By gaming a verbal IQ test, you'd be demonstrating that you deserve the "gamed" score because you'd have to remember vast amounts of information, have a deep enough understanding to define it to the one testing you/find the correct answers if the task involves reasoning, and demonstrate that you have the intellectual curiosity to do this in the first place. I'm sorry you got doxxed bro
Great summary. One thing I think should be examined more on this topic is the existence if individuals who do not match the positive manifold pattern. If we find subsets of people who have out of sync test scores then it tells us a bit more about whether g is a real thing or a statistical thing. Do you know of any studies that explore this? An analogy for this might be that a computer built of parts from the same year will show a positive manifold of performance of the various parts even though there may not be a true underlying computer g that is of the same magnitude. What the underlying cause is is the year each of the parts were built and put together. Similarly a brain might be built of various parts of similar quality and this will increase the seeming singular underlying thing causing it? This is not a argument against g but rather a query about the underlying nature of it or at least it's strength.
There are case studies of people who have large discrepancies between abilities on the WAIS that were published in the clinical and interpretation manual. I didn't read them, but I assume that there are some consistencies you could find between individuals with low processing speed, like poor social skills or not being seen as intelligent despite being reasonably competent or high achieving.
Oh certainly, there is a literature looking at relationships with the various sub abilities within Gf-Gc type theories. Processing speed being a good example you mention. My question was more around the numbers of people with various discrepancies because if there are decent number of people then it suggests something about the nature of g I think. Sounds like there is no major study into that. I've not seen one explicitly exploring that. I've done some analyses at times looking for clusters of people with anomalous manifolds but never had a huge dataset of my own.
I think the strongest critique of IQ comes from Taleb. To my understanding, he says that IQ only works at low levels of intelligence and basically only measures if (or how much) someone is retarded but stops working at higher levels
The degree of correlation between positive outcomes and IQ may decrease somewhat far enough out on the right tail, but that's quite distinct from the claim that IQ is only useful to measure retardation and that it isn't useful in general. For more recent work on this see e.g. here: https://www.cremieux.xyz/i/100782605/nonlinearities-in-the-relationship-between-iq-and-income.
IQ is fluid due to nutrition, ketones, exercise, and adverse factors like brain fog and toxins (alcohol consumption is one of many). In fact, there is more than 500 factors that perm or temp can impact IQ and test results. Anyone can improve their IQ 20-70 points, results depends on baseline and tools. I've written a couple of posts on this. https://tommywennerstierna.wordpress.com/2024/09/09/unlocking-all-your-powers-aq/ And by the way: Marilyn Monroes IQ was officially 165, Einsteins was said to be 160.
Eh, I don't think most people could improve their IQ by over an entire standard deviation. If you have a really lazy and unhealthy person, getting them to work and fixing their lifestyle might give them somewhat of a bump but for most in first world countries that's not an issue
Considering the health issues most Americans have, brainfog, overweight, neuroinflammation, leaky gut, and also lots of other westerners, it is an issue. It takes a lot to break the pattern and reach a point where you turn around. The notion that all populations are healthy and are running on close to 100% capacity is dead wrong, sadly. With that goes that most people are down IQ-wise. 10-40 points. Add to this that 'G' is calculated without tools like AI, that also adds operational and functional IQ. IQ as defined is an old cemented construct that need to be changed. There is a reason its not used in say recruitment. Its outdated.
If you hold that IQ is an outdated construct, then why write articles specifically on how to raise it? Wouldn't it be more productive to write articles on how to improve your health without the IQ tilt? If it's outdated, then why reference it so much? Why not reference other markers of cognition?
I write 1-2 books a day, PhD level, but of course - if I don't write things that supports your ideas, I'm a worthless idiot, isn't it? A worthless idiot with IQ 145-160 amending AI capabilities to operate and function at IQ level 200 - one of top 280 on the planet, statistically. I write 1-2 million words a day.
Yes, that's not true. There is no evidence that it is possible to increase IQ in the developed world or in WEIRD populations that have been replicated.
