Disappointing IQ score

[Jake Howeth]

Hello all,

I'm thinking back to my IQ tests results of 2 years ago (administered
by a local psychologist) and its really making me feel a little sad.
IQ 98 on the (verbal IQ was way above average, non-verbal was way
below) WAIS (I'm 20). Also, was also diagnoses with ADD last year. I
realize that IQ isn't "everything", and success isn't all about IQ.
It's just... I get this feeling like I'm not ever going to do anything
useful unless I become smarter. If this situation is out of my
control, it makes sense to put it out of my mind. But I can't help
dwelling on the topic sometimes. I realize how important intelligence
in all aspects of life, and of all the things I just wish I could be
smarter. (Also, I'm aware that an IQ of 98 is in the average range,
but who wants to be average? Or who wants to be 2 points below the 100
IQ norm?)

Maybe I'll see some results with dual n-back. Also, I run 3-4 miles
most days (and occasionally HIIT). I generally eat mainly fruits and
veggies, avoid grains, and I also enjoy 2-3 tbs coconut oil a day.

BTW: Some background: Second year of college at a junior college,
first year I basically lost motivation to continue taking courses and
my GPA dropped so much I was put on academic probation. Currently
pursuing an anthropology major at a local junior college...)

Am I making too big of a deal out of this situation / paying too much
attention to a number? I do not think IQ is fixed, but it seems rather
difficult to change, and this observation pisses me off. I hate being
stupid. Of all the things to change in this world, I hope one day this
disease is eradicated through something like biotech / nanotech /
Friendly AI. Superintelligence FTW.

/rant

[UOchris1]

You are completely in line to feel the way you do. After all, what is
the point of all one's hard work if you see little to no results. The
most important thing is that you now know that you have an area to
improve upon. Remember, most people ARE average and have convinced
themselves otherwise--they never grow.

Have you heard of the Flynn effect?--the IQ of the population as a
whole has increased significantly over time (its something like the
new IQ of 100 is the old 115). It is speculated that the increasing
demands of the modern world have caused this increase. I interpret
the effect like this; if you want your brain to adapt, you have to
create an optimum environment for its growth. You have to push it.
If you want to be better than the next man, you have to push harder
than that man. If he is more talented you, than you better work 5x
harder. For example, if you want muscles, just hitting the gym isn't
enough--you have to push. People work out for years and their body
never changes. You can't better at running by jogging. Its the same
with brain, you have to push it and target exactly what you are trying
to improve upon. Brainworkshop trains short term working memory
(STM) and the neural networks that it relies on. STM and those
networks cross into many areas of mental fitness, just as having
cardiovascular endurance branches into many areas of athletic
fitness. Train and set a goal. Set it high. Start with, say level 6
with and aim for a perfect score 3 times in a row. Train as hard as
you can for as long as it takes and then take the IQ test again--prove
it to yourself and inspire someone. Get motivated. There is a way
out!

That's my advice. Let us know how it goes.

-Chris

[Colin Dickerman]

Normal is plenty. Don't worry too much about it.

On Jun 23, 10:31 pm, Jake Howeth <jakehow...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Pontus Granström]

I did pretty poorly on my first IQ-test just ~1SD above average, three months later due to the fact that I git used to the test situation my IQ-score on a 18 subtest battery improved with over 20 points and I scored as high as 4SD above average.
Moral of the story? Don't give up and start thinking to negatively about yourself. If you do n-backing and you take another test  you will probably improve 20-25 points.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.

[K Smith]

Try taking 100-150mgs of l-theanine. Suntheanine is the best and most pure brand.

L-theanine is an amino acid extracted from green tea. It works by inducing alpha brainwaves in the brain.

I would also recommend brainwave entrainment, using alpha wave entrainment recordings and intense exercise.

[K Smith]

Also Omega 3's....

http://www.basic-keys-to-natural-health.com/l-theanine.html

[likeprestige]

"Remember, most people ARE average and have convinced
themselves otherwise--they never grow. "

The latter part "and have convinced themselves", I think is for the
most part true when it doesn't have to be if your given 'average'
opportunities, because opportunities for the average person these
days, at least in the western populated regions has grown quite
exponentially, especially in Australia. Similar to your artifact
regarding the Flynn effect.

