People often think of IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, as a fixed trait, something you’re born with that remains unchanged throughout adulthood. And often this this is true. IQ tests given to young teens tend to be reliable predictors of future academic success. Because of this, IQ holds a strange power over those who know their score, some wear it as a badge of honor, while others feel negatively defined by it. But IQ isn’t exactly what people assume it to be. Although I don’t have academic journals to cite, I’ve noticed inconsistencies in how people interpret IQ. To understand what an IQ score truly represents, you must first understand how the test works. The average IQ is always 100. That’s because IQ tests are designed to measure how an individual deviates from the population’s average intelligence, which is continuously recalibrated. This has been true since the test’s inception in 1905, meaning that the average IQ in 1970 was also 100. And this leads us to a key misunderstanding about IQ: the Flynn Effect.
Over the past century, people have become more cognitively capable. This observed rise in IQ scores is known as the Flynn Effect. However, because IQ tests are periodically re-standardized, the average IQ remains 100. In practical terms, if someone with an IQ of 100 today took a 1970s IQ test, they might score a 115, an entire standard deviation higher. Similarly, a person who scored 125 in 1970 would likely score around 108 on a modern test. But does this mean people today are inherently smarter than past generations? I’d argue absolutely not. While improvements in the standard of living have likely contributed to rising scores, true biological evolution occurs over much longer time scales. Intelligence, as we define it, may not have fundamentally changed, but the way we develop it certainly has.
This brings me to my next point: environment and motivation are everything. To illustrate this, I’ll use a personal example. I have a friend who is 5’5” and not particularly gifted athletically. However, he has always been physically active in some capacity. In university, he decided to take running seriously, and after dedicated training, he achieved a personal best mile time of 5:20. This places him in the 99th percentile of all people in terms of mile time. Yet, I’m certain that he had to work much harder to reach this level than many naturally gifted runners who never put in the effort. The 99th percentile is achievable for more people than you’d think, not just in athletics, but in intelligence as well. Many people never attempt sports and assume they lack ability, just as many assume they aren’t intelligent simply because they’ve never pushed themselves academically.
Now, consider IQ. While not perfectly analogous, a score of 135 corresponds to the 99th percentile, meaning only 1% of people score that high. And anyone with an IQ of 135 would be considered highly gifted. But here’s the catch: Nobel Prize winners typically have IQs of 145 and above. This is where genetics become a major factor. Genetics separates the elite from the truly exceptional. But it does not prevent most people from becoming “smart” through effort and education. I’ve experienced this firsthand. My own IQ increased by 15 points since I graduated high school 10 years ago. Back then, I didn’t care about knowledge or critical thinking, I just wanted to get through. It wasn’t until university that my Economics professor recognized my potential and fundamentally changed how I saw myself and education. That shift in mindset made all the difference.
Lastly, I want to address a more controversial topic that has become popular recently, and it’s similar to how academics once viewed IQ during the era of eugenics. IQ has often been used to degrade and undermine the credibility of entire groups of people, based primarily on race. But applying logic from previous paragraphs makes this notion absurd. For instance, according to a modern American IQ test, people in several countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia would be considered “cognitively impaired” if the same standard used in the U.S. were applied. But this would be a grossly misleading and dangerous assumption. If you've ever visited underdeveloped countries, it’s clear that the issues they face are rooted in infrastructure and quality of life, not inherent intelligence. At the risk of restating the obvious, your environment matters more than anything.
At the same time, it would be equally naive to suggest that no group of people has a higher potential limit for intelligence. Just as the Bajau people in Indonesia produce elite free divers or the Kalenjin tribe in Kenya produces elite runners, I’m sure there are small geographic or cultural groups that produce exceptional thinkers. This should not be controversial, because we recognize this phenomenon in virtually every other domain of human ability, yet somehow, we shy away from acknowledging it in the realm of intelligence.
All of this to say, your IQ reflects where you are right now. For most people, where you are now is a good indicator of where you'll be in the future, assuming your environment and thought patterns remain the same, which, for most people, they do. However, if you’re not happy with how smart you are, you have the power to change that. There is absolutely nothing stopping you. Being able to complete a complex task already separates you from most people, whether it’s solving a math problem or reading advanced literature. A significant number of people can’t do algebra or read complex texts, but most people would be able to if they made it a priority and practiced. If you take the time to focus on the things that “smart” people are good at, don’t be surprised when your general cognitive abilities improve.