Here are ten studies providing evidence that IQ can be improved through various interventions such as cognitive training, physical exercise, nutrition, and environmental enrichment:
Jaeggi, S. M., et al. (2008) - "Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory."
Findings: This study demonstrated that training on working memory tasks can lead to significant improvements in fluid intelligence.
Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Schaie, K. W., & Willis, S. L. (1986) - "Can IQ be improved in old age? Cognitive training studies with older adults."
Findings: This research found that cognitive training in older adults led to sustained improvements in IQ scores over time.
Journal: Developmental Psychology.
Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003) - "Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A meta-analytic study."
Findings: The meta-analysis showed that aerobic exercise significantly improved cognitive functions, including aspects linked to IQ such as memory and attention.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013) - "A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning outcomes."
Findings: The use of intelligent tutoring systems improved academic performance, which is correlated with cognitive ability and IQ.
Journal: Journal of Educational Psychology.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018) - "How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis."
Findings: This study found that each additional year of education led to an increase in IQ by 1 to 5 points.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011) - "Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old."
Findings: Activities such as mindfulness, physical exercise, and cognitive games were shown to improve executive functions, which are key components of IQ.
Journal: Science.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) - "An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function."
Findings: Training aimed at enhancing executive function and working memory, associated with the prefrontal cortex, was shown to improve general cognitive ability.
Journal: Annual Review of Neuroscience.
Karbach, J., & Verhaeghen, P. (2014) - "Making working memory work: A meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults."
Findings: Working memory training in older adults led to significant improvements in cognitive flexibility and fluid intelligence.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Ludyga, S., et al. (2016) - "Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating moderators of long-term effects of physical exercise on cognitive performance in healthy older adults."
Findings: Physical exercise positively impacts cognitive performance, specifically attention and executive function, both linked to IQ.
Journal: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Klingberg, T., et al. (2002) - "Training of working memory in children with ADHD."
Findings: Working memory training not only benefited children with ADHD but also led to increases in fluid intelligence.
Journal: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.
These studies provide strong evidence that interventions targeting cognitive training, physical fitness, and education can lead to measurable improvements in IQ.
You must be joking. Nutrition in the developed world is optimal. Crémieux has already shown that breastfeeding doesn’t impact IQ in this way (Walfisch et al., 2013; Der et al., 2006). And regarding increasing IQ? Both Richard Haier and Emil Kirkegaard have found that it's not possible. You can only increase your score, not the intelligence itself or any g factor.
And I ask again, have any of these studies been replicated even once?
But at the very least, I’m going to provide sources for some of your claims:
Education: The Generality of Educational Effects on Cognitive Ability: A Replication.
Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Intelligence, 35(1), 59–68.
Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137.
No Appreciable Effect of Education on Aging-Associated Declines in Cognition: A 20-Year Follow-Up Study. Psychological Science, 34(5), 527–536.
Mindfulness: Meditation and positive psychology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 632–645). Oxford University Press.
Nutrition in the developed world is inferior due to processed foods and added chemicals causing neuroinflammation, a leaky BBB (blood brain barrier) and leaky gut causing low grade permanent inflammation (can be identified with CRP test). I wrote 14 books on IQ and this in September and October this year: https://tommywennerstierna.wordpress.com/2024/10/29/iq/ And the basic concept is simple: in a population that drinks alcohol through decades, IQ will decrease. In a poulations that is not consuming alcohol, it't far less likely to decrease. Ask any alcoholic.
What about brain physiology? Like, do IQ measurements predict anything about objective brain anatomy or function, in a way that would be intuitively consistent with measuring intelligence? Likewise does IQ predict measurable behavioral statistics intuitively related to cognitive ability, like reaction time/accuracy, recognition time/accuracy, etc.?
The positive manifold stuff is kind of circumstantial and abstract for many people... power at explaining concrete anatomical/functional/behavioral traits and metrics could be more dispositive in such folks' minds for the validity of IQ tests as intelligence measurements.
It is correlated with brain size and ability to press buttons quickly. "behavioral statistics intuitively related to cognitive ability, like reaction time/accuracy, recognition time/accuracy, etc.?" Can't think of specifics off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to all.