[milestones]

On Jun 24, 2:31 pm, Jake Howeth <jakehow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm thinking back to my IQ tests results of 2 years ago (administered
> by a local psychologist) and its really making me feel a little sad.
> IQ 98 on the (verbal IQ was way above average, non-verbal was way
> below) WAIS (I'm 20).

I'll point out the obvious here. A sizable verbal non verbal split of
2 sd's (30 points on the WAIS) or more shouldn't be averaged to
determine an IQ score.The psychologist who tested you should have
informed you of that. Without knowing your scores it's hard to say
more than that....but still the test results should be diagnostically
helpful to you. They do reflect deficits that you may be able to
rectify with cognitive training such as dual n back and other
interventions. Your verbal score is a very good indicator of
intelligence by itself, but obviously if you're not performing well in
WM, processing speed, and non verbal reasoning, your academic and/or
other types of brain intensive performance will suffer and you will be
functioning well below what you are theoretically capable of. Bottom
line: don't get hung up on one result on a test, but use the results
to shore up your weak areas. Your verbal intelligence is a good
benchmark of what you're capable of intellectually but it's nowhere
near enough to rely on by itself. Again, though, don't
despair...training will most likely help you out quite a bit.

>Also, was also diagnoses with ADD last year.

That's important information and would explain some (or most) of your
deficits. Have you been doing DNB at all yet?

> realize that IQ isn't "everything", and success isn't all about IQ.

I'd say this. Your goal best not be to increase your IQ but rather to
work on improving your cognitive performance. If/when that happens,
you'll see that you're not at an average IQ -- though it is true you
may now be functioning at that level due to your ADD or other issues.
There are ritalin-adderall-dependent people out there with large
swings in their cognitive functioning. A strong underpinning of
executive function is critical though for your own self esteem and
functioning in the world. This can be improved, so you're not out of
luck..That said, the onus is really on you to make sure to push up
your functioning as high as you can get it to match your theoretical
potential. Only then will you see your verbal abilities manifest in
the way they're meant to.

> dwelling on the topic sometimes. I realize how important intelligence
> in all aspects of life, and of all the things I just wish I could be
> smarter. (Also, I'm aware that an IQ of 98 is in the average range,
> but who wants to be average? Or who wants to be 2 points below the 100
> IQ norm?)

Again, I'd offer that your goal would be better served if you were to
get your cognitive functioning to support your abstract verbal
reasoning, crystallized intelligence rather than to become more
intelligent, per se. In effect, you will become more seemingly
intelligent to others and youself by improving your WM, which will
facilitate the link of applying what you know (crystallized
intelligence) to solution-based thinking (fluid intelligence/inductive
reasoning).

> Maybe I'll see some results with dual n-back.

Why not. I would also either do a before and after on a good online
test OR just retake the WAIS after rigorous training with N back or
other training. You have work ahead of you but I'd say it's worth
doing in your case.

[jttoto2]

Do you remember what components of verbal IQ you scored high in, and
the test you took? I ask this because the Weschler's verbal (or
crystallized section) has a lot of things most would consider fluid,
such as reasoning and WM related questions. A spatial WM and mental
rotation deficit can underscore your fluid section's measure of
reasoning, and may not reflect your actual ability. How is your SAT
score? I suspect that, judging by your high verbal IQ, it is above
average.

[whoisbambam]

welcome to the club.

:)

If you think my aptitude is even NEAR many participants in this forum,
you are gravely mistaken.

I wont mention names cause invariably i will miss a name.

In my opinion.........

1.brainworkshop can help you improve your working memory, a component
of fluid intelligence, and related to IQ. This can be a life-long
effect after 6months of rigorous training, then maintenance training
twice a week perhaps.

2. you may benefit from creatine--i heard something about it helping
ppl that dont each larger amounts of protein sources. in other words,
it may help your iq.

