How to increase your IQ level ?

[Vixen]

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0d7cee9e-362b-426b-9107-8768737cf784

No, we were talking about the science of IQ tests and g, both of which have disconcertingly little to do with intelligence.

Why do you think that the educational systems of all Western nations meticulously exclude young people from the educations they want but can't get into? Why do you think that is, Vixen?
As for the "children who mostly only can't wait to leave at sixteen or seventeen," they can't wait to get out of school because school has already taught them that education is not for them, the educational selection has already excluded them from access to any and all kinds of higher learning, which they respond to by pretending to hate all kinds of learning – and not least, the people who are blessed by having access to it, the nerds. (A lot of mobbing in school is due to this fact.)
In the USA, in particular, it results in contempt for the 'elites', i.e. people with access to higher education and the prospects it brings, instead of contempt for the actual elite, the Epstein class.
And you don't have to tell me what you think is the reason why TV channels only show educational programmes in the morning when most people are at work and can't watch them. You have already made it clear.

Yes, of course! The (few) students with a working-class background who get into college benefit from their college education. The ones who don't don't.
A similar thing happened in my country in the booming 1960s. The State of Denmark began to notice that an industrialized society would need more people with a higher education than the previous mainly agricultural one. In fact, even farmers now needed to know that there was such a thing as proteins. There was even a new word, very popular back then and one that I haven't heard in decades, intelligensreserven.
It meant that even working-class children could now (realistically!) dream of going to college, and a lot of them did. It lasted until the financial crisis hit the Western world in the mid-1970s when it was all of a sudden decided that far too many young people went to college, which obviously wasn't meant for them, so admission to higher learning was restricted again - with or without IQ tests. So there now was an 'intelligence surplus', although nobody ever came up with a word since it would have made it conspicuous that the reason why many young people are excluded from going to college isn't that they don't have enough 'g'. The reason is that the state and the companies don't want them to get educated beyond what is deemed to be fitting for their class.

That's why "identifying scholastic pupils" works the way it does! The state wants just enough people with university degrees to fill the jobs it needs to fill – and sometimes not even that because importing Polish doctors is cheaper than educating them yourself. Britain seems to think so, too.
As mentioned before, Western societies don't seem to appreciate having populations that are educated beyond the level required for getting the kind of jobs that are available. Much like Trump, they appreciate having working classes that aren't science literate and lack "the skills to see through the lies of, say, antivaxxers, tobacco companies and global warming deniers," as I wrote in post 198. It's the reason why Western countries remain only half civilized and are about to be left behind by China.
It's also the reason why the IQ ideology is still as popular as it is. It's the ideological (= socio-biological) justification of societies where higher education, with a few token exceptions, is for "the Tory councillor's kid and the famous photographer's one."

It might be very true that under capitalism (and even communism) workers are exploited. This goes back to the Industrial Revolution and the consequent invention of scientific management (FW Taylor) and 'Taylorism' when output, time and efficiency became an obsession in getting the most out of your work force. From slavery or serfdom, in which people were fed or at least had the means to self-maintain (as in growing their own stuff), suddenly in C19 they're forced into factories and supporting services AND having to use their earnings to feed and clothe themselves and their families. BUT we are all born into a society with the expectation that unless one has a 'get-out clause' we are expected to earn a living as an adult, so yes, education is important. By only allowing the wealthy to have the means to enter well-paid professions or government positions and pretending it's elitism to have selective education for the public in general (only 6.6% go to elite private schools in the UK) you are preventing social mobility. Even Boris Johnson only got well-educated because he got an EU-scholarship and Rishi Sunak a scholarship to Winchester, with his parents having to drive him there as a day boy who couldn't afford boarding, please let's stop pretending IQ testing of children is a dirty word. In fact it is one way out of the low-paid minimum wage poverty trap. Plus, in addition, unlike in the past, anyone with talent and innovation skills can start up their own companies and secure intellectual copyright for their inventions.