Check out this book for a great overview of the evidence:
"The research shows that intelligence test scores are meaningful and useful; that they relate to education, occupation and even health; that they are genetically influenced; and that they are linked to aspects of the brain. Studies of intelligence and IQ are regularly published by psychologists, neuroscientists, geneticists, psychiatrists and sociologists in the world’s top scientific journals."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.
"The positive manifold stuff is kind of circumstantial and abstract for many people." Yeah, it may sound that way at first, but...
"Some researchers have even deliberately created cognitive tests tapping different skills that they expected not to correlate together, but they always did. The positive manifold of seemingly unrelated tests is one of the most well-replicated findings in psychological science. It didn’t have to be this way. It might have turned out that people who are excellent problem solvers are only so good because their skills in other areas have suffered: perhaps they have poorer memories because they have a ‘reasoning’ brain rather than a ‘remembering’ one. It might be that people who react quickly also tend to have poorer vocabularies. These scenarios are possible in theory, and would result in negative correlations between the scores on some cognitive tests. But they’re not true in practice (see the following boxed text). It’s worth stepping back for a moment and realizing how impressive this is – before we’d done the research, would we have predicted that people who are faster at moving their finger when a light blinks will be more likely to know the definition of defenestrate? Not necessarily. The positive manifold is remarkable, and it demands an explanation."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition
"As we learned, as the brain size of our species increased, so too did our capacity for complex thought. It turns out that this applies when comparing modern people, too: those with bigger brains have higher IQs. This finding has been highly controversial, but it is now so well established and well replicated that it’s pointless to deny it."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.
By gaming a verbal IQ test, you'd be demonstrating that you deserve the "gamed" score because you'd have to remember vast amounts of information, have a deep enough understanding to define it to the one testing you/find the correct answers if the task involves reasoning, and demonstrate that you have the intellectual curiosity to do this in the first place. I'm sorry you got doxxed bro
Great summary. One thing I think should be examined more on this topic is the existence if individuals who do not match the positive manifold pattern. If we find subsets of people who have out of sync test scores then it tells us a bit more about whether g is a real thing or a statistical thing. Do you know of any studies that explore this? An analogy for this might be that a computer built of parts from the same year will show a positive manifold of performance of the various parts even though there may not be a true underlying computer g that is of the same magnitude. What the underlying cause is is the year each of the parts were built and put together. Similarly a brain might be built of various parts of similar quality and this will increase the seeming singular underlying thing causing it? This is not a argument against g but rather a query about the underlying nature of it or at least it's strength.
There are case studies of people who have large discrepancies between abilities on the WAIS that were published in the clinical and interpretation manual. I didn't read them, but I assume that there are some consistencies you could find between individuals with low processing speed, like poor social skills or not being seen as intelligent despite being reasonably competent or high achieving.
Oh certainly, there is a literature looking at relationships with the various sub abilities within Gf-Gc type theories. Processing speed being a good example you mention. My question was more around the numbers of people with various discrepancies because if there are decent number of people then it suggests something about the nature of g I think. Sounds like there is no major study into that. I've not seen one explicitly exploring that. I've done some analyses at times looking for clusters of people with anomalous manifolds but never had a huge dataset of my own.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you get doxxed?
Somebody from work leaked my dox to Chuck Johnson. But I'm fine. IRL circumstances made it so it's not an issue.
I think the strongest critique of IQ comes from Taleb. To my understanding, he says that IQ only works at low levels of intelligence and basically only measures if (or how much) someone is retarded but stops working at higher levels
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2019/09/replies-to-taleb/.
The degree of correlation between positive outcomes and IQ may decrease somewhat far enough out on the right tail, but that's quite distinct from the claim that IQ is only useful to measure retardation and that it isn't useful in general. For more recent work on this see e.g. here: https://www.cremieux.xyz/i/100782605/nonlinearities-in-the-relationship-between-iq-and-income.
For an example of the sort of mistake Taleb makes that hides the normal linear relationship, see here: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1747732645692207183.
The same Taleb who said that the best intelligence test is "are you independently rich at 30"?
