind about correlation coefficients, now and throughout the rest of the book, is that correlations in the social sciences are seldom much higher than .5 (or lower than -.5) and often much weaker -- because social events are imprecisely measured and are usually affected by variables besides the ones that happened to be included in any particular body of data. A correlation of .2 can nevertheless be "big" for many social science topics. In terms of social phenomena, modest correlations can produce large aggregate effects. Witness the prosperity of casinos despite the statistically modest edge they hold over their customers."

 

[Mandrake]

Twin studies will not detect factors affecting all people equally.

Factors that affect all people equally do not account for IQ variance.

There is no reason to exclude iq in childhood and adolescence. Most human learning take place in those periods, so even only a temporary increase will have a long term effect beyond the temporary increase.

Your assertion impresses me as speculation. What studies have shown that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in any detectable differences in adult performance? For that matter, what evidence have you found that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in even temporary increases in childhood learning?

 

[Aquamarine]

Factors that affect all people equally do not account for IQ variance.

Again, the study you referred only applies to the US. Is says nothing about the variance in human intelligence or "g" in other countries. That is, most of the world. Furthermore, the study says nothing about variance earlier in US history, when general income was more like in developing countries today. And explaining variance says little about which factors explain the mean.

Therefore, you have shown no evidence that mean iq or "g" cannot be changed by "macro" factors. It is astounding to even claim that, considering the many well known disorders affecting intelligence resulting from numerous deficiencies or excesses of various substances. And which do vary enormously in different countries with different "macro" structures. You have shown nothing to disprove that "macro" caused starvation in East Asian North Korea will decrease iq. Or that the "macro" caused growing prosperity due to capitalism in African Botswana will not increase iq.

Regarding the variance in the US, twin studies will say nothing about the explanation of the Flynn effect, if this only affects the mean iq. Furthermore, nothing in the twin studies prevents the Flynn effect in the future to first disappear for those subgroups with higher wealth and later for those with lower wealth. That is, is seems very likely that that more wealthy subgroups in the US had an earlier start to the Flynn effect, but that they also in the future will have an earlier end. Then the gap between various subgroups will dwindle or even disappear.

It should be noted that the US population is not a random sample from the rest of the world. So again, it is not possible to generalize to the rest of the world from the US variance, even if the variance will not change in the future. For example, it seems a real possibility that those who were captured in order to be slaves had a lower iq than those who avoided this fate. And it is well known that those animals doing simple tasks in agriculture have much lower intelligence than their counterparts in freedom, factors like strength and growth rate being more valuble in order to survive and reproduce.

Your assertion impresses me as speculation. What studies have shown that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in any detectable differences in adult performance? For that matter, what evidence have you found that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in even temporary increases in childhood learning?

I do not need any studies. It is you who seem to claim that it is unimportant and must provide evidence. I only say that it may be important.

 

[Mandrake]

Therefore, you have shown no evidence that mean iq or "g" cannot be changed by "macro" factors.

I didn't attempt to teach you a course in psychometrics. I simply informed you of what I know about the literature, which I have studied extensively. I know there are no verified reports of g being increased by macro environmental factors. If you want to believe otherwise, without bothering to look (as I have), you will be comfortable with your personal opinions.

It is astounding to even claim that, considering the many well known disorders affecting intelligence resulting from numerous deficiencies or excesses of various substances.

"Substances" are part of the micro environment. You are confused. If some aspect of the macro environment contributes to contact with poisons or diseases, and those micro elements affect intelligence, the effect is from the micro environment.

And which do vary enormously in different countries with different "macro" structures. You have shown nothing to disprove that "macro" caused starvation in East Asian North Korea will decrease iq.

If you had bothered to examine the literature, you would know that famine has been studied and found to have no impact on intelligence. Even when pregnant women were affected, their children did not have lower IQs than those who were not affected.

Or that the "macro" caused growing prosperity due to capitalism in African Botswana will not increase iq.