3. addressing your ADD may improve your IQ because you are less
distracted and able to focus on things 'longer' in order to get to the
solution.


Improving your crystallized knowledge base may improve your IQ--
consider learning the words in wordsmart I, wordsmart II, etc, and
learn to use them in sentences, and perhaps import the data into anki
for repetition until it is firmly seated in your memory.

others here may have more suggestions.

I personally feel it is possible to increase an IQ by about 10points.
Each case is different, but dont be surprised if this is where the
difficulty really comes forth......

[whoisbambam]

i take l-theanine, 200mg, along with 1000mg valerian root in order to
try to get some sleep since i work night shift.

here i am, awake. grrrrrr.

I will be adding kava kava root, but i heard it may cause liver
damage. i dunno.

i am not sure if l-theanine does anything cognitively, but i take it
with eegc (or whatever that grean tea stuff is), as when taken
together it is supposed to boost the immune system--at least there was
one study indicating this.

On Jun 24, 3:16 am, K Smith <defc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try taking 100-150mgs of l-theanine. Suntheanine is the best and most pure
> brand.
>
> L-theanine is an amino acid extracted from green tea. It works by inducing
> alpha brainwaves in the brain.
>
> I would also recommend brainwave entrainment, using alpha wave entrainment
> recordings and intense exercise.
>

[Addictive Angler]

@Jake 

The first thing I can tell from you writing is you need confidence in yourself - 1 test is completely arbitrary as numerous factors can contribute to a result (mainly set and setting). The biggest part of success is belief, not to be too holistic, but if you can see yourself getting use of n-back, you will, your dedication to the task will improve all your facilities and you life in general. If you believe your success is hindered because of a test, then it is. Apathy will take its toll. 

nback, and do it to a schedule, keep practicing, even if you don't move up in 1 month, do not get discouraged, think of it like training your body... You can workout for one week and see no result. The muscle's in your body need to adapt, stretch, relax, build mass, etc. Your brain is another muscle. 

[whoisbambam]

yeah, i didnt move up a level for MONTHS of regular training.

but i still dont think it is too feasible to truly improve the
inherent IQ as it is frequently measured in the USA by more than 10.

his case may warrant a higher score in particular as some of the tests
are vocabulary-laden, so crystallized knowledge can compensate for
that somewhat more.

it may not have been a true IQ assessment given this detail.



On Jun 24, 12:14 pm, Addictive Angler <addictiveang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> @Jake
> The first thing I can tell from you writing is you need confidence in
> yourself - 1 test is completely arbitrary as numerous factors can contribute
> to a result (mainly set and setting). The biggest part of success is belief,
> not to be too holistic, but if you can see yourself getting use of n-back,
> you will, your dedication to the task will improve all your facilities and
> you life in general. If you believe your success is hindered because of a
> test, then it is. Apathy will take its toll.
>
> nback, and do it to a schedule, keep practicing, even if you don't move up
> in 1 month, do not get discouraged, think of it like training your body...
> You can workout for one week and see no result. The muscle's in your body
> need to adapt, stretch, relax, build mass, etc. Your brain is another
> muscle.
>

[PadawanRay]

Hei Jake,

First of all you have to know that stress releases hormones(cortisol?)
that negatively affects cognitive performance. I have this experience
first-hand during a period of depression. Bad memory, prone to anger,
low motivation, difficulty concentrating etc. Feeling good about
oneself and avoiding stress is vital for self-improvement.

Don't let an IQ test/GPA/people's opinion dictate what you are. They
are merely a reference to improve upon. The thing is there are a lot
of things to do improve cognition. DNB is the one with the research on
transfer to general intelligence, although not everyone that trained
benefited(anecdotal). Still if you trained yourself to memorize a deck
of cards under 1 minute, add up 10 3-digit numbers in 5 seconds,
meditate to fall into trance within 3 minutes, solve a 3x3x3 rubik's
cube under 30 seconds, reach a high level of various N-Back modes,
fluent in several languages etc...you would be a lot smarter than the
average person even if some of these skills are largely task specific
skills. Brain training is mostly an experiment on oneself. One may
find learning certain mental skills greatly improves mental acuity,
some with no effect at all, or all may be contributing with subtle
effects.

