This is why there's so much confusion about "how can the IQ test be considered studied and reliable, bah!" - because the ones that are properly performed are labour-intensive and require a lot of training - and this is why results are all over the place. It's just not the case that $RANDOM_YAHOO[1] on the internet knows more about the caveats around IQ tests that the professionals who apply and study them.

Disclaimer: have formally studied 'intelligence' (and cognition, perception etc) and been given a partial IQ test myself by a properly trained professional, which came with the caveat "the results can't be properly used, because you're familiar with the process, which confounds the results".

[1] I don't mean you, I just mean that this is a common complaint

We should consider the real possibility that both a) IQ tests are a reasonably good proxy for general intelligence AND b) preparation by training on problem solving improves IQ

Id really like to know how much IQ is improvable. If the brain is plastic and physically adapts to training, what are the most effective methods? It seems an important issue, not least for schooling.

Part of the problem is that there are too many slightly different definitions of IQ and intelligence, and what's worse: we're not even sure what exactly we mean by "intelligence".

I was required to do mental calculation during the WAIS-IV I did.

I also think they try to introduce elements that makes it hard to prepare for the test.

That said if someone has never taken one of these then getting used to how the test works and doing a sample test could help them get a better score right away.