When children from low intelligence groups are adopted into US and European families, they have adult IQs that match those of their genetic peers. Likewise, when children from high intelligence groups are adopted into US and European families, they have adult IQs that match those of their genetic peers. The studies of such adoptions have not only been interracial, but have included data sets in which the children were adopted from other countries.

Regarding the variance in the US, twin studies will say nothing about the explanation of the Flynn effect, if this only affects the mean iq.

Evidence (published in peer reviewed journals) from the past few years has shown that the Flynn effect is due entirely to increases in specificity and not g. There is zero gain in g from the Flynn effect. I recently discussed this finding with Rushton, who was the first to present a sound argument that the Flynn effect is not a Jensen effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the twin studies prevents the Flynn effect in the future to first disappear for those subgroups with higher wealth and later for those with lower wealth. That is, is seems very likely that that more wealthy subgroups in the US had an earlier start to the Flynn effect, but that they also in the future will have an earlier end. Then the gap between various subgroups will dwindle or even disappear.

The above comment is nonsense and demonstrates that you are not familiar with the literature of the past few years.

Mandrake:
Your assertion impresses me as speculation. What studies have shown that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in any detectable differences in adult performance? For that matter, what evidence have you found that temporary gains in childhood IQ have resulted in even temporary increases in childhood learning?

I do not need any studies. It is you who seem to claim that it is unimportant and must provide evidence. I only say that it may be important.

People who want to believe their pet theories not only do "not need studies," they don't want to see them, because they fear that science will demonstrate the errors in their misguided beliefs. Of course, you don't need studies. The notions you have presented here are naïve personal beliefs and are not related to present day knowledge.

 

[Aquamarine]

Here are some studies disagreeing with you:

http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/b...UTH=0&500000REQSUB=&REQSTR1=S0021932003000336
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://sage/jbp/2001/00000027/00000002/art00004
http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-8721.01238
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/77003122/ABSTRACT
http://users.fmg.uva.nl/cdolan/schonem.pdf
users.fmg.uva.nl/cdolan/2failures.pdf[/URL]
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/summary/105559992/SUMMARY

In particular, see the introduction to this:
[PLAIN]users.fmg.uva.nl/jwicherts/wicherts2004.pdf[/URL]

The so called "Evidence (published in peer reviewed journals) from the past few years has shown that the Flynn effect is due entirely to increases in specificity and not g. There is zero gain in g from the Flynn effect." seems to be quite weak and debated.

Adaption studies are of limited interest since the most critical period may be prenatal and very early childhood. Regarding starvation and malnutrition, there are many studies showing the importance of deficiency in vitamins and minerals in decreasing iq. And that intervention increases iq. Short-term energy deficiency in the pregnant mother, especially in the first trimester, may not create an iq decrease but deficiency in vitamins and minerals in the mother and child certainly will.
[PLAIN]http://trainland.tripod.com/benton.pdf
http://www.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol7/Num1/71p02.PDF
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3941S
http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0402/15/nation-63770.htm

I do not understand how the large scale interventions of society in order to prevent cretinism by iodine fortification is not an "macro" factor. You may of course have a private definition of "macro", but I think most people would agree that this is an example of society successfully raising iq at the macro level.

Another example of raising iq due to "macro" factors:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/108565299/ABSTRACT

Finally, regarding the long-term effect on performance off temporary childhood changes in intelligence, you are the one who seems to claim that there is none. I only claim that one may or may not exist, which as a tautology need no studies. If you wish to make a stronger statement, that there is no effect on adult performance, you need to provide evidence.

 

[FSC729]

I'm Learning Much

Thanks for the information Mandrake.

You said:

The only way in which g is "general intelligence" is that it is a resource that is common to all cognitive abilities.

This is a very vague definition, "resource that is common to all cognitive abilities". First resource, what is this resource? Second cognitive abilities what does this mean?? The ability to understand and solve problems, the ability to disciminate pitch? If so then my techniques work for the first part.

The one common property of most of these IQ tests is that they deal with problem solving, hence if you strengthen the ability to problem solve you strengthen a property used among many IQ tests. Hence this will probably reflect on the statistical analyses used to "find" g, keeping in mind "s" loading.