Yes, of course, in the free market with the constraints of supply and demand, the best jobs will always be limited. It is unavoidable.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just caught up on the thread.
I think my IQ is now lower

 

[JayUtah]

@wise47, Have you considered how rude it is of you to return to this thread periodically only to post links to your essays instead of engaging in the discussion about them? Unless you have revised your essay to accommodate the questions and criticisms you've been given here, is there any reason for anyone to pay any further attention to you?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

@wise47, Have you considered how rude it is of you to return to this thread periodically only to post links to your essays instead of engaging in the discussion about them? Unless you have revised your essay to accommodate the questions and criticisms you've been given here, is there any reason for anyone to pay any further attention to you?

If my IQ were greater than zero, I would think those are rhetorical questions.

 

[JayUtah]

If my IQ were greater than zero, I would think those are rhetorical questions.

I'm simplifying the questions I expect him to answer in the hopes that one day he'll take off his headphones and start paying attention.

 

[wise47]

As I said (see the first post in this thread) you should aim for a level of 300 IQ points and only occasionally reach higher levels.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said (see the first post in this thread) you should aim for a level of 300 IQ points and only occasionally reach higher levels.

And as many have said subsequently, everything you claim in that post and the essay to which it refers is either nonsense or impossible.

You admit that the scale you're using to score 300 points is "imaginary." That right there makes your claims anti-scientific. You have no objective, repeatable measurement for your purported evidence.

You don't actually specify what activity accomplishes the raising of the I.Q. You just use general, crackpot terms like "tune in" or "shift to a higher level of intelligence." You have no protocol to follow, nor even any cogent hypothesis to which a protocol could conceivably apply.

At this point your claims are indistinguishable from those I could get from any crank on the street.

 

[Mojo]

As I said (see the first post in this thread) you should aim for a level of 300 IQ points and only occasionally reach higher levels.

 

[theprestige]

As I said (see the first post in this thread) you should aim for a level of 300 IQ points and only occasionally reach higher levels.

Everything you've posted only supports my hypothesis that the more someone cares about IQ, the less able they are to communicate clearly, and the less able they are to anticipate and adapt to different contexts.

Bluntly: if you're so smart, how come you're so bad at understanding and addressing the concerns that have been raised about your ideas?

 

[EHocking]

Ah, I see from your graduation photo that you have reached 300+ IQ

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As I said (see the first post in this thread) you should aim for a level of 300 IQ points and only occasionally reach higher levels.

Yes, you did say that. You continue to say that, but what you're saying is as silly now as it was then.

Everything you've posted only supports my hypothesis that the more someone cares about IQ, the less able they are to communicate clearly, and the less able they are to anticipate and adapt to different contexts.

Bluntly: if you're so smart, how come you're so bad at understanding and addressing the concerns that have been raised about your ideas?

It's the Simonton Gap. As @wise47 himself has said, repeatedly, the difference between his IQ and the IQ of those he's addressing far exceeds 100 IQ points.

I'm starting to believe him.

 

[dann]

It might be very true that under capitalism (and even communism) workers are exploited. This goes back to the Industrial Revolution and the consequent invention of scientific management (FW Taylor) and 'Taylorism' when output, time and efficiency became an obsession in getting the most out of your work force. From slavery or serfdom, in which people were fed or at least had the means to self-maintain (as in growing their own stuff), suddenly in C19 they're forced into factories and supporting services AND having to use their earnings to feed and clothe themselves and their families.

As your examples show, "from slavery to serfdom," exploitation as such is not a capitalist invention. Taylorism just made exploitation more efficient.

BUT we are all born into a society with the expectation that unless one has a 'get-out clause' we are expected to earn a living as an adult, so yes, education is important. By only allowing the wealthy to have the means to enter well-paid professions or government positions and pretending it's elitism to have selective education for the public in general (only 6.6% go to elite private schools in the UK) you are preventing social mobility.

