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. 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.

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? 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? 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.

On the Malleability of Intelligence

The question of whether intelligence is malleable is a complex one. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

@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"
}