[mannykannot]

> I feel like the whole argument is based on "your true IQ is the highest score you'll ever receive on a test", which is a statement that by definition would make improvements in IQ impossible.

I am no statistician, but I think there is more to the argument than that. My take is that Haier is saying that IQ is not a ratio scale, and you cannot gauge the significance of a result by treating it as if it is.

Nevertheless, I get the impression he is trying to stretch the importance of this observation. He writes 'Nonetheless, the main point is that to make the most compelling argument that intelligence increases after an intervention, a ratio scale of intelligence is required' (my emphasis), which raises the question of whether there is not a not-quite-so-compelling argument to be made without such a metric.

FWIW, I don't have a horse in this race as I am on the fence over whether IQ is as fundamental a measure as its proponents insist.