What if I learned how to solve let's say patterns in intelligence tests...

What if I learned how to solve let's say patterns in intelligence tests, wouldn't that skew how I score an IQ test making it less legitimate?

I mean, it makes sense to throw some IQ tests at people that haven't seen that type of problems (since those aren't taught in school anyway). But if I prepared for solving or looking at how to solve the problems before taking my next test, or just simply doing test after test for practice I'd be scoring higher and higher depending on how much effort is put.

However that is not how those tests are intended to measure intelligence as I'm just adapting to a new type of exercises that I'd probably forget how to solve years later if I don't practice. My point is that, wouldn't that artificially inflate the scoring? Or does understanding how to solve whatever type of intelligence DOES make you smarter?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/books/99/10/24/reviews/991024.24sullivt.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

An official test wouldn't usually be used for testing for a long period of time, and the methods/problems would be changed as to remove the practicing effect.

E. Next.

E

> does understanding how to solve whatever type of intelligence DOES make you smarter?

This. (But, OMG, grammar!)

>does understanding how to solve whatever type of intelligence DOES make you smarter?
yEs

yes. IQ tests are fucking nonsense.
Achievement tests and entrance exams have been gamed for centuries.
pic related

>Nicholas Lemann was born, raised, and educated in a Jewish family[3] in New Orleans. He describes his family's faith as a "kind of super-Reform Judaism" where there were "no kosher laws, no bar mitzvahs, no tallit, no kippot".

nytimes.com/books/99/10/24/reviews/991024.24sullivt.html
>One suspects that Lemann's deepest worries about the system stem from the problem of race, not class. The most original part of the book is its very perceptive analysis of the links between the rise of an educational meritocracy and the race debate in America. Lemann is surely right that without the dominance of testing, the shockingly poor performance of African-Americans in higher education would not have become such a pressing political issue, which is why the battle against affirmative action is a fitting climax to the book. As it is, low test scores among blacks have been fuel for both sides in the argument: for those who suspect that undeserving blacks are being admitted over whites to institutions of higher education and for those who suspect that the entire system is rigged against African-Americans in the first place. For Lemann, it is a virtual given that low black scores further prove that the system is unfair. But he oddly fails to account for how low black scores endure high up the socioeconomic ladder and how poor, and often newly immigrant, Asian-Americans seem to have made such a success of the system despite high economic and linguistic hurdles to achievement.

>What if I learned how to solve let's say patterns in intelligence tests, wouldn't that skew how I score an IQ test making it less legitimate?
some IQ subtests are like that, yes. the less you can learn and practice how to do it, the more "g-loaded" the test is, and the better it is said to measure raw, innate intelligence.

>What if I learned how to solve let's say patterns in intelligence tests, wouldn't that skew how I score an IQ test making it less legitimate?
No, it might prove you are not a nigger though

This.

You can improve your score for the specific test. But improving this score will not improve the innate ability the test is a proxy for.

>You can improve your score for the specific test.
What if I practice I improve my ability to recognize patterns, would that improve my innate intelligence or is it a fake improvent?

E

e

>would that improve my innate intelligence or is it a fake improvent?
>improvement
No such thing. I work with a token nigger, "fake intelligence" is code for affirmative action, the nigger will still fuck up and cause more work for everyone else. Yes there are the rare competent ones, but it is not common. Also when they fuck up they never take responsibility and always have an excuse.
t. industrial eng in equipment design

...

Very hard variables to test for. Pattern recognition is something you can build up.

I had a brain injury a couple of years ago and I had to do IQ tests all the time, between periods of intense stimulation of my brain. I would solve huge puzzles which the doctor said would help me "rebuild" my brain.

While intelligence is genetic, I do believe there is a small "cultural" bias within IQ tests that gives an improvement to people who engage in abstract pattern recognition that is different from that of IQ tests (assuming Raven's matrices).

There are other factors that will fuck the test anywhere. IIRC the WAIS IV has a test in it that lets you give up at any time. So if you're pessismistic and get stuck on a puzzle, or feel like you're just wasting the psychologist's time, you might give up early and thus make them think you're shit at visual processing when really you're just a sadfag.

>E

It would. You can train for IQ tests, but this doesn't affect the G-factor which is what the test measures, i.e. it doesn't make you more intelligent, you just pass the test better. Good tests are original but still understandable so that you can solve the pattern but can't use previous knowledge from the tests you have already taken.

It’s D

tests are accurate when you're 10 and you don't know an iq is
otherwise it's bullshit

IQ tests are a meme. People can score different scores on different IQ tests even up to 1SD. The idea that there's a static IQ score is naive.
It's just another test. If you did well in Math without studying much if not at all, you're smart. If you did well after studying intensely for months, you're average. If you studied for months and did bad in Math, you're retarded.

But that again might be the symptom of how they studied or how they were taught. Dyslexia might be the more obvious one, but then think about that crazy Common Core being taught to burgers. Maths in high school for me was shit, teacher was terrible at teaching and I spent all my time studying maths for the finals, got a minimum passing grade, then I go to university and I'm getting full marks on all my math courses.

Yes, you can train for iq tests. Many times the principles for patterns are the same, if you have a basic check-list what to look for you will score quite well.

Also often the "difficult questions" are just 2 or more patterns happening at the same time, like a color rotating but the whole figure getting flipped by some degrees etc..

Also superposition/negative superposition is very popular.

If recognizing this actually makes you smarter is another debate.

The principles and mechanics of pattern recognition are fairly concrete, no? Change the test and complexity of the problems all you like, you can try to obfuscate the problems with multiple components but if a person recognizes the basic signs and teaches themselves how to tackle each problem layer by layer to deduce how the pieces fit together, they can essentially game any test if they retain that knowledge and training.

But then discredits "IQ" as a function doesn't it?

Unless that person is predisposed to issues with recognition or comprehension.

As long as they can learn to read the patterns the rest is simple. IMO they're bullshit for that very reason. You could compare it to testing people on languages they don't know.

>Keoku will end up in prison.