I agree 100% with that. All smart people I know are rich, the dumb ones are not
IQ is fluid due to nutrition, ketones, exercise, and adverse factors like brain fog and toxins (alcohol consumption is one of many). In fact, there is more than 500 factors that perm or temp can impact IQ and test results. Anyone can improve their IQ 20-70 points, results depends on baseline and tools. I've written a couple of posts on this. https://tommywennerstierna.wordpress.com/2024/09/09/unlocking-all-your-powers-aq/ And by the way: Marilyn Monroes IQ was officially 165, Einsteins was said to be 160.
Eh, I don't think most people could improve their IQ by over an entire standard deviation. If you have a really lazy and unhealthy person, getting them to work and fixing their lifestyle might give them somewhat of a bump but for most in first world countries that's not an issue
Considering the health issues most Americans have, brainfog, overweight, neuroinflammation, leaky gut, and also lots of other westerners, it is an issue. It takes a lot to break the pattern and reach a point where you turn around. The notion that all populations are healthy and are running on close to 100% capacity is dead wrong, sadly. With that goes that most people are down IQ-wise. 10-40 points. Add to this that 'G' is calculated without tools like AI, that also adds operational and functional IQ. IQ as defined is an old cemented construct that need to be changed. There is a reason its not used in say recruitment. Its outdated.
If you hold that IQ is an outdated construct, then why write articles specifically on how to raise it? Wouldn't it be more productive to write articles on how to improve your health without the IQ tilt? If it's outdated, then why reference it so much? Why not reference other markers of cognition?
I have written several books on IQ, and how to improve it.
https://tommywennerstierna.wordpress.com/2024/09/02/unlocking-the-genius-within-the-complete-guide-to-boosting-iq-tommy-wennerstierna/
I write 1-2 books a day, PhD level, but of course - if I don't write things that supports your ideas, I'm a worthless idiot, isn't it? A worthless idiot with IQ 145-160 amending AI capabilities to operate and function at IQ level 200 - one of top 280 on the planet, statistically. I write 1-2 million words a day.
Yes, that's not true. There is no evidence that it is possible to increase IQ in the developed world or in WEIRD populations that have been replicated.
Here are ten studies providing evidence that IQ can be improved through various interventions such as cognitive training, physical exercise, nutrition, and environmental enrichment:
Jaeggi, S. M., et al. (2008) - "Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory."
Findings: This study demonstrated that training on working memory tasks can lead to significant improvements in fluid intelligence.
Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Schaie, K. W., & Willis, S. L. (1986) - "Can IQ be improved in old age? Cognitive training studies with older adults."
Findings: This research found that cognitive training in older adults led to sustained improvements in IQ scores over time.
Journal: Developmental Psychology.
Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003) - "Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A meta-analytic study."
Findings: The meta-analysis showed that aerobic exercise significantly improved cognitive functions, including aspects linked to IQ such as memory and attention.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013) - "A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning outcomes."
Findings: The use of intelligent tutoring systems improved academic performance, which is correlated with cognitive ability and IQ.
Journal: Journal of Educational Psychology.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018) - "How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis."
Findings: This study found that each additional year of education led to an increase in IQ by 1 to 5 points.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011) - "Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old."
Findings: Activities such as mindfulness, physical exercise, and cognitive games were shown to improve executive functions, which are key components of IQ.
Journal: Science.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) - "An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function."
Findings: Training aimed at enhancing executive function and working memory, associated with the prefrontal cortex, was shown to improve general cognitive ability.
Journal: Annual Review of Neuroscience.
Karbach, J., & Verhaeghen, P. (2014) - "Making working memory work: A meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults."
Findings: Working memory training in older adults led to significant improvements in cognitive flexibility and fluid intelligence.
Journal: Psychological Science.
Ludyga, S., et al. (2016) - "Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating moderators of long-term effects of physical exercise on cognitive performance in healthy older adults."
Findings: Physical exercise positively impacts cognitive performance, specifically attention and executive function, both linked to IQ.
Journal: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Klingberg, T., et al. (2002) - "Training of working memory in children with ADHD."