It's not that only the wealthy are allowed to have "the means to enter well-paid professions or government positions." Everybody is allowed to have the means, but not everybody has them: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." It also allows the rich as well as the poor to sleep on mattresses with an individually-wrapped coil system with 900+ coils, isolating motion and regulating temperature, in luxuriously furnished bedrooms in $50 million mansions – on only one condition: that they can afford to do so. The same thing goes for the amount of stocks and bonds they can own, and the gourmet meals they can consume. It's all allowed for everybody. On that one condition.

You are blind to the way IQ testing is being used to justify class society:

Even Boris Johnson only got well-educated because he got an EU-scholarship and Rishi Sunak a scholarship to Winchester, with his parents having to drive him there as a day boy who couldn't afford boarding, please let's stop pretending IQ testing of children is a dirty word. In fact it is one way out of the low-paid minimum wage poverty trap. Plus, in addition, unlike in the past, anyone with talent and innovation skills can start up their own companies and secure intellectual copyright for their inventions.

You pretend that IQ testing is something that paves the way for kids from poor families to get higher education when in reality it's the other way around: When a successfully passed IQ test or SAT scor is what occasionally grants a few working-class kids access to a college education, it's also the failed IQ tests that exclude the rest of their peers from that kind of education. It's the perfect analogy to the way that money and capital works: If an exorbitant amount of money can give you access to anything your heart desires, the lack of money excludes you from access to the same stuff. Money is what prevents poor people access to the luxury goods that the Epstein class has access to. (But money couldn't do it without the state and its monopoly on violence: Money doesn't work without the police force.)

What you describe as "one way out of the low-paid minimum wage poverty trap" for a small minority of kids from the disenfranchised classes is what is used to justify that the vast majority of them are excluded from that way out.

Plus, in addition, much like in the past, anyone lacking all talent and innovation skills can start up their own companies and secure intellectual copyright for inventions if they have enough money to pay for those companies and those employees whose inventions they own. The inventors don't own them because the people with money paid them to invent so their inventions belong to them. Even if you're are deficient in all talent and innovation skills, you can become the most powerful man in the world if you grow up rich and know how to game the system.
What is usually considered to be talent, innovation skills, intellectual copyright or patented ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with that power.

Only people who have grown up devouring sentimental movies about people fighting their way to the top, equipped with nothing but raw talent and willpower, can't see through this scam.

Yes, of course, in the free market with the constraints of supply and demand, the best jobs will always be limited. It is unavoidable.

No, it's not at all unavoidable, but it requires taking action against the allegedly free market with its constraints of supply and demand, and the victims of that market and its ideology aren't there yet. And the reason why they aren't there yet isn't that they were born with a g deficiency.

 

[Vixen]

As your examples show, "from slavery to serfdom," exploitation as such is not a capitalist invention. Taylorism just made exploitation more efficient.

It's not that only the wealthy are allowed to have "the means to enter well-paid professions or government positions." Everybody is allowed to have the means, but not everybody has them: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." It also allows the rich as well as the poor to sleep on mattresses with an individually-wrapped coil system with 900+ coils, isolating motion and regulating temperature, in luxuriously furnished bedrooms in $50 million mansions – on only one condition: that they can afford to do so. The same thing goes for the amount of stocks and bonds they can own, and the gourmet meals they can consume. It's all allowed for everybody. On that one condition.

You are blind to the way IQ testing is being used to justify class society:

You pretend that IQ testing is something that paves the way for kids from poor families to get higher education when in reality it's the other way around: When a successfully passed IQ test or SAT scor is what occasionally grants a few working-class kids access to a college education, it's also the failed IQ tests that exclude the rest of their peers from that kind of education. It's the perfect analogy to the way that money and capital works: If an exorbitant amount of money can give you access to anything your heart desires, the lack of money excludes you from access to the same stuff. Money is what prevents poor people access to the luxury goods that the Epstein class has access to. (But money couldn't do it without the state and its monopoly on violence: Money doesn't work without the police force.)

