&#62; my understanding of the article is precisely that intelligence can be reliably increased in the long term.<p>And why would you think that? I've already criticized the one explicit statement on that.<p>&#62; You are quite correct, however one would hope that grades have at least some correalation with intelligence, but more importantly they are the measurable results in school. Being able to increase those measurable results is the primary goal, even if hypothetically intelligence did not go up.<p>They do have correlation. But correlation is not causation. Giving these students a pep talk and seeing their grades go up, and knowing about the correlation between IQ and grades, gives us as much reason to conclude their IQs went up as we had instead hired drill sergeants to stand in their classroom and yell at them in best FMJ fashion for being "slimy fucking walrus-looking pieces of shit", observed their grades go down, and then concluded their IQs went down.<p>(Another analogy. My dog crossing the road has high correlation with the road being empty. Does my kicking him into the middle of the street clears it of the oncoming SUV?)<p>&#62; Similarly, if the ability to use their intelligence is increased hypotethically without actually increasing the intelligence itself, this is still a major improvement.<p>Sure, and it's quite valuable. Self-control and self-discipline are fantastically valuable traits, and to a degree substitutable for IQ. But boosting people's motivation is not the same thing as boosting their IQ. The latter is the historic breakthrough, not the former, interesting and valuable as it is.