Even Jensen Himself makes the connection between "intelligence" and problem solving ability.

Brain size is of some scientific interest in relation to intelligence, presumably because the great increase of brain size in the course of human evolution resulted primarily from the selective advantage of the greater capacity for complex learning and problem- solving ability conferred by a larger cerebrum

Though he attributes the problem solving ability to a bigger cerebrum, which in my view is partially true.

If you want to use a nonscientific approach to science, you are going to be in for a rough ride when you encounter people who understand the science. You seem to confuse education with intelligence. They are not one item.

I just need to perfect my theory in a scientifically sound manner, this is the test run.

Personally, I think that the biggest threat to Jensen's notion of "g" is http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0088.html? .

For if we can program a sufficiently powerful computer to reason like a human with a certain IQ, then we can in principle teach someone to reason like someone else with a higher IQ. This should not increase the s loading otherwise the computer would not be artifically intelligent.

Also I'll read those books you mentioned.

Thanks

John G.

 

[Mandrake]

psychometric g

This is a very vague definition, "resource that is common to all cognitive abilities". First resource, what is this resource?

Psychometric g was discovered by Spearman 100 years ago. He never claimed to understand what he had found. It is very misleading to attempt to define g in any way other than as the final extraction from a factor analysis. Attempts to define it differently cause confusion and cause people to imagine things that are not there.

Second cognitive abilities what does this mean??

Cognitive abilities are the items that are called upon when people use their brains for thinking or evaluating or responding to stimuli. IQ tests seek to probe a variety of cognitive abilities, some of which are very different from the others. Whatever is tested calls upon some common factor that shows up via a positive correlation between the test items.

The ability to understand and solve problems, the ability to disciminate pitch? If so then my techniques work for the first part.

IQ tests are designed to test the ability of a person to solve novel problems. If the problems are not novel, they will have less g-loading than if they are novel. If a particular type of problem is intensely trained, that problem category may lose virtually all of its g-loading, since there is no remaining novelty.

Carl Bereiter: Intelligence is what you use when you don't know what to do.

The one common property of most of these IQ tests is that they deal with problem solving, hence if you strengthen the ability to problem solve you strengthen a property used among many IQ tests.

When you teach in such a way as to remove novelty, you increase specificity at the expense of g (by necessity). This effectively decreases the worth of the IQ test, but does not increase real IQ. Psychometricians refer to such gains as "hollow."

Even Jensen Himself makes the connection between "intelligence" and problem solving ability.

Of course. IQ tests contain lots of problem solving test items. If those test items are taught in advance, they become virtually useless. Many IQ tests are specified for use only one time in the life of the person being tested.

 

[Mandrake]

Here are some studies disagreeing with you:

Thank you. If you don't have time to tell me what they say, I am sorry, but I don't have time to read them and look for your point.

The so called "Evidence (published in peer reviewed journals) from the past few years has shown that the Flynn effect is due entirely to increases in specificity and not g. There is zero gain in g from the Flynn effect." seems to be quite weak and debated.

What evidence have you uncovered that the Flynn effect is g-loaded? Don't send me to a link, I don't go. Quotes and references please.

Adaption studies are of limited interest since the most critical period may be prenatal and very early childhood.

Adoption studies are not of limited interest. They have shown the appearance and disappearance of the shared environmental component of the environmental factor. The prenatal environment is a micro environmental factor and has noting to do with the shared family environment.

Regarding starvation and malnutrition, there are many studies showing the importance of deficiency in vitamins and minerals in decreasing iq.

I have not disputed that such micro environmental factors as vitamin deficiencies can affect intelligence. It is well known that micro environmental effects are real. Have you seen serious papers that report longitudinal studies that confirm permanent IQ changes in individuals over several decades? If so, please give us a zinger quote and source.

And that intervention increases iq.

Please identify the intervention programs which have confirmed any gains in IQ past the age of 17. I have not seen even one and I have searched.

I do not understand how the large scale interventions of society in order to prevent cretinism by iodine fortification is not an "macro" factor.

