# Increasing IQ Level - Do you think it is possible?



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I am pretty sure your change had to do with age and development. IQ is best measured as an adult in your 20s, near the prime of your life, on a good day when you are well nourished and slept well. These things combine to give you an accurate assessment of your score. Whether it can change or not on a permanent basis, apart from innate biology...well, I would hope so but I really can't be sure.

But the tested value definitely changes by circumstance, and education can vastly improve the score. The main reason for that I suspect is that most IQ tests are not really measuring intelligence, they are measuring education level. If you can accurately solve equations that you have learned how to do correlates to but does not measure your intellectual potential.

By the by, I'm curious if type aligns to IQ at all? I scored 134 when I took one in 4th grade (school sponsored testing program), and I am pretty sure I am an NF and not an NT. Plus, I never took one as an adult, so I have no idea what I would get now. Do you think that IQ has a correlation to type differences?


----------



## Grandalf (Jun 7, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> But the tested value definitely changes by circumstance, and education can vastly improve the score. The main reason for that I suspect is that most IQ tests are not really measuring intelligence, they are measuring education level.


Partially true. It does explain why some racial groups do worse due to conditions they're subjugated to and it has nothing to do with genetics. Some try to be culture fair and measure ability to detect patterns.



> By the by, I'm curious if type aligns to IQ at all? Do you think that IQ has a correlation to type differences?


A bit of a taboo here. Expect comments on how there's no correlation b/w the two and how bigoted it is to think otherwise. It's a double standard where any type can be smart while opinions differing from many PerC user's views on religion and politics are a product of 'brainwashing', 'ignorance' and 'low intelligence'.


----------



## OneMind (Apr 14, 2012)

Brain plasticity seems to suggest that it's possible at least to some extent. I imagine that it requires a lot more willpower and training to get smarter than it does to get stronger and faster, but it can be done. You will be limited by biology of course. That's why I see IQ as more of a potential intelligence. There is a limit to every potential.

My problem with IQ tests is that it has been proven that scores change with your mood and motivation. If you have a group of people and you promise them something great if they preform well on an IQ test, they will preform better than the group that wasn't promised anything. Also if you tell one group of people that you expect them to preform worse than the other, they will preform worse. It's so weird.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> By the by, I'm curious if type aligns to IQ at all?


Not sure about IQ, but IQ tests seem to favor INTP's: http://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/intp-iq


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Hm, that's interesting. Do you think that it is favoring INTP dichotomies, or favoring INTP functions? That is, do other Ti or Ne types similarly score high on IQ tests when compared to types that do not value those functions?


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

Since IQ is measured by tests, couldn't you increase your score by practicing the types of skills on the test? And taking a lot of practice tests? It wouldn't mean you are smarter, but that isn't the question - the question is how to increase one's IQ. One's IQ number is just a test result.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Green Girl said:


> Since IQ is measured by tests, couldn't you increase your score by practicing the types of skills on the test? And taking a lot of practice tests? It wouldn't mean you are smarter, but that isn't the question - the question is how to increase one's IQ. One's IQ number is just a test result.


IQ is indeed very much a skill thing.
Once you have learned the skill they test for you have a higher IQ.
The fallacy of IQ is that everyone pretends those skills to be talents you are born with.
They are clearly not and there are people who have proved it by studying IQ tests and getting very high scores.
IQ is only useful as a screening tool for retarded people, in other words 60 or below.


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

It can certainly be reduced.

Since butter on bread can both be increased and reduced,
the same ought to apply to IQ. 

Scraping off all of it may be tricky though. Some appear to pull it off nonetheless.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

So I'm studying for the GRE, which is an exam for students going into grad school--basically like an SAT.

The book I study from is hilarious. It basically starts with, "Realize one thing. You are not studying to become smarter. Studying for the GRE has nothing to do with how smart you are. What you're studying to do is to think like the tester makers. For your job is to not answer the question with the best answer, but answer the question with the answer the test maker is looking for."

---

IQ tests run along the same lane. You have to realize for a second, if IQ tests are testing intelligence, and people are creating the IQ test, that means everything is circular to the human in question. There is no third-party source to judge the credibility.

The origins of the IQ tests come about during a time of immigration. A man developed the test and then showed it to the government, telling them that the test was incomplete and could not actually test IQ. The government, however, used the test anyway, and gave it to immigrants, as in the Italians, to show how they were not as smart as the Americans. Yet, language barriers got in the way.

And here we have IQ tests to stay.

Gandolf said that IQ tests are linked income; thus, IQ tests must test IQ. However, there is an inherent flaw in that thinking that one learns as they dive into statistic courses: correlation is not causation. 

For instance, similar to GRE tests, IQ tests are about learning how questions are written and learning how the test-writers want you to answer. This is similar to public school testing. This is similar to college testing. Which means, the same art (learning what the author wants) is used in college, which gets them a degree, which gets them higher paying jobs.

Thus, one could say that it is not IQ that's related to income, but one's ability to know how to answer questions with that their teacher--professor--proctor--SAT writer--wants. Combine this all together, someone who managed to get a good degree with a high paying job means they ended up honing a craft for perfecting exactly what IQ tests look for.

However, again, by that nature, people who have gone through many years of school are naturally going to improve in intelligence. Yet, this is not really tested by IQ tests.

---

An IQ score of 122 is great, making you one standard deviation beyond the average score of a 100, so you must be a pretty smart person. But this does not technically mean that you are smarter than someone who scored below you. 

Does it mean that you're a better candidate to get into college--get good grades--get a good job? Yes, because the nature of an IQ test is similar to the nature of America's education system. You have an advantage that other people who do not abide by the IQ test standards do not have.

And for many people, that's all that really matters, anyway.

---

Yet, IQ do not test for creativity.

There has been a study done, and virtually every single advancement, rebellion, creative thinker, were all by last born children--the creative children. Whereas first born children were the smarter, academic, high paying IQ job.

Question which is better? Neither. They both have their uses.


----------

