Becoming More Intelligent?

[Jeremy8419]

Are we reading the same article?!?

TL;DR version: Article looks like it's purpose = wool + your eyes

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Do you think it's possible to raise one's IQ?

Yes, but not the way the writer in your link proposes. Raising IQ from 115 to 150 in a year?

IQ simply doesn't work that way and if he were a scientist well versed in the subject he'd know it.

Going from 115 to 150 in a year is analogous to me saying just because I'm okay at playing street basketball I could become Kobe Bryant in a year or if I was an okay casual swimmer to become an Olympian Michael Phelps in a year.

It may not sit well with some people but there is a 'skill cap' as far as all of these activities go and IQ is no exception. There are certain natural abilities people have that cannot be obtained by others no matter how much practice is put in. It's like Prince was a very talented artist, I already know I couldn't achieve his level of ability within one or two years no matter what 'regiment' I subscribed to.

But just because there is a general 'cap' doesn't mean that cap can't be achieved in very productive ways. A bad up-bringing or unhealthy environment may stunt someone from achieving their potential. Everyone has potential but let's not delude ourselves in thinking everyone has the same boundless potential. It's a nice thought but not congruent with reality.

What suggestions would you offer for raising IQ or EQ (if you believe it's scientifically viable to do so)?

The regiment the link prescribes is one of those "Just do X, then do Y" as if these things like understanding and being able to perform mathematical modeling can be achieved in a couple months with a thoughtfully purchased guide.

It's like saying, "Yeah, to become Michael Phelps simply start the same workout regiment he does." I mean whoever is telling you you can raise your IQ 35 points in one year, and then is considering making a guide (especially to market), is selling you snake oil. I'm wondering, if he can raise IQ 35 points in one year then could he take someone from 80 IQ to 150 IQ in two years? Does he think its possible?

 

[Cowardly]

I took it in college and then again in my mid 30s. It went up a dozen points the second time.

I took it when I was thirteen and then five years later. It dropped from 141 to I think 127 (but I don't think it was the same test). Very amusing, nonetheless.

 

[Poki]

Go through life with the desire to understand and not accomplish. The goal is not the end, its the journey.

 

[Poki]

EQ and IQ is like comparing apples and dogs. Where is TQ or thinking intelligence. Thats more inline with EQ. Ability to read to understand yours and others thoughts.

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Be an INTP, basically, was what I got from that article - figures, since they're literally perfect "humans". Putting it in personality terms (really a handy shorthand for types of people), they're the only types capable of operating on pure logic and mathematics and being completely emotionless, asocial, and lacking in any kind of moral or merely values-based cognition like this person described. They are the only people flawless enough to achieve this kind of pure, inhuman intelligence. F's are largely incapable of being intelligent, partly because they are social and emotional creatures incapable of proper reason and "orthoganality to human concerns". So are S's, since abstraction is largely beyond them. Only INTPs types can even come close (extroverts are too other-oriented, and Te is poor at mathematics and real logic, ranking other NTs below them intellectually).

Intelligence is inborn, and is the source of one's worth. Your place in the hierarchy is genetically determined.

That ranting over, I've wondered if it could be possible to "manufacture" a genius with proper training...most say it's not real intelligence (and I agree), but it would be an improvement. It's too bad really, I'd love an IQ over 150.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Be an INTP, basically, was what I got from that article - figures, since they're literally perfect "humans". Putting it in personality terms (really a handy shorthand for types of people), they're the only types capable of operating on pure logic and mathematics and being completely emotionless and asocial like this person described. They are the only people flawless enough to achieve this kind of pure, inhuman intelligence. F's are largely incapable of being intelligent, partly because they are social and emotional creatures incapable of proper reason and "orthoganality to human concerns". So are S's, since abstraction is largely beyond them. Only INTPs types can even come close (extroverts are too other-oriented, and Te is poor at mathematics and real logic, ranking other NTs below them intellectually).

Intelligence is inborn, and is the source of one's worth. Your place in the hierarchy is genetically determined.

It's too bad really, I'd love an IQ over 150.

Basically what I got from it as well.

Also, seems more like increasing I.Q. logical portions test results, not actual intelligence.

 

[EcK]

So many of the Quora questions revolve around IQ, general smarts or cleverness and the acquiring of it.


Do you think it's possible to raise one's IQ?


