I've seen him post before and he's not kidding.
Breaking my heart here.
On a serious note, IQ tests measure how well you can fill out IQ tests. It's a cliché, but it's true. Take for example, language skills. It does not measure if someone knows 3 or more languages fluently, which I would say is a sign of intelligence. It's also very culturally relative, since you know, if you don't speak the language the test is made in you really won't score well.
If for some reason you missed out on general math in elementary school, or it has been a while since you've last done some roots and multiplications, you'll score less. Obviously!
To make it more extreme, you take a child with high-IQ parents, you have him raised by bears, he'll have a very low IQ just because he hasn't ever performed any of the skills needed to complete an IQ test. Does this mean that he's naturally less intelligent? The science of herditary traits would disagree, but the IQ test will clearly label him stupid.
It's an extreme example but I do think it illustrates the relativity of IQ tests and the ability to improve your IQ test scores just by doing more IQ tests, or improving an area of the IQ test in which you score poorly.
Increasing your vocabulary and elementary math will certainly improve it.
It's my personal opinion that it's very relative. I think it should include memory as I feel it is an important factor in intelligence. A lot of tribal people would score much higher since they have exceptional memory due to living in an oral culture. One of the downsides of the alphabet.
I do not think IQ tests are completely bogus, but they're not the holy grail of intelligence either in my opinion. Take a science nerd with an IQ of 150 and put him in the wild. Make him compete with a hunter gatherer and see how far his IQ takes him.
