Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ways to Inflate Your IQ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066293669642830.html
Ways to Inflate Your IQ
Sue Shellenbarger
Wall Street Journal
November 29, 2011

Many people think of IQ as a genetic trait, like brown eyes or short legs: You're born with it and you're stuck with it. Now, a growing body of research is showing that a person's IQ can rise�and even fall�over the years.

Scores can change gradually or quickly, after as little as a few weeks of cognitive training, research shows. The increases are usually so incremental that they're not immediately perceptible to individuals, and the intelligence-boosting effects of cognitive training can fade after a few months.

In the latest study, 33 British students were given IQ tests and brain scans at ages 12 to 16 and again about four years later by researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at University College London; 9% of the students showed a significant change of 15 points or more in IQ scores.

On a scale where 90 to 110 is considered average, one student's IQ rose 21 points to 128 from 107, lifting the student from the 68th percentile to the 97th compared with others the same age, says Cathy Price, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the center and co-author of the study, published last month in Nature. Another student's score skidded out of the "high average" category, to 96 from 114.

Swings in individual IQ scores are often written off as the product of measurement error or a test subject having a bad day. But MRIs in this study showed changes in gray matter in areas corresponding to fluctuations in the kids' skills, Dr. Price says. Although the sample size is small, the study drew wide attention because it is among the first to show how changes in IQ scores may be reflected in actual shifts in brain structure.

"There are many myths about IQ, such as the notion that IQ is a fixed number or that it is a crystal ball for future performance," says Eric Rossen, director of professional development and standards for the National Association of School Psychologists in Bethesda, Md.

The first reliable tests of intelligence in the U.S. were published in the early 1900s, says Alan S. Kaufman, clinical professor of psychology at Yale University and co-author of several IQ tests. Scores compare people to others of the same age based on a wide range of cognitive questions and tasks, from processing information and analyzing patterns, to solving age-appropriate math problems and recalling facts or vocabulary. A score in the 90 to 110 range is considered average. A "genius" may score 140 and above, he says.

IQ tests have been a target of ongoing criticism. Their use led to the misclassification of many children as "intellectually disabled" in the 1970s and 1980s. Similar cognitive tests used by employers to screen recruits have been attacked as discriminatory against African-American and Hispanic job candidates.

Today in schools, individual IQ-type tests are limited mainly to helping plan instruction for some children with specific learning disabilities and helping identify students for gifted programs. Kathleen Lundquist, president of APTMetrics, a Darien, Conn., human-resources consulting firm, says cognitive tests in the workplace today are often revised to eliminate adverse effects on minorities and are most often used as a screening tool for entry-level jobs.

<end of excerpt>

I am skeptical of this article but am posting it for discussion. My reading has led me to conclude that we do not know how to raise intelligence, except when the environment is very poor (for example a child who never hears human language).
Perhaps the author is skeptical herself, since she used the verb "inflate" rather than "increase" in the title.

An excerpt is at http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/29/ways-to-inflate-your-iq/

Hmm, interesting. I guess the question is this: if IQ is not changeable but people score dramatically differently at different times, which do we consider to be their "real" IQ? It seems unlikely that someone could accidentally score significantly higher than they ought to if the test is properly administered. It seems more likely that someone might test lower due to a variety of factors: maturity, distractions, not enough sleep, anxiety, etc. So I would probably lean towards the higher number being the more accurate.

However,these changing scores raise alot of questions about the test itself and what it is actually measuring.

Part of this is because you can create temporary "boosts" in certain domains with certain repetitive training activities.

So, if you focus cognitive training in certain areas, you achieve a boost in the performance of certain activities in a certain amount of time.

This also works with SWAT-type military training. If you keep the training up, you become more effective at taking out targets. Remove the training and the skill ebbs back to a baseline.

In addition, it works with waitresses. They will be very good at working memory with respect to multiple lists for multiple customers.

I personally want to investigate IQ changes in people who have so-called Near Death Experiences, which is, at the very least, a very interesting cognitive event.

There are also certain skills that seem to be innate. For example, some people have extremely good memories. It's automatic.