By the way are you a vegetarian? Vegetarians are usually low in B12(a
water soluble vitamin with a key role in the normal functioning of the
brain and nervous system), in which supplementing will improve general
wellness. If not eating a few whole eggs now and then would suffice.
Also try out cod liver oil which in my opinion is one of the best
nutrition for the brain and body. The cheapest I've found is the
Twinlab brand from Vitacost which has a relatively high EPA and DHA.

[Jake Howeth]

Wow. I did not expect so many responses already. Thank you everyone
for the inspirational words!

Padawan - I'm omnivorous. I think vegetarians and vegans have the
right ethical considerations in mind, but I haven't found a way to
make a vegetarian practical and nutritional enough to work for me so
far. Also, I do eat a few eggs just about every day, in spite of the
claim that dietary cholesterol significantly increases the likelihood
of high serum cholesterol.

milestones - "A sizable verbal non verbal split of

2 sd's (30 points on the WAIS) or more shouldn't be averaged to
determine an IQ score."

She did in fact inform me of that (probably should've mentioned), but
I think I needed that reminder. :)

For the record, I did about 20 sessions of dual n-back every for a
couple weeks of last year and sort of got bored / lost interest in it
(predictable), but I have renewed motivation to start back up again.

jtotto2 - Unfortunately I don't remember; the results are somewhere
filed away.

To summarize some advice from your comments:

1. Confidence, believe in self, be proactive, aim high; test results
are references, not limits (obvious but worth re-iterating)
2. Avoid depression / stress, growth mindset, challenging environment,
Flynn effect
3. Dual n-back. Going to aim for 20 minutes per day daily. Spare time
---> dual n-back.
4. EPA / DHA / omega 3s
5. Continue exercising

[Millicent Bliesener]

Regardless of your IQ, your LIFE is what you make of it. I have a
good friend whose IQ is about 30-40 points below mine. For that
matter, she also has muscular dystrophy and has used a wheelchair
since she was 5. However, she has strengths I don't. She is highly
disciplined, endlessly patient, incredibly sweet and very wise. She
never got a grade less than an A, and gave valedictorian addresses at
her junior high, high school, junior college, four-year college, and
grad school commencements. After being a speech pathologist for a few
years, she recareered into being a director for a social service
agency.

I, on the other hand, am disorganized, I procrastinate, I don't
complete tasks I need to do and I should never talk to people if I'm
tired or frustrated. Because I can slip up and say snippy stuff I
regret, especially if they're being miserably stupid. :-( Talk about
self-sabotage. I find these deficits annoying and even a bit
frightening, despite that I can score really well on an IQ test.
Suffice it to day that my friend's career has gone better than mine
has.

With that in mind, 98 is not a "stupid" score, it's average. There's
nothing wrong with wanting to increase your IQ, but don't forget your
other strengths.

Millicent

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
>
>

--
If spider webs unite, they can tie up a lion.
- Ethiopian proverb

http//:10-Cent-Lifestyle.blogspot.com
https://millicentb.scentsy.us/Home

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

Jake

I have a similar situation. It could be ADD related, but you should
look into autism and also non-verbal learning disorder. Those
diagnoses explain my particular situation. You can take a diagnostic
for autism here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

my PIQ was 0 SD and my VIQ was 4SD. It is due to a poor working
memory. i believe my PIQ fell in a range of 94-100. Yet most people I
talk to say that I am one of the most intelligent people they have
ever met. Above posters have a point about VIQ being a crucial
component of intellect. Do not be down on yourself, high VIQ confers
substantial benefits.

Secondly, DNB training has caused marked shifts in my cognition. I
pair it with musical training to amplify the results. I think these
help to shore up PIQ, as well as studying math and learning to
perceive patterns.

