>>16992951
Do you mean IQ as in the thing that is measured by taking a test, or current intelligence (whatever that means), or the absolute potential of one's ability?
It's obviously yes for the first two and no for the last. There is nothing to discuss unless you are a brainlet who obsesses over people accepting a different definition to you.

Easier to get more spiritual and move the goalposts.

>>16992978
spirituality!!! of course anon we should all be spiritual so god makes our iqs higher!! bs feelings and shieet

>>16992951
Probably nope. Even IQ acquires more IQ over time.

If the ability of passing IQ tests cannot be trained, how did AI become better at solving IQ tests?

>>16992951
It's fairly easy to reduce your IQ.
>>16993008
You absolutely can be trained on the specific question bank of an IQ test. That doesn't mean your IQ changed, it just means you cheated and violated the assumptions of the test. But you already knew that and were attention whoring.

>>16993016
so studying for a test is cheating?

>>16992951
Hypothesis: christians have a lower average iq than not christians

>>16993017
Depends how the test is designed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_hacking
Some results are less reliable with prior training/exposure.
In psychology, this is known as "participant "sophistication""

>>16993017
With an IQ test, yes (retard). It's not testing you on the size of your knowledge base, it's testing you on your on the spot reasoning capabilities. If you were actually just stupid, that's alright, but I think you were being an insincere pissant, which is leagues worse..

>>16992974
>It's obviously yes for the first two
This is trivially disproven. What score will a newborn get on an IQ test? They don't even know how to take the test. When they're older and understand the instructions, they will get a higher score.

>>16993027
are people who enjoy doing IQ-test adjacent things, like solving logical puzzles, cheating as well?

>>16993045
>>16992974
Sorry, I meant the other way around. It's no for the first two, yes for the third.

I like seeing smart people on my post, kudos

>>16993045
thats why abortion is fine up till birth nigga

>>16992951
I would argue that the genetic baseline is a very strong contributor through all of life. The fraction that is left has the power to influence the whole, but the relationship is not linear.
You can change people more efficiently over time by creating the conditions for reproducing at older ages.

Baxter's novel Ring, I believe, has a decent idea of the reason and methods for such a process.

>>16992951
I believe, without any evidence, that an individual's intelligence can max out to the best of that particular individual's intellectual capabilities.

Years ago I went to law school and studied the LSAT. The more I studied, the better my score got, but eventually it capped out. This was the same for most of my colleagues who also studied the LSAT.
However, one thing to remark were the people who scored over 140s during early studying were able to score over 160 on the official exam after months of studying. However those who scored less than 140 while studying, never scored above 140 on the official exam.

I believe the sub 140 scorers objectively have a fixed lower intelligence.

>>16993054
I had never enjoyed or even thought of the type of test presented by an IQ test. When I was tested I thought it was some oddly more challenging and random 10th grade placement thing.
Walked away and a week later got pulled aside, told I have 130, and persuaded into feeder classes for senior AP and college prep.
My takeaway is an IQ test *has the potential* of giving some information for a person's natural ability, if they've never seen anything like it before.

>>16993073
I think we should bring back post birth abortions. Like, no max age. You made them, you can unmake them.

>>16993096
way to take my perfectly sound statement then drag it out to an extreme because you are some christcuck

>>16993081
your iq isnt 130 larp, mine is

IQ tests measure the lower bound of ontological compatibility between test and testee

>>16993100
trannies lose and seethe(your a trani)

>>16993100
You sound like somebody in desperate need of being late term aborted

>>16992974
>It's obviously yes for the first two and no for the last.

You lost me. IQ tests are the one thing where it's easy to train to get a better score.

Your general intelligence and potential for how good you can get at X are hard-capped by your biology. If you're retarded, you can never be trained to become a person of normal intelligence.

>>16992951
>2021
no fucking way lmfao i see that poster posting here even TODAY, for hours upon hours every single day. LMAO.

It's not fixed when it can be greatly reduced by something such as brain trauma.

I am terrible at paper tests but have really good pattern recognition in other ways. Coding is the same for me. But put me in other scenarios and I out perform people with double my IQ. I think the way people are tested needs to be changed for sure. I think it comes down to the person, I have spotted patterns in things all my life and I am really good at music, which is patterns, but a paper IQ test and I am horrible.

>>16993348
See >>16993062

>>16992951
IQ was not made for masturbatory purposes or to ascertain a health adult's biological potential. It came about to diagnose mental deficiencies.
There is a lot of obfuscation going on, so when people talk about "raising intelligence", they ought to bring up specific types of intelligence that it conflates, e.g.

Can you improve spatial visualization? (Yes.)
Can you improve mathematical logical problem solving skills? (Yes.)
Can you improve your verbal comprehension skills? (Yes.)
Can you improve your working memory? (Yes.)

I imagine in an alternate universe we'd be flaunting a standardized "working memory" score, and the idea to conflate all types of intelligence together and unify them with a single score would have been considered too reductive to take seriously.

>>16993895
This is a post-racism cope from people who can't tolerate the reality of a broad, well sampled g factor result.

>>16993895
>Can you improve spatial visualization?
>Can you improve mathematical logical problem solving skills?
Not in a truly general way.

>Can you improve your verbal comprehension skills?
Up to your inborn, IQ-correlated limit.

>Can you improve your working memory? (Yes.)
No.

>>16993895
^this

>>16993943
trolling?

>>16993945
All this for a bit of credit to educators preferred. IQ is clearly a con.

>>16993945
Mentally ill and delusional? (Yes, you are.)

Even if you're too mongoloidal to know the difference between far and near transfer, you should at least be able to grasp that you're not going to train yourself to be a genius no matter how much you try.

>>16993974
this, nigger dunno that right?

>>16993382
it's legit mental illness

>>16992951
By becoming spiritual you can become smarter, if knowledge is finite then their is a hard limit to Knowledge.

Academically~
By looking at 'rejected knowledge' (the occult) then you have gained more knowledge.

Spiritually~
This is the Mary's room thought experiment where imperical evidence can only tell you so much, but actually experiencing the phenomena gives you new context/narrative ergo more knowledge.

>>16993101
Its just a 1 in 37 chance among a certain groupable sub species, factor dependent. Certainly not rare. Random sample said sub group fill them in a 100k stadium and 2700 of them will be.

It changes during your life. And I personally believe if you can study the questions beforehand then you can boost your score. But paper tests are very inefficient and only test a certain type of pattern recognition. Some people perform better in real world tests which aren't as popular. And there are certain ways to increase pattern recognition that cannot be applied to paper tests but that's a whole other topic.