What you describe as "one way out of the low-paid minimum wage poverty trap" for a small minority of kids from the disenfranchised classes is what is used to justify that the vast majority of them are excluded from that way out.

Plus, in addition, much like in the past, anyone lacking all talent and innovation skills can start up their own companies and secure intellectual copyright for inventions if they have enough money to pay for those companies and those employees whose inventions they own. The inventors don't own them because the people with money paid them to invent so their inventions belong to them. Even if you're are deficient in all talent and innovation skills, you can become the most powerful man in the world if you grow up rich and know how to game the system.
What is usually considered to be talent, innovation skills, intellectual copyright or patented ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with that power.

Only people who have grown up devouring sentimental movies about people fighting their way to the top, equipped with nothing but raw talent and willpower, can't see through this scam.

No, it's not at all unavoidable, but it requires taking action against the allegedly free market with its constraints of supply and demand, and the victims of that market and its ideology aren't there yet. And the reason why they aren't there yet isn't that they were born with a g deficiency.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing cause and effect: even you yourself state that the wealthy simply create wealth by eternally investing. That has nothing to do with IQ. You also go to extremes to make your point by picking out a small handful of 'Tech Bros', literally, a few dozen - maybe hundreds - out of a world populated by eight billion. In any case, profligate investors like Musk or Trump, aren't particularly bright at all. Their fathers had money.

You make the mistake of thinking that if we give every child a school-leaving certificate all subjects Grade 'A* or Grade 10 or 9, what you get is not 'equality', you get grade inflation. Where once upon a time you only needed five O-Levels and two A-Levels Grade B or even EE, now, you need fourteen at grade 10 and five at grade A* - or you soon will! - and even then you can't get your first choice at UCAS.

If you don't believe me, there's a good topic here (Reddit) about Prince Edward's grades to read History at Oxford. Comments such as:

"Both my sister and husband got into oxbridge colleges in the 1980s. They had to get 2 E grades each. "

"It's hard for me to picture anyone with a single E copping Oxbridge that wasn't from like Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Gordonstoun etc."

"Someone in my year did the Oxbridge entrance and interview, got an offer of 2 Es."


Now its:

"My friend Kings dentistry BCC, missed got BCD. Got in

Guy in year below A1 A1 AA Cambridge NatSci (1 was S level). Got A1 A1 A1 A. Top 10 first in Physics in the end."

So you see, claiming academic ability or intelligence is a made-up concept by a handful of ultra-rich investor types is an illusion as it doesn't magically make opportunities better for everyone just because we ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[wise47]

As you can see, you can raise your IQ very high, to say 1600 points, all you need is the right attitude and tuning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As you can see,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Dave

 

[Mojo]

As you can see, you can raise your IQ very high, to say 1600 points...

You don't get to QED without it having been demonstrated.

 

[Thermal]

Mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ can QE up a storm though, yeah?

 

[JayUtah]

As you can see...

We cannot see, because you have demonstrated nothing. You have merely made a lot of facially absurd claims while evading any meaningful scrutiny.

you can raise your IQ very high, to say 1600 points...

Asked and answered. You admit your scale is "imaginary," hence has zero scientific value. You need an actual mathematical (specifically, statistical) basis for your scale if you wish its scores to compare directly to the scores measured by conventional methods.

all you need is the right attitude and tuning.

The prevailing attitude here is well-founded skepticism. As I've explained thoroughly, that can be overcome only by objective, testable evidence of the claim. You are unwilling to provide any, so your claim is properly rejected.

Too often, crackpot claims such as yours suggest that the listener must have the right attitude, which is generally postured as a relaxation of skepticism and a lowering of the standard of proof until the claim passes. This is tantamount to claiming that skeptics are unable to experience the subjective aspects of the claim and therefore it's the skepticism that's the problem. That's special pleading. If this criticism doesn't apply to you, describe in detail what the "right attitude" is and what makes it right.

Similarly, you mention "tuning," but you have not yet described what that is. In order to have scientific validity, you need to be able to describe this process in enough detail that someone unfamiliar with the process can accomplish just it by reading your instructions. This is the scientific process of reproducibility.