Also, milestones, my psychologist gave me a 135 score (100 viq 155
piq). This must have to do with what you said about not averaging
scores, right? I have always wondered about that.

[milestones]

On Jun 26, 6:23 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Also, milestones, my psychologist gave me a 135 score (100 viq 155
> piq). This must have to do with what you said about not averaging
> scores, right?  I have always wondered about that.

Your 135 is an average -- that is, a sort of weighted average
according to the four indices. My point was that averaging a score 4
sd's apart -- even 2 -- isn't going to give an accurate picture so
this averaged score isn't meaningful, though it might be indicative of
some attention problem or LD that in many cases can be remedied with
cognitive training.

[Mike]

Jake, I just want to emphasize the 2 previous posts, above me, they might apply to you. and yes you should give dnb a try, regardless.

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

Milestones, you are suggesting the average is inaccurate because the
discrepancy is fixable with training? Hence you think that the
average, in my case of 135, is probably lower than the "true" score?

[milestones]

On Jun 27, 9:40 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Milestones, you are suggesting the average is inaccurate because the
> discrepancy is fixable with training? Hence you think that the
> average, in my case of 135, is probably lower than the "true" score?

No, not becuase it's fixable with training but because a large split
like that usually indicates some sort of processing deficit which
means the full scale score needs to be interpreted cautiously
(according to the WISC/WAIS manuals). I've not taken the test but have
read through the scoring manuals at bookstores -- (I am not a shrink
nor am I any sort of authority on this!). Index scores considered
normal should be within one standard deviation of the others. 2 SD
split is considered abnormal. In the gifted range, however,
discrepancies become more "normal" usually in the favor of verbal
(especially among the highly educated). In your case, you already have
a full-scale score that is in the highest range of "very superior" so
there's not much to concern yourself with as far as your full scale
score goes. However, improving your non verbal IQ as you've done, will
have you functioning much closer to your verbal score...my guess is
that if you retook the test your verbal score would stay close to what
it was and your non verbal would be significantly higher...thus your
IQ would be more at around 99.9%ile. But, that's speculation. Taking
non-verbal tests online should give you a rough idea where you are now
though in terms of non verbal.

[Pontus Granström]

Doesn't the range of variance depend on the g-load? I have never heard about a verbal/nonverbal split, when I get my score they extract g-variance from every sub test and then add the factor points
to a sum that is compared with the group/norm group taking the test. If I am not mistaking arithmetic is consider verbal and arithmetic has the highest g-load hence it's more indicative of your
mental ability. Actually the verbal sub tests seem to load higher in G than many nonverbal tests.

"Vernon's (Intelligence, 7, 53–70, 1983) data were re-analyzed in an attempt to determine the relation between spatial and verbal abilities when g is statistically controlled. Partial correlations were calculated among and between scores on tests of spatial ability (WAIS Block Design and Object Assembly) and of verbal ability (WAIS Vocabulary and Information), with scores on highly g-loaded tests (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and WAIS Arithmetic) removed. Results show that partial correlations among spatial tests and among verbal tests remain positive, but that partial correlations between spatial and verbal tests fall almost exactly to zero. These results disconfirm Lynn's (Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 813–844, 1987) hypothesis of a negative correlation between spatial and verbal abilities, when g is controlled."

[milestones]

On Jun 27, 3:50 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't the range of variance depend on the g-load?

Not that I am aware of -- at least when calculating a full scall
score. The 4 indices are: VCI, PSI, WMI, PRI. From what I understand
the G loading of each subtest index does not contribute to the full
scale score in a greater way than any other. The aim of a battery test
like the WAIS is to get to G, which is easy to do with the majority of
the population...but in a small percentage of cases impairments (or
freakish abilites) in S will give results that make an assessment of G
difficult.The benefit of the WAIS though is to use it as a diagnostic
test to reveal learning disabilities or ADD or even mental illness --
even if the measurement of G itself isn't interpretable at the time of
the test because of scatter of the subtests. In other words, the G
loading of each subtest matters far less than cumulative G of the
entire test -- which is the highest in existence. When one has extreme
scatter in scores, however, the theory behind the WAIS is undermined
because S is getting the way. There are other ways to get to G other
than through IQ (such as elementary cognitive tasks) which is why this
S factor-free method has been studied by differential psychologists
for so long as a viable supplement or alternative to
IQ.