Findings: Working memory training not only benefited children with ADHD but also led to increases in fluid intelligence.
Journal: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.
These studies provide strong evidence that interventions targeting cognitive training, physical fitness, and education can lead to measurable improvements in IQ.
You must be joking. Nutrition in the developed world is optimal. Crémieux has already shown that breastfeeding doesn’t impact IQ in this way (Walfisch et al., 2013; Der et al., 2006). And regarding increasing IQ? Both Richard Haier and Emil Kirkegaard have found that it's not possible. You can only increase your score, not the intelligence itself or any g factor.
And I ask again, have any of these studies been replicated even once?
But at the very least, I’m going to provide sources for some of your claims:
Education: The Generality of Educational Effects on Cognitive Ability: A Replication.
Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Intelligence, 35(1), 59–68.
Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137.
No Appreciable Effect of Education on Aging-Associated Declines in Cognition: A 20-Year Follow-Up Study. Psychological Science, 34(5), 527–536.
Mindfulness: Meditation and positive psychology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 632–645). Oxford University Press.
Nutrition in the developed world is inferior due to processed foods and added chemicals causing neuroinflammation, a leaky BBB (blood brain barrier) and leaky gut causing low grade permanent inflammation (can be identified with CRP test). I wrote 14 books on IQ and this in September and October this year: https://tommywennerstierna.wordpress.com/2024/10/29/iq/ And the basic concept is simple: in a population that drinks alcohol through decades, IQ will decrease. In a poulations that is not consuming alcohol, it't far less likely to decrease. Ask any alcoholic.
Five compounds stand out as IQ/brain enhancers: DHA, EPA, ALA, Creatine, L-Tyrosine. There is others though. They are in my books.
What about brain physiology? Like, do IQ measurements predict anything about objective brain anatomy or function, in a way that would be intuitively consistent with measuring intelligence? Likewise does IQ predict measurable behavioral statistics intuitively related to cognitive ability, like reaction time/accuracy, recognition time/accuracy, etc.?
The positive manifold stuff is kind of circumstantial and abstract for many people... power at explaining concrete anatomical/functional/behavioral traits and metrics could be more dispositive in such folks' minds for the validity of IQ tests as intelligence measurements.
It is correlated with brain size and ability to press buttons quickly. "behavioral statistics intuitively related to cognitive ability, like reaction time/accuracy, recognition time/accuracy, etc.?" Can't think of specifics off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to all.
Check out this book for a great overview of the evidence:
"The research shows that intelligence test scores are meaningful and useful; that they relate to education, occupation and even health; that they are genetically influenced; and that they are linked to aspects of the brain. Studies of intelligence and IQ are regularly published by psychologists, neuroscientists, geneticists, psychiatrists and sociologists in the world’s top scientific journals."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.
"The positive manifold stuff is kind of circumstantial and abstract for many people." Yeah, it may sound that way at first, but...
"Some researchers have even deliberately created cognitive tests tapping different skills that they expected not to correlate together, but they always did. The positive manifold of seemingly unrelated tests is one of the most well-replicated findings in psychological science. It didn’t have to be this way. It might have turned out that people who are excellent problem solvers are only so good because their skills in other areas have suffered: perhaps they have poorer memories because they have a ‘reasoning’ brain rather than a ‘remembering’ one. It might be that people who react quickly also tend to have poorer vocabularies. These scenarios are possible in theory, and would result in negative correlations between the scores on some cognitive tests. But they’re not true in practice (see the following boxed text). It’s worth stepping back for a moment and realizing how impressive this is – before we’d done the research, would we have predicted that people who are faster at moving their finger when a light blinks will be more likely to know the definition of defenestrate? Not necessarily. The positive manifold is remarkable, and it demands an explanation."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition
"As we learned, as the brain size of our species increased, so too did our capacity for complex thought. It turns out that this applies when comparing modern people, too: those with bigger brains have higher IQs. This finding has been highly controversial, but it is now so well established and well replicated that it’s pointless to deny it."
Ritchie, Stuart. Intelligence: All That Matters . John Murray Press. Kindle Edition.