Ultimately, I see Ruf's work as operating from a fixed theory of intelligence and I don't share that assumption.
If I thought that was true of Ruf's work, I wouldn't like it either. I agree completely that intelligence isn't fixed. Frankly, I can't really imagine anyone would say that it is these days. Maybe 100 years ago, but not today, with all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
But I never took Ruf's work as claiming that intelligence is fixed. I think of her as a detective looking for clues. Some of the clues pop up early. Some don't. I think her book focuses more than it should on the early stuff that most people didn't notice. But I don't think she's saying that nothing ever changes when it comes to intelligence or that late-bloomers don't ever occur.
I think perhaps you're taking things further than Ruf intended. Certainly I wouldn't sign on to what you're describing.
