>>13363995this is the only body you get. if you choose to squander it, that is your choice.
IQ is administered by tests. if you practice the skills it is testing, of course you can improve on it. does that mean that you are more intelligent? or just that the number is higher?
I view IQ, in this sense, as a metric of intuition. it's a metric of executive functioning, and problem solving. some people are innately better without training.
some people will very quickly pick up an instrument and understand it, some people need a lot of practice.
if you relearn the math, you'll have a better understanding of math. you will know more than you know now. that doesn't change your innate ability to comprehend abstract concepts.
when i use the words "IQ cannot be changed", i don't mean that you cannot change your test results. i mean that the absolute limit of what your brain is capable of, is fixed.
some people have a higher absolute limit. it would not make sense for the limit to be changeable. that would only imply that what you thought was the previous limit, was wrong.
if you do not know math very well now, yes, learning math better will make you better at math. that is applicable to a lot of things. i'm saying, learn for the sake of learning; improve for the sake of improving.
we are having a problem of communication here. i keep using the analogy of physical performance because it's simple to understand. if you are working out regularly, you will absolutely be stronger than if you are not working out. that doesn't mean that working out would increase the absolute limit of strength your body is capable of achieving.
it wouldn't make sense that you could "improve the maximum potential strength". in the same way, you cannot improve your "maximum potential intelligence".
you can be stronger, and working out will make you stronger. you can be better at solving problems, and you can do that by solving more problems.
