But that discussion ultimately boils down to what intelligence really is... You either subscribe to the believe that it's essentially something you're born with or something that can be improved by training.
IQ tests fundamentally cannot measure for the former definition, but I does a decent job for the latter.
As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondents to practise the type of question and answer faster and more accurately. Obviously this would produce an inaccurate result, over-estimating the intelligence of the individual.
To draw parallels with the SAT, I see evidence that repeated attempts reveal gaps in one’s knowledge and skill, and these are prerequisites for the test. This permits the individual to study those areas and practise the kinds of skills required to improve their score. Given this, we should acknowledge that the SAT is not a perfect analogue for IQ tests, but in aggregate, they do yield striking correlation. To tie this to my premise above, it is highly likely that the average Harvard student has an above-average IQ.
And I think we've gotten quiet far from the context their statement was made in.
The premise was that intelligence increases self control/delayed gratification. From this, we've extrapolated that havard students will have on average a higher self control, because they've had the the privilege of a much better education, which caused their IQ scores to be quiet high.
Personally, I'd agree that this extrapolation is flawed, because both factors are only correlated with no causal link.
I provided a study which shows high correlation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I don’t agree with your summary of the premise. It doesn’t follow that more training means higher IQ scores, but I acknowledge it could mean higher SAT scores for individuals. Just not in aggregate.
But I guess you're too far gone into narcissism to understand how dumb this has gotten.
Let me give you an example:
Swiss cheese has holes, by studying its properties you can find a correlation between the size of the cheese and the total volume of holes.
You do another study and find that as you increase the size of the holes the cheese, you're left with less grams of cheese.
by your logic, which extrapolates between these two unrelated studies finding different correlations, you can confidently state this:
more cheese correlates with more holes
more holes correlates with less cheese
more cheese == less cheese