>>10970348>Isn't much of intelligence practiced in the first place?Consider the concept of a ceiling on ability to comprehend abstract concepts. The height of this hypothetical ceiling is based on your brain's organization at a given point in time.
>Why is practice not considered valid for IQ Tests?Actually, practice is exactly what IQ tests measure.
They were originally designed to identify developmentally stunted individuals. That's it. The idea is that if, by a certain time, you've failed to recognize something that's obvious to others, we may infer that you are simply unable to realize it. For example, if you haven't figured out by age 10 that the square peg doesn't go in the round hole, you're probably retarded.
This thinking has limitations. If you have never practiced the thinking being tested, the test can't accurately evaluate your intelligence. Trying to draw inferences from the results of anything but the most basic tests is where the pseudoscience begins.
Without developmental time, achievement tests are meaningless. If you want to measure innate physical height, you first have to give them a chance to grow up. If you want to measure who's the fastest, you have to let them all train their speed first, or you're not even trying to measure the ceiling. But then once you involve training, you introduce a slew of confounding variables, and it's unclear which ones you should control for.