[ao]

This doesn't get to the more pertinent issue regarding composite
scores versus pseudo-composite, arithmetically averaged scores.

Let's use a simple example to convey the larger statistical point:

There are two subtests, X & Y, on Test A. (Let's say its a test of
physical features: X is a subtest for strength and Y is a subtest for
endurance.) One individual scores average on both tests; their
composite score is average both in terms of the real and the pseudo-
composite. Then another individual takes the test: they score exactly
2SD above the mean on _both_ subtests; therefore, their real composite
score, since scoring highly on _two different subtests_ is more rare
than scoring highly on just one subtest, is _greater than_ 2SD above
the mean. One must also take into account correlation coefficients
among the subtests in order to compute real composite scores
accurately.

That is, the second individual in the above example demonstrates a
very simple statistical fact: it is more rare to be extreme on
multiple different dimensions than it is to be extreme on just one
dimension. It would be rare for someone to be extremely strong or just
extremely hardy, but it would be twice exceptional for someone to be
both extremely strong as well as robust.

This is essentially why one cannot compute a pseudo-composite score
using a simple arithmetical average. It has nothing to do with
supposed discrepancies in the measurement of g. In fact, this latter
claim isn't entirely accurate (pardon me if this isn't exactly what is
being conveyed here, but it is worth iterating), because a test
battery should not be considered inaccurate simply because a
psychometric profile diverges on a number of different scales. These
differences are fundamentally explained by g; they do not put g into
any doubt at all. Furthermore, as you've pointed out milestones,
idiosyncrasies in the profiles can be used to diagnose certain
disabilities, such as non-verbal learning disorder, ADD, etc. and
serve a useful end in determining the precise capabilities of the
examinee.

Hence, this has nothing to do with the "gifted range" at all but is
the simple relationship of statistical phenomena with interrelating
multiple dimensions being taken into account.

On an entirely unrelated note, mere anecdote should not be considered
a valid indicator of allegedly improved psychometric ability. Pre-test
and post-test results should be forthcoming from those who are
confident in their capabilities. However, it should be added that
improvement on the performance scale is far more common upon re-test
than on the verbal scale (WAIS-III); thus, absent any training, an
improved score therein wouldn't be surprising due to task familiarity.

argumzio

[Pontus Granström]

This is basic statistics. If two traits are independent the chance of them both occuring is P(A)*P(B) no matter if they are 2SD above average or not. If you are average in test A and average in test B the total amount of
people getting two average scores is 0.25. If all IQ subtests were independent on WAIS, then 0.5^11 ~ 1/25000 would get an average score on each sub test. Since this is not the case there must be some common factor, the "g-factor".
The verbal sub tests are more g-loaded than the nonverbal. If you score 2SD above average then you must have at least 2SD*g-load above average in "IQ". But as milestones points out, this might be due to deficiencies. For example
it's well known that people with dyscalculia can score average or above on matrix reasoning but score at the bottom 1.5-2SD in number series despite them being equally g-loaded or tapping reasoning to the same extent. Actually
number series is considered a purer reasoning task than matrices due to the spatial demands etc. If you would average a stanine 1 with a stanine of 7, this would not tell the truth about this persons intelligence level, in fact
both number series or matrices can independently assess this, since their g-load is equal but their medium is different (hence revealing areas where it can be hard to reason, in this case doing mathematical reasoning).

[milestones]

My post was really about standard ways of interpreting the scores, not
so much about the statistical dervation of the score itself, which ao
did a great job in clarifying. My point is that while scores are
scores no matter what they are, in some cases how the score is
interpreted is often more important than the overall score itself,
which may or may not be meaningful (depending on the issues of the
person being tested).