I enjoyed this answer from a Scientist whose post (spoilerified below) has prompted a request for him to write a book on the subject. This answer encompasses both Intellectual and Emotional Intelligence in some regards.

301 Moved Permanently

What suggestions would you offer for raising IQ or EQ (if you believe it's scientifically viable to do so)?

It s all good advice but nothing he listed seem like it would raise one s iq.
He suggests updating one s software, but iq is overwhelmingly "hardware related". (Genetic and epigenetic)


At best it would make someone slightly better at 'taking' an IQ test.
The thing with any test results is that it has to be looked at within the bounds of its normal test environment to create useful/meaningful data (so, a normalized/controlled testing environment).

IQ tests are generally meant to be taken by children with little to no clue of what to expect and to be supervized/assessed by specialized psychologists.

Anything else goes outside of the bounds of something reliable statistically or at the individual level.

 

[Kas]

Yes, I would go with the theory that there is intelligence inborn(our potential) and acquired. Our brains are plastic. The most when we are children (to 20s) as it’s the time of creating connections in brain cortex. But even later they are still created. So we have chance of improving our minds.

How? Definitely any form of intellectual activity (in older age if not improve intelligence, that can at least provide for longer time of optimal intellectual functions and prevent brain from getting old quickly) . What’s more physical activity is suppose to strengthen brain connections and work similar during old age . Meditations on the other hand are suppose to influence areas of brain that are responsible for attention and emotions.

If it's about emotional intelligence I know there were studies that proofed that it can be trained and increased. So the trainings were advised starting in primary schools. But that was theory in 2013 and I don't know how that went. Personally I think it could bring some good.




I agree with [MENTION=25403]ZNP-TBA[/MENTION] when it comes to article. I believe that improvement is possible, but the result the author was talking about sounds like s-f

 

[EcK]

Be an INTP, basically, was what I got from that article - figures, since they're literally perfect "humans". Putting it in personality terms (really a handy shorthand for types of people), they're the only types capable of operating on pure logic and mathematics and being completely emotionless, asocial, and lacking in any kind of moral or merely values-based cognition like this person described. They are the only people flawless enough to achieve this kind of pure, inhuman intelligence. F's are largely incapable of being intelligent, partly because they are social and emotional creatures incapable of proper reason and "orthoganality to human concerns". So are S's, since abstraction is largely beyond them. Only INTPs types can even come close (extroverts are too other-oriented, and Te is poor at mathematics and real logic, ranking other NTs below them intellectually).

Intelligence is inborn, and is the source of one's worth. Your place in the hierarchy is genetically determined.

That ranting over, I've wondered if it could be possible to "manufacture" a genius with proper training...most say it's not real intelligence (and I agree), but it would be an improvement. It's too bad really, I'd love an IQ over 150.

Not sure if that post is a joke or..? Anyway, if it isn't it's kind of ironic that you'd rant about about smart/superior INTPs - and apparently you - are but don't differenciate between IQ and intelligence.

Intelligence at large is about adapting to one's environment/complexity.
INTPs if i recall, on average,
- rate the lowest on their partner's satisfaction
- don't fare too well in the job market
- are not known for their social prowess

Intelligence is not about the ability for logic, and as far as IQ is related to intelligence (and it is significantly correlated though not the same thing - read up on Plato you might learn something - ) this is exemplified, for example, in the fact that INFPs and INFJs rate similarly or higher than INTPs on average in IQ tests, so do INTJs.

So when you confuse intelligence with IQ you open yourself to these very obvious counter arguments - INTJs have secondary Te if we go by MBTI (and you did so so can I), INFJs have secondary Fe, and lets not get started on INFPs or extroverts for that matter.

You are confusing decision making, which is part of intelligence, with IQ. INFPs might not be 'logical' in their decision making process but their high average IQs denote that they do have similar raw 'processing' power (which is more akin to what IQ tests for, esp. fluid IQ).


All in all - you didn't really show any of the abilities you associate with your 'type' or person.
So perhaps you should think things through a bit more - like you claim introverts/NTs/INTPs excel at.

Quite funny

 

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Not sure if that post is a joke or..? Anyway, if it isn't it's kind of ironic that you'd rant about about smart/superior INTPs - and apparently you - are but don't differenciate between IQ and intelligence.

