IQ scores are not measures of absolute potential, but conditional performance snapshots. The malleability of intelligence is not infinite, but it is wide enough that preparation, exposure, and cognitive state can radically alter performance within one's personal range according to their upper bound. – Kris Yotam
Initial Remarks
I've been meaning for some time to test my own IQ, but I have not yet gotten around to it. I suppose it is due to my newly heightened interest in lifelogging that pushed me to finally do so. I researched online to find one with free results that was recognized and recommended by others.1 I found the RealIQ Online. After ensuring optimal conditions - well-rested, fed, and in a quiet environment - I achieved a result of "you are smarter than 994 out of 1000 people". This provides a baseline for my current natural performance under normal conditions.2
IQ Performance Boundaries
| Level | Description | Wechsler IQ (SD=15) | Cattell IQ (SD=24) | Percentile | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resting / Natural | Comfortable, unstressed baseline state | 137.8 | 160.4 | 99.4th | Optimal conditions: rested, fed, quiet environment |
| Upper Bound | Fully trained, optimized, deep focus state | ??? | ??? | ??? | Reserved for future testing |
On Measured Intelligence
I do look forward to the long road of studying intelligence and the various aspects of it. The initial confusion for me was what is being measured?3 I've heard so many anecdotes about how IQ cannot be improved, and that it is a fixed trait. This never made sense to me, as nearly any trait can be improved or declined based on several conditions. This also led to me having more concerns such as "how does one create a fair intelligence test?" What test can accurately measure universal intelligence without requiring a specified set of culturally specific knowledge?4 This to my knowledge does not exist. On first thoughts, I suggest you could take any given test and simply swap the units, language, and cultural symbols with equivalents from another culture. Regardless, my initial and largest concern is still the same: what is being measured? And is it malleable? Through reflection on the test format, I came to the conclusion that the test is measuring quite a few things.
Working Memory: Actively doing conversion on a problem while keeping track of the previous steps Fluid Intelligence: The ability to solve novel problems, use logic, and identify patterns without relying on prior knowledge or experience. Processing Speed: The speed at which one can process information and solve problems. Logical Reasoning: The ability to apply logic and reasoning to solve problems, often involving abstract thinking. Pattern Recognition: Identifying patterns and relationships in data, which is a key component of many IQ tests. Attention to Detail: The ability to notice and process small details, which can be crucial in solving complex problems.
On the Malleability of Intelligence
The question of whether intelligence is malleable is a complex one.5 While some aspects of intelligence, such as working memory and processing speed, can be improved through practice and training, others may be more stable over time. The concept of "fluid intelligence" suggests that while we can improve our problem-solving skills and cognitive abilities, there may be an upper limit to how much we can enhance our innate intelligence.6 In layman's terms, intelligence is not a fixed trait, but rather one malleable within a range. In the future, I will be studying and conducting experiments on the malleability of intelligence and the various factors that can influence it. For this post, I'll settle for a simple thought experiment on two options for improving intelligence towards the upper ceiling of one's personal range.
Mere Exposure vs. Deliberate Practice
Two of my initial thoughts on how to improve intelligence were mere exposure and deliberate practice. Mere exposure, sometimes referred to as the "familiarity principle," is a psychological phenomenon where people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them.7 In the context of intelligence, this could mean that simply being exposed to various types of problems, puzzles, and cognitive tasks can help improve one's performance on similar tasks in the future. For example, as a child I exposed myself to thousands of riddles such that practically any deviation of a standard riddle I will usually solve in seconds. This is a form of mere exposure. Had you tested me on riddles before I had this exposure, I would have likely scored lower on sections of the test that involved non-standard phrasing and riddle-like questions. The other option is deliberate practice, which involves focused, repetitive practice on specific skills or tasks with the goal of improving performance.8 For example, rather than leaving sections that deal with working memory or speed of calculation up to chance, you could train yourself rigorously on various types of calculation problems, allowing yourself to increase confidence and speed in these areas. For memory, you could learn mnemonics or simply practice memorizing increasingly complex sequences of numbers or words throughout the year. There was a study done on this by researchers William G. Chase and K. Anders Ericsson in 1981. The article titled Acquisition of a memory skill describes how a college student with no exceptional memory skills was able to improve his digit span from 7 to 79 digits through deliberate practice.9 He did this over a period of only 20 months, and the method he used was converting strings of numbers into running times and race times, as he was a long-distance runner.
