Quote:
I just can't believe the IQ tests are that accurate. First off, wouldn't you just naturally get a bit better at taking them if you did so constantly? Of course that could be factored out as a normal improvement but I doubt they do. Second, question difficulty must vary from test to test - just the somewhat random stuff you happen to know vs. don't know and random puzzle you just "get" versus "don't get" must fluctuate the score considerably. Of course I know little about modern IQ tests.
IQ tests are purely a measure of cognitive processing power. I won't defend them as being especially credible or meaningful, but a general rule for IQ tests are that any item which requires any [substantial] specific knowledge is invalid. The focus is on one's ability to solve problems and arrive at conclusions. In reality, creativity and effort tend to be greater predictors of success. A high IQ says little about your intelligence or your value, just your potential, and believe me, there are no end to the intelligent wastes of potential that score well on IQ tests, just as there is no shortage of low to moderately intelligent folks who lead very productive, healthy lives.
IQ tests aren't supposed to be considered reliable predictors of success or intelligence. They're correlative at best. A person with a high IQ is "more likely." Throughout history, some of the most revered brilliant minds have been recognized for their intellectual peaks, not their intellectual norms. Even a total numbskull can have one or many moments of inspiration that will be worthy of acclaim.