There are lots of interesting automatic abilities out there that don't seem to relate to training.

I think the ages here matter. 12yrs old is typically 6-7th grade. Similar to elementary in that the kids don't really get to select their classes (other than perhaps band vs choir and which language to study) but they are still working study skills, organization, beginning puberty, etc etc etc.

By 16 they are sophmores/juniors in high school, have probably gotten through the most awkward part of puberty, worked out how to efficiently handle studying/homework, and are taking classes they've gotten to select and are interested in.

It makes sense to me that 16yr olds are in a more stable academic place than a 12yr old, and that test scores would reflect that.

Google has added 30 points to most people's IQ. And the brighter the person, the greater the boost.


Like Mr W being able to fluently read music after a few weeks of exposure. Or do the set game faster than I can. I also recently introduced the ideas of complex numbers and acoustics to him.

But the latter also begs the question of exposure, too. As the result of the above, he will have a developed, innate feeling for certain kinds of mathematics at a very early age.

Given the biological nature of intelligence and knowledge, if the receptive pathways in a kids mind are not stimulated, then do those wither? I think so based on the research.

I'm reading a lot about the biological basis of intelligence. The key graph from all of it is that 50% of the ability to learn is developed in the first 5 years, hits 80% at age 8, and after age 12, the brain is pretty much set.

This is why it is so damaging to bright kids to hold them back. They have a limited amount of time to grow their abilities.

This is a good summary.

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleId=60

One book with references to others.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Brain-Revolutionary-Discoveries-Works/dp/0836232895

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of where exactly the scores improved and declined. Processing speed? Working memory? Vocabulary? I can see practice/training effects and environmental exposure having a fairly strong influence on these areas, which could influence scores up or down while not really having any effect on core reasoning ability.

I agree with Laura Vanderkam's take at the Gifted Exchange blog:

http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2011/11/can-you-change-your-iq.html
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2011
Can you change your IQ?
I keep reading articles about new research (published in Nature last month) finding that IQ is malleable. The sample size of the study (33 British students) was quite small, which means that outlier findings need to be taken with a grain of salt. One student's IQ rose from 107 to 128, and another's fell from 114 to 96. The trumpeted finding is that 9% of students showed a change of 15 points or more, but of course 9% of 33 is 3 kids. The most interesting finding is that MRI scans showed actual brain changes in the kids with the big IQ changes, which suggest that it might not be total measurement error. The idea is that one can possibly change IQ, on the margins, through certain brain exercises.

Some people will no doubt trumpet this as evidence that giftedness is some sort of made up concept, just capturing a snapshot in time among kids whose parents have trained them more than others. But one certainly doesn't have to draw this conclusion. I am comfortable believing these two things at once:

1. I am not nearly as athletically gifted as many other people and never will be and
2. If I practiced hard in any given sport, I could become better at it over time in a way my body might actually physically reflect.

These two beliefs also do not lead me to believe that we should get rid of varsity basketball teams, or camps for children who've shown promise in basketball or that athletic ability is some sort of social construct. So I'm not sure why the idea that IQ might change by one standard deviation in a small number of children would lead anyone to believe that there aren't children who learn differently and need more challenge than others of the same age.

Once again find myself wishing for a 'Like' button

Interesting read. Agree with some points, not with others.

There is one real frustration I have with IQ tests. When administered to a child with a learning disability, it is difficult to get a real sense of how much of the results are truly about IQ and how much is skewed due to the disability. For a number that should be fairly stable, my son's IQ has "raised" 30 points since he was first tested at 5. And the diagnostician noted that it was her belief that the last test was still skewed due to the dysgraphia and has recommended he be retested at age 13.

If IQ is IQ is IQ, then OT, PT and speech therapy should not change the IQ 30 points.

Most HS quarterbacks could throw the football 80 yards when they were 12 and most running backs could do 5.0 or better 40 yard dash at the same age. Could a small set of kids not in football also be trained to do the same thing, sure. But most could not.

The same goes for Euclid's Elements. Sure you could drill kids on proofs and logic and some will learn, but will a majority be able to deduce proofs after all that training?