Intelligence at large is about adapting to one's environment/complexity.
INTPs if i recall, on average,
- rate the lowest on their partner's satisfaction
- don't fare too well in the job market
- are not known for their social prowess

Intelligence is not about the ability for logic, and as far as IQ is related to intelligence (and it is significantly correlated though not the same thing - read up on Plato you might learn something - ) this is exemplified, for example, in the fact that INFPs and INFJs rate similarly or higher than INTPs on average in IQ tests, so do INTJs.

So when you confuse intelligence with IQ you open yourself to these very obvious counter arguments - INTJs have secondary Te if we go by MBTI (and you did so so can I), INFJs have secondary Fe, and lets not get started on INFPs or extroverts for that matter.

You are confusing decision making, which is part of intelligence, with IQ. INFPs might not be 'logical' in their decision making process but their high average IQs denote that they do have similar raw 'processing' power (which is more akin to what IQ tests for, esp. fluid IQ).


All in all - you didn't really show any of the abilities you associate with your 'type' or person.
So perhaps you should think things through a bit more - like you claim introverts/NTs/INTPs excel at.

Quite funny

A knee-jerk, inflamed reaction, but not a joke.

IQ means intelligence quotient. It's a measure of intelligence. So there's that. The linked article makes an argument that the way to increase IQ is to adopt a logic-driven, mathematical mindset and worldview.

And several here have pointed out that part of intelligence is ignoring the social world. Why do you think introverts tend to score higher than extroverts on IQ tests? Most of the great geniuses in history have been solitary; thinking is best done alone (I can say that from personal experience)

 

[Poki]

Its interesting to read all these posts before article expecting it to actually refer to cognitive functions. But alas, i dont see any mention of Ti, Fi, Te, Fe. Did i read it wrong.

I actually see just about every function being needed from that article. From internal perception to external perception. From internal judging to external judging.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

It s all good advice but nothing he listed seem like it would raise one s iq.
He suggests updating one s software, but iq is overwhelmingly "hardware related". (Genetic and epigenetic)

Stealing this metaphor.

 

[EcK]

A knee-jerk, inflamed reaction, but not a joke.

fair enough. I don't have any feelings about things either way. But thanks for clarifiying.
As to my post I wasn't 'angry' or attacking you - but I tend to do the alpha male shit to get the measure of people's opinions/self control.
It's a testing people thing I do.

IQ means intelligence quotient. It's a measure of intelligence. So there's that. The linked article makes an argument that the way to increase IQ is to adopt a logic-driven, mathematical mindset and worldview.

If I call something a blue unicorn it doesn't make it so. Calling something an intelligence quotient doesn't make it a score for intelligence. That's a fallacious argument.
Your logical fallacy is false cause
Your logical fallacy is ambiguity

as a caveat to that: yes I do believe IQ is highly correlated with intelligence but intelligence is such a 'vast' (and therefore subjet to subjective interpretation) concept that IQ couldn't possibly be synonymous with it.
Yes overall people with 85 IQ are painfully dumb while individuals with 150 IQ tend to be, overall, ok to talk to and generally intelligent. At least in my view.

Also, that some guy calling himself a scientist (he could be a geologist for all we know, btw) doesn't make his argument a solid one.
Hell half of IQ experts couldn't rub two neurons together is they tried. So yeah. there's that.

And several here have pointed out that part of intelligence is ignoring the social world. Why do you think introverts tend to score higher than extroverts on IQ tests?

Well, there's lots of reason for that.
Introverts tend to have statistically significant differences in their brain structure. Frankly I don't recall the details at the moment but if I think of something I'll let you know.

When we call people geniuses we do so because of their disruptive/visionary work. It's difficult to create original work if surrounded by normative ideas.
Humans are social animals after all and we use the data available to us.

Also, to create something 'new' requires some isolation. Because if you're poking at novel ideas chances are that most people around you disagree and are not really going to be conductive to progress. And that doesn't just apply to solitary geniuses. Though the paradigms are shifting via our present ability to instantly share data - including research data - globally.

Most of the great geniuses in history have been solitary; thinking is best done alone (I can say that from personal experience)

As to 'thinking is best done alone' - I'll also answer from personal experience.
Yes and no: you need data to think properly. I've seen many 'smart' people spew absolute horseshit because they were too reliant on their logic to see the gaping flaws in it or to understand that the extension of their logic would contradict observed reality and had no more predictive power that that of 'patterns' people tend to see in gambling slot machines.
It's an artefact of our evolutionary past.

