Suggesting that IQ is not set in stone also implies that IQ exists. That they don't claim otherwise, and in fact show structural brain changes in accordance with the measured changes, should be well noted by folks who make a habit of discounting it. It should also be noted that IQ was already thought to be malleable into the teens, so I'm not sure why the researchers were so surprised.
It's not that people deny it exists, or discount it all together - it's just a terrible indicator or measurement of one's capabilities. Measurements should be accountable. A few cups of coffee or a bad sleep shouldn't matter if IQ is as reliable as some like to believe.
Since it is used to judge one's abilities, it's hardly fair to use it as a practical measurement, just as BMI is impractical to use for judging a body builder's fat percentage.
Anecdotally, medication which I take for ADHD/PI doesn't permanently alter my brain's chemistry, yet my IQ takes a noticeable dive without it.
Of course bad sleep will affect your IQ, and it doesn't make it less reliable. Why? You brain is less reliable when you had bad sleep, and IQ is a measurement of its peak performance. If you're not at peak performance any given day, your results will show.
Sure, but what is the upper limit for peak performance for each individual? If you can't use IQ to compare to other people's IQ (because of innumerable variations imposing on peak performance) and you can't use it to compare to your own potential peak performance (because you don't know if you've attained it yet), then how or why is IQ relevant at all?
No one who does well on an IQ test likes to be told an IQ test means very little, keeping in mind that high IQ doesn't determine your success, or guarantee you any specific lifestyle.
IQ is more of a horoscope than it is a method of science.
If one is not able to reach his peak potential, then his own problem and not an IQ measurement deficiency. I'll read the IQ value that you're able to reach, not the value that you might reach potentially if you make an effort.
Being able to reach your peak IQ potential consistently is part of the daily hygiene of eating well, sleeping well, exercising well. And it's also a question of making the effort. If I can't measure it, it means you don't reach it. Or at least not often enough.
On the other hand, I agree that it might be overstated. But having worked with people that don't have the best minds, you start to believe IQ is not just crap.
If you've suffered with a disorder of any kind that effects the brain, make an effort holds no meaning to you, other than possible ignorance.
If I use a measuring tape to record the length of a piece of wood - unless I cut the piece of wood, or damage it in some way - this measurement will always be the same. In the cold, it might shrink and in the heat it may expand - but I can measure those variations and account for them using the basic laws of math. Can you do the same with IQ?
> But having worked with people that don't have the best minds, you start to believe IQ is not just crap.
It's not that I don't believe intelligence varies, I just don't think we have the ability to measure it - yet.
Of course it exists: it is a test that gives a result. Personally I don't find the "structural brain changes" bit not very enlightening. Is it surprising that a brain that performs differently has changed? It would be more surprising if it hadn't changed.
What about those taxi drivers who had enhanced brain regions for geographic knowledge? Kind of the same thing...