A fictional case study may be instructive.

http://www.psychcorp.co.uk/Psychology/AdultCognitionNeuropsychologyandLanguage/AdultGeneralAbilities/WAIS-IVWMS-IVUKScoringSoftwareandReportWriter/PDFReports/Sample.pdf

Here is one example from the summary, which uses cautious language in
interpreting the score;

"John is a 45-year-old white male who completed the WAIS–IV.His motor
difficulty may have impeded
his performance on the nonverbal tasks, and thus his verbal abilities
may be the best
estimate of John’s overall intellectual functioning..."

Regarding the "G" loading of the test, there is also the GAI (the
General Ability Index) on the WAIS 4, which will give a more accurate
indication of someone's general ability independent of WMI and PSI:

"The GAI is an optional composite summary score that is less sensitive
to the influence of working memory and processing
speed. Because working memory and processing speed are vital to a
comprehensive evaluation of cognitive ability, it should be
noted that the GAI does not have the breadth of construct coverage as
the FSIQ."

This index really solves the question of what Pontus brought up
because the WMI and PSI have a lower G loading than VCI and PRI. I do
think performance on WMI and PSI are trainable -- not in a task
specific way -- but rather that improvement in attention itself will
improve scores on these measures (in varying degrees). However, that
is not to say G is being improved but just that improved attention is
allowing for more accurate thinking. (Interestingly enough, meditation
studies have found that accuracy in processing is improved by
vigilance training but that speed itself is not improved in the
inspection time task, which has shown to have high correlation with
processing speed measures). As ao mentioned, however, there is a
fairly large test retest effect for these indices (about 7-8 points),
especially if the testing dates are close together. So all this is to
say that vigilance training -- DNB, meditation -- may be a great
benefit to people with a cognitive profile like the OP and others
here. -- A seemingly more uncommon profile are those high in PSI and
WM but low in VCI and PRI, especially when it comes to large
divergences in scores between indices. Such profiles will then require
investigation as to why such a person is not picking up general
information (vocabulary/facts) from their environment.

[Pontus Granström]

This of course brings up an interesting question. What objectively determines the quality of an IQ-test? Sure, WAIS has it's set of evaluations that might be useful and motivated, but how do we really
know what we measure?

--

[ao]

Traditionally, one cannot know the quality of a test before it has
been lodged at human skulls. There are such things as "McDonald's
Omega", "Chronbach's alpha", and "Revelle's beta" to name the more
major means of determining this based on a collection of data (with
multiple tests).

A stepping stone to more: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/jtemplin/files/testtheory/psyc892s07/psyc892s07_11.pdf

argumzio

On Jun 28, 7:23 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This of course brings up an interesting question. What objectively
> determines the quality of an IQ-test? Sure, WAIS has it's set of evaluations
> that might be useful and motivated, but how do we really
> know what we measure?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:08 AM, milestones <wgweathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My post was really about standard ways of interpreting the scores, not
> > so much about the statistical dervation of the score itself, which ao
> > did a great job in clarifying. My point is that while scores are
> > scores no matter what they are, in some cases how the score is
> > interpreted is often more important than the overall score itself,
> > which may or may not be meaningful (depending on the issues of the
> > person being tested).
>
> > A fictional case study may be instructive.
>

> >http://www.psychcorp.co.uk/Psychology/AdultCognitionNeuropsychologyan...

[Fadli Nugraha]

Hello everyone! It's nice to see other fellow average joes :D

To be honest, I lived through this stereotypes. Although my IQ is 124, I am never satisfied and always jealous (if u know what i mean). One time, when I was still in the highschool, I had that friend whose IQ was high, that smart ba*tard. I hated him so much. Why would anyone spent 1 full week day and night studying calculus to get A while someone can ignorantly procrastinate to do his homework but still get a chance to get A. Yeah, that 'someone' was my friend, that smart ba*tard. Phew. It's so relaxing now that I am graduated. So I can get away from that creep. Hover over,it's so relaxing too, knowing that IQ can be improved . :D

So greetings to you nice people ;)
We should create a Mensa-like-group but for averages. It discusses about mental improving method. I'm just saying though