Secondly, I'm an extrovert - though not a raging social extrovert (most people stop entertaining me after a while despite my best tries) so I love having a 'sounding board' to shape my own thoughts and need constant stimulation (data) to stay happy. Isolation and the concentration it brings helps, but paper can serve the same role in other circumstances.

 

[Poki]

Be an INTP, basically, was what I got from that article - figures, since they're literally perfect "humans". Putting it in personality terms (really a handy shorthand for types of people), they're the only types capable of operating on pure logic and mathematics and being completely emotionless, asocial, and lacking in any kind of moral or merely values-based cognition like this person described. They are the only people flawless enough to achieve this kind of pure, inhuman intelligence. F's are largely incapable of being intelligent, partly because they are social and emotional creatures incapable of proper reason and "orthoganality to human concerns". So are S's, since abstraction is largely beyond them. Only INTPs types can even come close (extroverts are too other-oriented, and Te is poor at mathematics and real logic, ranking other NTs below them intellectually).

Intelligence is inborn, and is the source of one's worth. Your place in the hierarchy is genetically determined.

That ranting over, I've wondered if it could be possible to "manufacture" a genius with proper training...most say it's not real intelligence (and I agree), but it would be an improvement. It's too bad really, I'd love an IQ over 150.

IQ is not all its cracked up to be. We just face different issues that having a higher IQ creates. One would argue that the issue exists whether you have a high IQ or not, but the only issue that exists is the issue you face. Someone with a higher IQ reacts and responds different which creates different issues that does not exist in your life otherwise.

Be happy where you are, the grass is not always greener on the other side.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

A knee-jerk, inflamed reaction, but not a joke.
And several here have pointed out that part of intelligence is ignoring the social world. Why do you think introverts tend to score higher than extroverts on IQ tests? Most of the great geniuses in history have been solitary; thinking is best done alone (I can say that from personal experience)

Interestingly enough 2 of the top 3 on this list are understood to have been extroverts : Johann Goethe (probably ENFJ), Leonardo da Vinci (most likely ENTP).

 

[EcK]

Interestingly enough 2 of the top 3 on this list are understood to have been extroverts : Johann Goethe (probably ENFJ), Leonardo da Vinci (most likely ENTP).

Genius doesn't require to be an introvert - yes a part of it is generally to be able to sit your ass down on your own and concentrate like hell on perfecting/envisioning/trial and error.
Which is why people associate it with introversion.

And while I don't really have a strong opinion either way nor care what the results were if we could know for sure :
fact is we don't know the types of these long dead people.
Historical accounts are generally very selective, and the best biographer can only see what someone let the world see after all.

MBTI is a self assessment test - at the end of the day any 'typing' of living or historical people is just an opinion unless they have publicly stated what they type were.
Which people in the 19, 18, 17 etc. hundreds obviously didn't and couldn't as MBTI didn't exist.

 

[EcK]

Stealing this metaphor.

wetware is also good if you're trying to pick up girls with subliminal messages

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Genius doesn't require to be an introvert - yes a part of it is generally to be able to sit your ass down on your own and concentrate like hell on perfecting/envisioning/trial and error.
Which is why people associate it with introversion.

And while I don't really have a strong opinion either way nor care what the results were if we could know for sure :
fact is we don't know the types of these long dead people.
Historical accounts are generally very selective, and the best biographer can only see what someone let the world see after all.

MBTI is a self assessment test - at the end of the day any 'typing' of living or historical people is just an opinion unless they have publicly stated what they type were.
Which people in the 19, 18, 17 etc. hundreds obviously didn't and couldn't as MBTI didn't exist.

Yes which is why I specified 'probably' and 'most likely' about these historical figures based on what we know about them and the most accepted modern understanding of MBTI. I'm stating an opinion/observation and not an actual argument for MBTIs of historical figures

Genius characteristics (at least how they are accepted to be) tend to strongly correlate to innovation. I think a great deal of extroversion is required here too. Wouldn't you have to have the ability and drive explore the outside world in order to accurately understand it? Only by having a good understanding about the world around you can you have an ability to imagine how it could be. Real world + your ideas = innovation. No?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

wetware is also good if you're trying to pick up girls with subliminal messages

Spyware if you're a creeper.