Final Remarks
The results from this have been quite interesting. I look forward to taking several more popular, diverse, and difficult tests in the future. I also would like to experiment with the malleability of intelligence on these tests by taking them under vastly different induced states.10 Overall, my knowledge of the subject is still only an iota of what I would like to know. I would further say that no one should take these tests too seriously as a fixed measure of potential, but rather a resting starting point for a specific set of skills that can be increased with better health, nutrition, and exposure to the right stimuli. I hope that this post has been informative, and that you will join me on my journey to learn more about intelligence, its nature, and how we can improve it.
Footnotes
-
The selection of a reliable online IQ test is non-trivial. Many online tests are either too easy, poorly normed, or designed primarily for entertainment rather than accurate assessment. RealIQ was chosen based on community recommendations and its use of Raven's Progressive Matrices-style questions. ↩
-
It's worth noting that "optimal conditions" is itself a variable worth studying. Circadian rhythms, recent sleep quality, blood glucose levels, and even ambient temperature can all affect cognitive performance. Future tests should systematically vary these conditions. ↩
-
This is perhaps the most fundamental question in psychometrics. Charles Spearman proposed the "g factor" (general intelligence) in 1904, suggesting that various cognitive abilities share a common underlying factor. However, Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences challenges this unitary view. ↩
-
The culture-fairness problem in IQ testing has been extensively studied. Raven's Progressive Matrices were specifically designed to minimize cultural bias by using abstract visual patterns rather than verbal or culturally-specific content. However, even these "culture-fair" tests may favor those with experience in formal education and abstract reasoning. ↩
-
The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence research has been ongoing for over a century. Twin studies suggest heritability estimates of 50-80% for IQ, but this doesn't mean intelligence is fixed—it means genetic factors account for a significant portion of the variance in intelligence within a population. ↩
-
The distinction between fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), proposed by Raymond Cattell in 1963, is crucial here. Fluid intelligence—the ability to solve novel problems—tends to peak in early adulthood and decline with age. Crystallized intelligence—accumulated knowledge and skills—can continue to grow throughout life. ↩
-
Robert Zajonc's 1968 paper "Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure" established this principle, though its application to cognitive skill acquisition is an extension of the original theory. The key insight is that familiarity reduces cognitive load, allowing more resources for problem-solving. ↩
-
K. Anders Ericsson's research on deliberate practice, summarized in his 1993 paper "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance," suggests that 10,000 hours of focused practice is a rough threshold for expertise in many domains. However, this figure is often misquoted and the quality of practice matters more than raw quantity. ↩
-
This study is remarkable because it demonstrates that even fundamental cognitive capacities like digit span—long thought to be fixed at around 7±2 items—can be dramatically expanded through the right training methodology. The subject, known as "SF," used his knowledge of running times to chunk digits into meaningful units. ↩
-
Potential variables to test include: sleep deprivation vs. optimal rest, fasted vs. fed states, caffeinated vs. uncaffeinated, after meditation vs. after stress, morning vs. evening, and after physical exercise vs. sedentary. Each of these could reveal how much of measured IQ is truly "innate" versus state-dependent. ↩
Sign in with GitHub to comment
Citation
Cited as:
Yotam, Kris. (Jul 2025). Remarks on Measured Intelligence. krisyotam.com. https://krisyotam.com/blog/intelligence/remarks-on-measured-intelligence
Or
@article{yotam2025remarks-on-measured-intelligence,
title = "Remarks on Measured Intelligence",
author = "Yotam, Kris",
journal = "krisyotam.com",
year = "2025",
month = "Jul",
url = "https://krisyotam.com/blog/intelligence/remarks-on-measured-intelligence"
}