Becoming More Intelligent?

[EcK]

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

I was just answering the general idea - as in chatting.
Didn't mean for it to be misconstrued/miscommunicated as a rebuttal.

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?

yes and no: we never hear about the failures. I'd imagine someone could just have their head in these asses and still manage to come up with something visionary by sheer statistical chance. I mean, look at the silicon valley, it's full of smart people who had the right idea at the wrong time, who had an okey idea and got investors to grow it into something huge etc. and of stupid ideas that appealed to the mass public and became multi-million / billion dollar companies.

It reminds me of Descartes the reviled (by myself at least) - yes his math was awesome but hell - what a shitty philosopher. He only excelled in 'closed' environments, when applying his thought to human nature he contructed math-like but unrealistic models. Yet people admire him for his philosophy.
Why? Well it boggles my mind but probably a mix of people not being smart enough to see the holes in his reasoning and the 'halo' effect of his other works.

A bit like you see 'scientists' on TV talking about topics they know nothing/express simplistic thoughs about and yet trusted by the public. People are gullible I'm afraid.

 

[EcK]

Spyware if you're a creeper.

ew

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I was just answering the general idea - as in chatting.
Didn't mean for it to be misconstrued/miscommunicated as a rebuttal.

Same here, no worries.

yes and no: we never hear about the failures. I'd imagine someone could just have their head in these asses and still manage to come up with something visionary by sheer statistical chance. I mean, look at the silicon valley, it's full of smart people who had the right idea at the wrong time, who had an okey idea and got investors to grow it into something huge etc. and of stupid ideas that appealed to the mass public and became multi-million / billion dollar companies.

I guess what's stupid is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to agree with you that there is a severe waste of resources in some places up there. I think having the ability to promote and market the value of something and turn that into $$$ requires a bit of mental acuity as well. If anyone can do it then the majority of people would since it tends to pay. Perception pays better than functionality sometimes.

It reminds me of Descartes the reviled (by myself at least) - yes his math was awesome but hell - what a shitty philosopher. He only excelled in 'closed' environments, when applying his thought to human nature he contructed math-like but unrealistic models. Yet people admire him for his philosophy.
Why? Well it boggles my mind but probably a mix of people not being smart enough to see the holes in his reasoning and the 'halo' effect of his other works.

Never been a fan of Descartes either. I don't know why people look at Nietzsche this way either. This is sort of like someone being highly knowledgeable and respectable in a certain field but then making the mistake that this extends to them having a 'Midas touch' to everything they get mixed up in. It's like if Richard Dawkins, a brilliant zoologist/biologist/science communicator, tries to lecture me on why it's better to be 'Left' in my politics.

 

[EcK]

Same here, no worries.

It hurt my feelings, deeply.
A wound that Alas, shall be me undoing

Never been a fan of Descartes either. I don't know why people look at Nietzsche this way either. This is sort of like someone being highly knowledgeable and respectable in a certain field but then making the mistake that this extends to them having a 'Midas touch' to everything they get mixed up in. It's like if Richard Dawkins, a brilliant zoologist/biologist/science communicator, tries to lecture me on why it's better to be 'Left' in my politics.

I'm not saying he's dumb, the man was obviously a brilliant mathematician - but yeah, I found his philosophies to be so full of holes they might as well be air and nothing too new compaired to what ppl already talked about in ancient greece. As to the new parts - I find them self contradictory. He'd make a treaty on how to know what's real or not / essentially the basis of the scientific method and then would spew absolute nonsense about how the soul is real despite having just told us that if u can't observe it it's not real. etc. I tend to be very sensitive to internal coherence / congruency so that type of stuff just hurts my brains.

As to Nietszche: alot of his thoughts were imperfect, true, but he had some valuable insights nevertheless and his treaties were not as full of shit. I'd rate Nietszche significantly higher than descarte as a philosopher. For example, where Descartes would say : this is reality and therefore 1+1=*made up stuff that doesn't follow from previous steps* and this must always be true (or its logical equivalent) Nietszche would just describe things as he saw them. I guess it might be the 'absolute' nature of Descarte's statements that irk me.

it's similar to religious folks who say nonsense - I'm fine with nonsense but if people start claiming their nonsense is absolute and unquestionable I get ever so slightly irritated by just how full of themselves / blind they are.
Absolute statements mean : if you don't think that YOU ARE WRONG in every way someone could be. While someone describing his views is just that - his views.

It just seems to me that Descarte would just start with an apriori based on his biases and then try and demonstrate how it was 'logical' and 'necessary' when it wasn't. So you consistently get solid arguments with conclusions that are nonsense. I get how that could impress some folk but it just makes me feel like listening to a zealot.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

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.

Yes, [MENTION=25403]ZNP-TBA[/MENTION]. I personally feel (based on research) that the ability to change one’s IQ score falls within a small scope.

I didn’t clarify my views initially as I wanted to hear what everyone else had to say without inserting my own bias. How they defined intelligence? It’s why I put forth questions rather than a viewpoint (except for a generic statement saying that I enjoyed the article).

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?



I found merit in the piece but took it as: a general guide for exercising the mind. (Fantastic metaphor btw!) If other’s take it as an actual tool for improving their IQ score DRAMATICALLY, then they haven’t looked into IQ tests themselves in any measure

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.

I actually think there can be a co-relation between the two [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] although they ARE two different entities. Statistics reveal that people who score highly on IQ often do well (exceptions exist of course) on displaying EQ proficiency.

