I was taught in my psychology 101 class that IQ is supposed to test innate intelligence: something that does not change over time or by learning.
In that context, this study literally is non-sensical.
In that context, this study literally is non-sensical.
In fact that's the conclusion of the study here.
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.
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.