Okay, you don't understand the difference between a macro environmental factor and a micro environmental factor. One relates to social interactions and one to biological and chemical interactions.

You may of course have a private definition of "macro",

My definition is exactly as given in Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
I did not invent the term, nor have I used it in any way that differs from Jensen use.

Another example of raising iq due to "macro" factors:

Please list the macro environmental factors that caused the increase and the span of the longitudinal study.

 

[Aquamarine]

One of the worst answers I have seen. The studies explicitly contradicting your position on g and the flynn effect is a click away, several of them without cost, and your answer is refusing to look at them? If you don't have the time to read peer-reviewed studies, then don't make any claim of knowing anything deep regarding the subject.

And if you wish to criticize one of these peer-reviewed studies, for example the span in one of them, then do your own research to show that the peers have failed or say nothing. And most importantly, do not ask me to do the work.

Regarding intervention, overview of the literature shows that intervention from society with iodine supplementation for pregnant women reduces cretinism. And cretinism is irreversible, meaning this intervention will have affect beyond adolescence.
http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/ab000135.htm

Now is is very possible that Jensen may have defined that this is not "macro" and you may follow that definition. That is not very interesting, almost all other people would probably agree that a factor on the level of society have now increased iq compared to earlier. That is may act through an "micro" factor is irrelevant, all social interactions ultimately act through biological and chemical interactions.

 

[Mandrake]

One of the worst answers I have seen. The studies explicitly contradicting your position on g and the flynn effect is a click away, several of them without cost,

I see no indication that you have read and understood the documents. If you cannot explain, in one or two sentences, the findings, you probably do not understand the material.

and your answer is refusing to look at them? If you don't have the time to read peer-reviewed studies, then don't make any claim of knowing anything deep regarding the subject.

I am realistically aware of my personal depth of knowledge in this subject and I can tell you that you are not similarly informed.

And if you wish to criticize one of these peer-reviewed studies, for example the span in one of them, then do your own research to show that the peers have failed or say nothing. And most importantly, do not ask me to do the work.

You give no indication that you have read the material. Did you read all of each of the documents which you listed? Tell us honestly.

Regarding intervention, overview of the literature shows that intervention from society with iodine supplementation for pregnant women reduces cretinism.

Okay. What is your problem? Iodine is a chemical environmental factor and as such is a micro environmental factor. You remain confused.

Now is is very possible that Jensen may have defined that this is not "macro" and you may follow that definition.

Possible? If you had read The _g_ Factor, you would know that it is simply a fact. Macro factors are those associated with social experiences. They do not involve chemical or biological components.

That is not very interesting, almost all other people would probably agree that a factor on the level of society have now increased iq compared to earlier.

Almost all people? I suggest that almost all people are ignorant of psychometric science.

 

[Aquamarine]

You seem to think that the validity of the papers are dependent on my understanding of them. Which should be absurd, they are not dependent on me passing a quiz on their content.

I will repeat my earlier statement: The so called "Evidence (published in peer reviewed journals) from the past few years has shown that the Flynn effect is due entirely to increases in specificity and not g. There is zero gain in g from the Flynn effect." seems to be quite weak and debated.

I will also again repeat some earlier points to which you have given no rebuttal.

1. The Jensen study you referred to only applies to US variance. Not to US mean, not to variance earlier in US history and not to mean and variance in other countries.

2. The Flynn effect may well have started earlier for the more affluent subgroups, both in and between nations. A reasonably possibility is therefore that it will also disappear for this groups first. Thus the gap in IQ may dwindle or disappear in the future.

3. The US population is not a random sample from the rest of the world. It is a reasonably possibility that the subgroups in the US may have a different IQ than the population the emigrated from This may be affected both by cause for emigration and environment thereafter in the US.

4. There is no reason to exclude iq in childhood and adolescence automatically without evidence. Most human learning take place in those periods, so even only a temporary increase may reasonably have a long term effect beyond the temporary increase.

Regarding "macro", a wealthy family/society environment can provide better "micro" factors which will affect intelligence. For example iodine supplementation in rich countries with good health-care. Again, the Jensen study only refer to the US.

