It's hard to change the G factor with training? Hmm... Except when you do practice IQ tests and then take an IQ test and do better than if you did it cold. Organizations will tell you to buy a practice kit before walking into an "aptitude test", which is an IQ test. This is such bullshit.,(reply>), Holy crap, lol... I was going to respond, but seems everything I stated went over your head. In that case, have a good day sir.,(reply>), @JimBob1937 Your analogy is flawed. Firstly, IQ tests don't measure knowledge...or do they? <br><br>Using your analogy, if you went into school exams cold you would have more anxiety and you simply wouldn't do as well as if you studied. If you studied, your anxiety would be lowered and you would do better because you gained more knowledge by studying. <br><br>Anyway, in the end it doesn't matter because IQ tests don't actually measure intelligence. You can call it g factor, but that's just another vague term that's very specific to IQ tests. In fact, IQ tests were originally developed to determine what kids needed extra help on particular subjects. It was not developed to determine the g factor or intelligence of kids. <br><br>So, the original concept of the IQ test was to test your competency in generalized subjects so teachers could then help those students improve. That in turn would allow the students to improve their...what? Their g factor.,(reply>), @JimBob1937 General intelligence (g factor) is measured by an IQ test. Intelligence is a vague concept with various definitions. Science relies on precise definitions for things, otherwise you can't properly measure them. <br><br>You say there is a barrier to measurement of the g factor. There are actually numerous barriers to measurement, beyond vague and nebulous definitions of key concepts. There are social, economic, and psychological barriers that most definitely affect measurement. <br><br>Even in your comment above you say that the maximum g factor results aren't affected by measurement barriers, but there are likely artificial low estimates. You just admitted that the test doesn't properly measure g factor, or general intelligence. Furthermore, in the scope of IQ tests, studying does improve your g factor, since that's what is being measured. You're really getting into some circular logic, here.,(reply>), For example, I tend to have testing anxiety. I am far better now than I used to be, but it still exists. I'd forget everything until the last 15 minutes of the test and hurriedly finish. In such cases, getting a sample exam, even if the questions were 100% entirely different, helped, as it gave me some idea of format and scope, which allowed me to relax and not let me anxiety run away with itself (as well as just be familiar with the format in general). The different scores I'd get between these two scenarios would be drastically different. The first would be lower than the second, yet, the second was a more accurate measurement of my knowledge, correct? Similarly, my level of knowledge didn't improve between these two scenarios, correct? It's the same with IQ.,(reply>), IQ is an estimate of the g factor, don't equate the two. Hence, issues that create a barrier to measurement may give an artificially low estimate of your g factor, but the maximum remains the same. Studying, for some, may remove such a barrier to proper measurement, it depends on the individual. This does not mean your g factor was improved.