 

[theprestige]

As you can see, you can raise your IQ very high, to say 1600 points, all you need is the right attitude and tuning.

Too bad you can't apply that attitude and tuning to understanding and addressing the concerns of others.

You have three threads now, where you are failing to effectively communicate your ideas. You have three threads where you are unable to make meaningful responses to the questions and concerns raised by by others.

If this is what a high IQ looks like, it's obviously not just a waste of time, but even counter-productive.

 

[dann]

You seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing cause and effect: even you yourself state that the wealthy simply create wealth by eternally investing. That has nothing to do with IQ. You also go to extremes to make your point by picking out a small handful of 'Tech Bros', literally, a few dozen - maybe hundreds - out of a world populated by eight billion. In any case, profligate investors like Musk or Trump, aren't particularly bright at all. Their fathers had money.

Why repeat what was my point?!

You make the mistake of thinking that if we give every child a school-leaving certificate all subjects Grade 'A* or Grade 10 or 9, what you get is not 'equality', you get grade inflation. Where once upon a time you only needed five O-Levels and two A-Levels Grade B or even EE, now, you need fourteen at grade 10 and five at grade A* - or you soon will! - and even then you can't get your first choice at UCAS.

You make the mistake of confusing grades with knowledge. Grades aren't meant to do anything other than exclude children from higher learning, from education. I don't know about the UK in this respect, but in Denmark a child lagging behind for whatever reason (problems at home, shifting schools too often, Long Covid ...) can't just catch up on what it may have missed by redoing the exams it did poorly in the first time. In combination with restricted admission to higher education, it's society's way of excluding children from education – not because they can't learn more but because society won't let them. And g (and thus IQ) ideology is the poor excuse for this way of excluding children from learning.

If you don't believe me, there's a good topic here (Reddit) about Prince Edward's grades to read History at Oxford. Comments such as:
"Both my sister and husband got into oxbridge colleges in the 1980s. They had to get 2 E grades each. "
"It's hard for me to picture anyone with a single E copping Oxbridge that wasn't from like Eton, Harrow, Westminster, Gordonstoun etc."
"Someone in my year did the Oxbridge entrance and interview, got an offer of 2 Es."

And you accuse me of having "fallen into the trap of confusing cause and effect."
You pretend that there is a natural limit to the number of people that can get a higher education, and that the natural limit is g.
There is no such natural limit! Society decides how many people it lets get a higher education. And it prefers to let the vast majority of people stay ignorant – apart from what it takes to learn to read and write and do very basic arithmetic. Society decides to let the majority of its population stay ignorant enough to be unable to distinguish between vaccine science and anti-vaxxer propaganda. In the USA, society decides to let the population stay ignorant enough to believe in Trump's lies – or at the most vote for somebody else whose lies aren't as obvious as those of Trump's.

Now its:
"My friend Kings dentistry BCC, missed got BCD. Got in
Guy in year below A1 A1 AA Cambridge NatSci (1 was S level). Got A1 A1 A1 A. Top 10 first in Physics in the end."
So you see, claiming academic ability or intelligence is a made-up concept by a handful of ultra-rich investor types is an illusion as it doesn't magically make opportunities better for everyone just because we ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Again you have "fallen into the trap of confusing cause and effect." I never claimed that "academic ability or intelligence is a made-up concept."
What you claim is that higher education is a limited resource that can't be for everybody because everybody isn't suited for it due their limited amount of the natural resource g as measured by IQ tests.
You take the result of deliberately limiting (!) access to education by means of an educational system whose main purpose is selection, and then you claim that that selection is a result of measuring an objectively limited presence of the non-existent natural entity g.
The best evidence that this is pure classist, sexist and racist ideology is the Flynn effect – which is why IQ dimwits hate it.
IQ: The democratically purified racism (Skeptic Report)
How intelligent is the average IQ test designer? (Skeptic Report)