That's an assumption. There are obvious incentives for high SAT scores, for example. If you take the SAts and don't care how well you score, you're pretty much a subpar intelligence mouth breather that deserves to work at Taco Bell. Otherwise why are you taking the test? The entire point is to get a high score.

So what makes you so sure that high IQ individuals can't be incentivized but the mouth breathers can? Your article doesn't establish that at all.

I think it's tied to it in terms of performance. If you are more motivated then you will do a better job honing whatever innate abilities you have.

You're assuming everybody wants the same things and thinks exactly the same. Not everybody is going to be motivated by the same things. I'm sure there's people that the money has no effect on while maybe something else would.

The people that are already scoring high could be bribed in to scoring higher. I just think they are already motivated to score high in the first place. It makes more sense to me that the reason why an IQ test is good at finding out who's more likely to succeed is because the people more motivated to succeed would be more motivated to score high on an IQ test rather than it being an accurate measurement of intelligence which, beyond that one test, most psychologists actually reject for a variety of reasons.

Oh, and we could get into how drastically IQs can change over time too. Or how training can have a drastic impact on your IQ scores.

You're assuming a few dollars provides an extra incentive people who score poorly but not people who score well. If effort is a part of the equation, why would you assume that people at the higher end can't give more effort?

Oh right, cause you're assuming the difference is all in the effort. Cause that gels with your "everybody the same" ideology. Even though I know damn well you've met plenty of stupid people who you wouldn't bet on to get a great score.

everyone who takes the SAT has the same goal. To get into college. If you don't understand this and you take the SATs anyway, you should be wearing a protective helmet

Lol @ the people who score high could be bribed. You just as well could say the people who score low could be bribed to take a fall.

The scores change over time cause people are getting smarter. Guess what happens? The scores are re adjusted so the average is always 100.

I'm not saying it captures every element of human Intelligence. But it is measuring something that correlates largely with himself intelligence.

Why would the money specifically only motivate the people with lower scores

Cause otherwise it's not a factor to consider

Now you're straw manning and poisoning the well.

Neither of us said it means nothing. Of course we think that intelligence levels vary. I think it's more complicated than a simple test and that the test isn't as important in measuring it as you think. I think motivation is much more important to it than you're giving credence. Even then, there's evidence that you can train your IQ. People that participate in more brain stimulating activities tend to do better in the areas related to what's being stimulated.

https://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html

I also read this article that used George Bush as an example of somebody that had high IQ (in the top 10 percentile) and had self admitted troubles with cognitive ability.

https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/wh...an-youre-smart

Which correlates with things like abstract and spatial reasoning, memory, processing, etc.


...if you assume that's the only factor, and that people who score well can't be any more motivated to try, yes.