Isn't there an ongoing debate whether or not IQ actually correlates with intelligence though? A skeptic could say that education focuses on mastering test-taking, so would naturally lead to increased test scores.
IQ scores tend to correlate with IQ scores...whether you think they are representative of a holistic intelligence is somewhat up to you.
These researchers looked at studies of cognition specifically, and did very little to control for the variety of measures of cognition that are out there or their disciplinary or general context from what I can tell.
From what I’ve seen the only people that think that don’t have any idea what (most) IQ tests are like. People seem to think they’re like the ACT, with questions that you read and can be taught. Instead you’re just completing patterns of symbols.
It’s yet another scientific facet of our lives that’s been politicized.
What? No. There are many kinds of IQ tests. Some require you to complete patterns of symbols. Most do have a verbal logic and purely verbal dimension, which is sometimes worth just as much as completing patterns.
You're right, I was too absolute in how I worded that. That said, I believe most widely used tests at least have a nonverbal portion. It's kind of a shame that we lump all IQ tests together; it's probably pretty easy for researchers to confirm their biases by using an inappropriate test.
"Intelligence" is a somewhat nebulous term and people can disagree on what counts as intelligence. IQ measures something that is important for both education and life outcomes, though.
There's no such thing as 'innate' intelligence in the sense of not changing over time. Trivially, your IQ is benchmarked against a norm of people your own age, with the absolute value of correct results changing considerably with age (typically rising steadily until ~25 before declining). There are also techniques like the dual n-back that show at least short term changes to IQ tests.
But brains are plastic and ever changing, learning new skills strengths connections and forms real physical changes in the structure of the brain. For example someone could start out with terrible visual spatial skills, but through practice their brain adapts to improve so that it does not need to constantly keep expending do much energy on a task it regularly encounters.
There is no reason to believe that regions of the brain often tested in IQ tests can't develop overtime increasing ones score. Sure it almost never happens since most people never engage in activities that would strengthen it, but it's silly to think it can't.
Innate intelligence assumes the brain is static and cannot change, which has been proven to be false.
> innate intelligence: something that does not change over time or by learning
Isn't it a contradictory definition? If someone is intelligent then it will learn to improve on a test, otherwise, it's not intelligent. Maybe we should take the gradient of the IQ scores.