 

[Mandrake]

You seem to think that the validity of the papers are dependent on my understanding of them. Which should be absurd, they are not dependent on me passing a quiz on their content.

When someone tells me that something I have presented from established findings has been refuted, that person must understand both the material he is challenging and the material he believes refutes it. Otherwise, he is guessing. You are guessing.

I will repeat my earlier statement: The so called "Evidence (published in peer reviewed journals) from the past few years has shown that the Flynn effect is due entirely to increases in specificity and not g. There is zero gain in g from the Flynn effect." seems to be quite weak and debated.

So, list for us the evidence that makes the arguments weak and the evidence that you prefer. Don't forget to list the sources, since in this field, we find individuals who know nothing about the science pretending to be experts. This happens repeatedly with journalists who define themselves as experts when they are ignorant of the subject.

1. The Jensen study you referred to only applies to US variance. Not to US mean, not to variance earlier in US history and not to mean and variance in other countries.

Which Jensen study? Why can't you manage to identify the topic, study, and finding that you wish to discuss? If a study has been done in the US, it is indeed a US study and may be of little use in considering Koreans.

2. The Flynn effect may well have started earlier for the more affluent subgroups, both in and between nations. A reasonably possibility is therefore that it will also disappear for this groups first. Thus the gap in IQ may dwindle or disappear in the future.

The Flynn effect comprises elements that you apparently do not wish to take into consideration or which you have not encountered. For example, data showing secular gains is usually the result of improved IQ scores below the mean, not above it. This causes the mean to shift.

Among the curiosities of the Flynn Effect: “When the g loaded test is composed largely of nonscholastic items (matrices, figure analogies), the raw scores show a secular increase; when an equally g loaded test is composed of scholastic items (reading comprehension, math) the raw scores show a secular decrease. Obviously, the sure level of g cannot be changing in opposite directions at the same time. The difference in vehicles must account for the discrepancy. So, the extent to which the level of g per se has been rising (or falling) over the past few decades remains problematic.”
[The _g_ Factor, P. 322]

Please explain your comment in light of this observation.

3. The US population is not a random sample from the rest of the world. It is a reasonably possibility that the subgroups in the US may have a different IQ than the population the emigrated from

Isn't this a statement of the obvious? Do you really think that there are people who do not understand that there are multiple population groups in the US and that each of them has a different mean IQ?

4. There is no reason to exclude iq in childhood and adolescence automatically without evidence.

Who has excluded IQ in childhood from what? IQ can be measured in children and it is reasonably predictive of adult IQ. The issue that you apparently do not understand has to do with the variance in IQ due to shared environment. Why don't you take time to disabuse yourself of your misconceptions?

Most human learning take place in those periods, so even only a temporary increase may reasonably have a long term effect beyond the temporary increase.

Why don't you point us to some sound studies that demonstrate meaningful gains in learning that can actually be detected between children who have boosted IQs from adoption and those who have not been adopted? You are speculating and doing so from a perspective that is obviously not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Regarding "macro", a wealthy family/society environment can provide better "micro" factors which will affect intelligence. For example iodine supplementation in rich countries with good health-care. Again, the Jensen study only refer to the US.

You remain hopelessly confused. Please cite the study by Jensen that pertains to your comment. I don't think you even have it sorted out as to who did various studies and who has reported them in graduate level textbooks. Iodine is a chemical and is not a macro environmental factor. The conditions under which someone assimilates a chemical do not alter its classification.

 

[hitssquad]

Jensen's 1998 book

I disagree and so does Jensen.
From Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger:

1. That study refers only to people within the US. Most people live in the rest of the world.

1. The Jensen study you referred to only applies to US variance. Not to US mean, not to variance earlier in US history and not to mean and variance in other countries.

Which Jensen study?... Please cite the study by Jensen that pertains to your comment.

It is a book:

The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. 1998. Arthur R. Jensen.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

 

[Mandrake]

It is a book:

The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. 1998. Arthur R. Jensen.

I own the book and have read it carefully. The book is not a study. It does report many separate studies. You know both.