I really don't feel  like googling or wiki-ing this so I'll just ask since there seem to be people here that would know...

Can you practice for an IQ test, or are they designed to give you roughly the same score even years later?  I know you can study for SAT / ACT type tests, which have somewhat the same goal right?  To test your math, verbal and reasoning ability?

Again, I don't know much about this stuff.  Fill me in

You can definitely improve your score at particular classes of questions by practice.

I agree with Elroch on that one. You can improve your ability to score well on IQ tests by learning certain patterns.

I once did a supervised IQ test and there was one item (of 45) that was very similar to some items in some of the many internet tests I had taken before. As a result, I knew the idea behind the item and the solution was obvious. I may also subconsciously have experienced a more subtle effect of learning methods of analyzing the problems etc, that someone who has never taken such a test would have to figure out during the course of the test. These factors may have skewed my test result upwards.

I have read about studies showing that no learning effect occurs when people take several IQ tests. This is probably true in an experimental setting, but in reality, with a multitude of tests avaliable for free (and likely also via piracy) via the internet, I think it's entirely possible to improve your ability to score well on IQ tests to some extent. But I find it unlikely that this effect will make a more dramatic difference to the score, unless you have learned the exact patterns (as I did with one item, as described above).

Yes, general intelligence may be defined. This does not mean it is the whole story about intelligence.

You keep inferring that if two things are correlated then the space of variation is 1-dimensional (If the falsity of this is not obvious, I draw your attention to the  analogy with height and weight - analogies are useful, because many people find concrete examples easier than ones like the nature of intelligence).  The fact that similar intelligence tests are highly correlated implies only that they are measuring roughly the same 1-dimensional component of intelligence (a sort of weighted combination of a selection of intellectual abilities). You claim grandly that IQ test scores correlate with g with correlation coefficient 0.9. This means no more than that different IQ tests, with a heterogenous mixture of different types of question correlate well with each other, so are measuring similar 1-dimensional components of intelligence. I have used factor analysis in my work analysing scientific data about environmental quality, and I am very well aware of its limitations and imprecision.

Let's stick to undeniable facts, on which rational people should be able to agree.

(1) There are several different types of question which can be assumed to measure different types of intellectual ability (see an article about Wechsler tests for examples of the types of questions). We can define one dimension of intellectual ability by the score a person achieves on a particular class of questions (either very closely related ones, or any sort of mixture).

(2) There are correlations between the scores of an individual on different classes of question, but these correlations are nowhere near +/-1.

(3) There is also also a great deal of consistent variation between individuals on their scores on different questions: some people are poor at mathematical or spatial questions and excellent at word-based questions, for example. This is true despite the fact that there is a correlation between scores at each of the types of question.

(4) An IQ test is made up of a combination of different types of question, so correlates fairly well with scores in each of the individual types of questions. I hope it is obvious that this does not mean an IQ test tells you how good someone is at an individual type of question.

With regard to the correlation between success and IQ, this is far weaker than you suggest (about 0.33 between IQ and earnings this well-known study). Interesting is the result that "emotional competence" is twice as important to success. One thing I recall from past reading is that in most areas, there is no additional advantage to having an IQ over 120 or so. In certain areas, those with very high IQs are less likely to succeed.

As a very specific example, I assert that the ability to do mathematical type IQ test questions and the ability to do wordy type IQ test questions are distinct abilities (even though there is some correlation between them). This is related to the (hopefully obvious) fact that mathematical abilities and linguistic abilities are not the same thing. Both of these are types of intelligence which a general intelligence test can only give a partial information (due to it being correlated with them both). The only argument about this would be a semantic one. I have very little interest in semantics, only in truth.

Good thinking man!

I don't object to that the ability to do mathemathical or wordy IQ test questions are distinct abilities. I agree that separate measures of these abilities give a more nuanced description of an individual's performance, and as you point out, this is what the WAIS-tests do. They give an overall IQ score, but also scores for subscales. This is of course a much better tool for understanding a person's level of functioning and needs than a progressive matrixes-type of test, which only tests a subset of intellectual abilities.

What I disagree about is to call these mathemathic or verbal abilities intelligences, because I see them as abilities for which intelligence is an important factor, but not the only important factor. So I suppose we really agree on most of the things we have discussed except for the semantics.

I find the concept of a one-dimensional factor explaining a large portion of the variation in different intellectual abilities intriguing. I'm inclined to reserve the word intelligence for this factor and use the word ability for the separate intellectual abilities.

As for relation between chess and IQ, I think high IQ may be helpful for playing chess. Not because of the high IQ in itself, but because individuals with high IQ often have a high performance on relevant intellectual abilities. But I think other factors than IQ are far more important, as in most areas of life.

Yes, it appears to be an essentially semantic disagreement. I am much more comfortable with the concept of intelligence being a multidimensional thing, many people are not. While I thought of g as no more than a correlation between many measurably cognitive abilities, the extraordinary claim I have read that it is 0.85 genetic would be a clear indication that it is associated with a physiological factor (or factors). [this claim is not well referenced in the article, and may be suspect]

The correlation between IQ and earnings has been measured as 0.33 and the correlation between years of education and earnings, 0.35. A large part of the variation in income due to IQ can be explained by the fact that people with higher IQs study longer. More importantly, about 2/3 of success is not explained by IQ (or education, for that matter).

I recall reading a long while back that a study showed that very high IQs (>150) do not predict higher success than quite high IQs (c. 120) in business. I would suspect that because of the nature of IQ tests, higher IQs might be more indicative of success in subjects such as mathematics (my original subject) and even professional chess.

A good example of where the semantic idea of a unique "intelligence" fails is savant syndrome. Individuals can have extraordinary abilities in specialised areas, be very weak in others, and score very low on IQ tests. I would not say they were unintelligent, but that they were intelligent in some ways and not in others.

That was clearly a little joke at the expense of mathematicians.

A part of the questions do, yes, yourè right..

OK Baby you're Right! You do whatever you feel good about.. I understand..

Emotional Intelligence is a big part of success in life. While a high IQ will certainly help you, having a high level of emotional intelligence will move you forward further in life.

The picture was great though... a burning house and the dark lord on his... terror horse

Oh Babe I have such a temper...Im sorry !!!! Its that woman thing..NO COMMENTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY !!

SO LETS KISS AND MAKE UP !!!

JEAN !

http://www.amazon.com/Test-Your-Chess-IQ-Challenge/dp/1857441397

this is a book TEST YOUR CHESS IQ on amazon.com

This is from a google search. I found it in a search

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=iq+and+chess+2011

we are viral lol............

YOUR IQ compared to" World Chess Champion" Garry Kasparov ...

Hilarious!

And by reposting it, you raised its relevance score even further!

It's possible he screwed with the site code to make it do that.

Would Erik do that?

If intelligence follows the 'normal' distribution (mean 100, standard deviation 15), then how many really bright people would there be? The mathematical/statistical implications would be as follows:

16% above 115
2.3% above 130
0.13% above 145
0.003% above 160

where did your tests put you?

i got 1/10

'There appears to be a hierarchy of abilities and traits in those of high intelligence as follows, suggesting an order for teaching intelligence.'

IQ 185, High natural neuro-kinesthetic control; high curiosity drive; anti trivia; in a hurry
IQ 180, New creation
IQ 175, Knows intelligent (and right!)
IQ 165, Formalisation; beginnings of self confidence; less hiding
IQ 160, Interest in logic; paranoia; minor creation; recognises good work; art; music
IQ 150, Trivial formalisation
IQ 145, Below this level and often above is everywhere found a slavery to conditioning