Posts
Comments
There seem to be some critical methodological errors here that have easy fixes. First, the intervention subject took the same or strictly more time in the second test compared to the first, and the control took the same or less time. This is pretty bad for iq tests of this sort, you would already expect more time to result in better scores. Second, the SAME tests were used for before and after, and some of the tests literally tell you the answers after you do the questions. In particular, the spatial aspect of the first test tells you the answers for a large number of the questions, so this is quite prone to practice related increases, and the spatial subsection in particular was used to judge fluid intelligence change. Considering you seemed to be operating under the assumption that the scores on different tests are measuring the same thing, why not just take different tests before and after?
William Thurston seems like a mathematician that was not just leading the parade, but rather made fundamental contributions to his fields that no one else would have made in his time. To quote, "He wanted to avoid in hyperbolic geometry what had happened when his basic papers on foliations “tsunamied” the field in the early 1970s.", meaning that he made so many deep and varied contributions so fast that no one could keep up. More in https://www.ams.org/notices/201511/rnoti-p1318.pdf such as "The huge and daunting advances he made in foliation theory were off-putting, and students stopped going into the area, resulting in an unfortunate premature arrest in the development of the subject while it was still in its prime. (If someone writes a book incorporating Bill’s advances, it will take off again.)"