In point 8 he discusses practical application of changing one’s world view and adopting new strategies and mind-sets. I think this cannot help but somewhat impact one’s EQ?


I have really enjoyed your points throughout the thread [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]! You well expressed my precise feelings here:

]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).

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

[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION] At first I was perplexed by the comments finding bias in the author’s leanings. However, after reading through the thread I see I was mistakenly not perceiving sand beneath the waves. I think your above statement regarding a logical bent is true and this is likely why it overall appealed to me (always trying to further hone that side of myself).

I still maintain that some of the methods he suggests will contribute (even if in small measure) to further developing intelligence. You assert yourself - that being open to experiences or shifting viewpoints - leads to understanding. How does consciously being mindful about one’s interpretation’s NOT compliment the further acquisition and implementation of knowledge?

 

[Jeremy8419]

Yes, [MENTION=25403]ZNP-TBA[/MENTION]. I personally feel (based on research) that the ability to change one’s IQ score falls within a small scope.

I didn’t clarify my views initially as I wanted to hear what everyone else had to say without inserting my own bias. How they defined intelligence? It’s why I put forth questions rather than a viewpoint (except for a generic statement saying that I enjoyed the article).




I found merit in the piece but took it as: a general guide for exercising the mind. (Fantastic metaphor btw!) If other’s take it as an actual tool for improving their IQ score DRAMATICALLY, then they haven’t looked into IQ tests themselves in any measure






I actually think there can be a co-relation between the two [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] although they ARE two different entities. Statistics reveal that people who score highly on IQ often do well (exceptions exist of course) on displaying EQ proficiency.

In point 8 he discusses practical application of changing one’s world view and adopting new strategies and mind-sets. I think this cannot help but somewhat impact one’s EQ?


I have really enjoyed your points throughout the thread [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]! You well expressed my precise feelings here:







[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION] At first I was perplexed by the comments finding bias in the author’s leanings. However, after reading through the thread I see I was mistakenly not perceiving sand beneath the waves. I think your above statement regarding a logical bent is true and this is likely why it overall appealed to me (always trying to further hone that side of myself).

I still maintain that some of the methods he suggests will contribute (even if in small measure) to further developing intelligence. You assert yourself - that being open to experiences or shifting viewpoints - leads to understanding. How does consciously being mindful about one’s interpretation’s NOT compliment the further acquisition and implementation of knowledge?

I recommend healthy moderation, not the author's basically "autistic savant" approach. Pick up tips and tricks and practice them.

Personally, I always had issues with taking them in groups due to excessive noise, and the visual-spatial portions took the longest outside of that.

 

[Poki]

[MENTION=27162]Cloudpatrol[/MENTION]. The issue is that EQ is about self awareness and awareness of others. IQ has nothing to do with self. The similarities that are actually comparable are self awareness of thoughts and perception. IQ is closer related to awareness of perception, but still the way its gone about makes IQ score more of a correlation. Which is why the article would help with IQ score.

IQ is not intelligence, just a way to measure.

You dont know how intelligent someone is until they can tap into their full potential, which that article is one way to do that.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=27162]Cloudpatrol[/MENTION]. The issue is that EQ is about self awareness and awareness of others. IQ has nothing to do with self. The similarities that are actually comparable are self awareness of thoughts and perception. IQ is closer related to awareness of perception, but still the way its gone about makes IQ score more of a correlation. Which is why the article would help with IQ score.

IQ is not intelligence, just a way to measure.

You dont know how intelligent someone is until they can tap into their full potential, which that article is one way to do that.

True, I mean you could imagine running most / all the tests of iq through a computer. It's more a computing-power-in-humans test akin to GPU/CPU benchmarks independant from any notion of awareness /theory of mind than a test of something like emotional intelligence/awareness.

 

[EcK]

I have really enjoyed your points throughout the thread [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]! You well expressed my precise feelings here:

*insert shameless self promotion here*

 

[Poki]

the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations

Practice makes perfect...goes against what J represents...lmao

 

[Cowardly]

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

Highly quotable.

 

[geedoenfj]

I really need to raise my IQ, being smarter is my next goal

 

[Smilephantomhive]

If you define intelligence as the ability to learn new things, then yes, in fact I think I have increased m,y rate and ability to learn new things recently. I'm not sure about my IQ number, and quite frankly don't care about.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

Drink DHA

 

[Poki]

Relax, observe, accept, learn, try, repeat

 

[that's not my name]

Its pretty well accepted that one's IQ can fluctuate by around 1 standard deviation.

 

[Pandemeria]

Its pretty well accepted that one's IQ can fluctuate by around 1 standard deviation.

Yep, I remember listening to a lecture a while back. I think it was MIT Open Source? It was like 2009, so the details are kinda fuzzy.

What was cool about that info was that there's a sort of "window" of IQ, where you can increase it to a certain point, but much of it is already predetermined.

 

[Cellmold]

My intelligence seems tied to my emotional motivation. When I'm 'on' I can be incredibly sharp, when 'off' I''m one thick shit.

As I've become older my 'on' moments have given way to more 'offs'. And I lack the inflated expectation of worth that seems to keep most people I meet oblivious to theirs.

 

[Agent Washington]

People can practise specifically for IQ tests.

It doesn't mean that they're smarter. It just means they're better at IQ tests than they were before.

 

[Agent Washington]

I mean, if you look at the tests... it's like. I'm sure there's definite patterns. it's possible to analyse these patterns so as to figure out how they work. The remaining difficulty should be doing it within a shorter period of time.