I just hope that some day we can find a way to make sure that half of the kids in the US are not below average!
High IQ's run in my family, and that doesn't guarantee anything. We cover the full spectrum from success to failure, and I've spent a lifetime taking orders from people who needed even the simplest things explained to them almost daily, but were convinced that they were the smartest ones in the room.
Me go now.
Scott Adams has squeezed about 25 years' worth of Dilbert comics out of the old "dumb boss, smart worker" paradox, but here we all are, still workin' for the pointy-haired man...
IQ scores are an excellent predictor of how well you'll do on an IQ test.
I seem to do a lot of IQ tests these days, partly because I was unemployed for a while and many employers insist on IQ tests as a part of the application process. Every time I did a test it got a little bit easier so I assume the process increases my IQ score.
No problem. Just raise some of them in a sensory deprived environment. For example, if 75% of them have an IQ of 100 and 25% have an IQ of 50 that'll give an average IQ of 87.5 with only 25% below it. There are, however, some ethical problems with doing this.
One of the sections of the IQ test measures how well you take standardised tests, so yes, with enough practice you can raise your score a bit
Sensory deprivation is cruel, plus it isn't very efficient. Surely just assigning children we don't like much a regimen of lead supplementation would achieve the same effect, while still allowing them to live in a natural environment?
I think IQ scores are normalized, so a score of 100 is average (mean) by definition.
"Short answer: yes with an if, long answer: no with a but."
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.