• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How to increase your IQ level ?

Vixen said:
Not quite right. You are assessed according to your age group,hence, under-16's would get a weighting, which led to inflated scores in some cases, often due to fast development, precociousness, etc. However, for an adult it's generally believed you've reached your peak at about age 12, fitting in with Piaget's developmental stage of understanding abstract concepts, such as consistency of volume when pouring water from a tall glass into a wide one, for example. Things such as Alzheimer's, and other illnesses affecting cognitive reasoning, wouldn't be treated as 'normal' (=organic disease). My psychology tutor used to inform us the average mental age of the elderly was just nine-years-old but perhaps he was including the (sadly) senile. Senility is not inevitable.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you think I'm not quite right about. I can assure you that I didn't get my bonus points twenty years ago because I was in the "under-16's" age group, and on the other hand, I was still too young to be in the age bracket significantly affected by Alzheimer's.
As for senility not being inevitable, it very much depends. As I mentioned in post 273, there are many things you can do (and some you can avoid doing) that will delay the onset or the progression of dementia, but 76% isn't 100%.

The allegedly "inflated scores in some cases, often due to fast development, precociousness, etc." sounds like the bad excuses fans of the 'g' delusion come up with when their claims about IQ scores as predictive turn out to be wrong. Yes, some kids learn some things earlier than others, and other kids stop learning earlier than others. Some of them give up on learning "abstract concepts" when parents, teachers and the educational system have convinced them that it's something their 'g's aren't suited for and relegated them to classes for future menial labourers, the epsilons of the Brave New World of capitalism but without the Bokanowski process. In fact, people like Helmuth Nyborg claim that it's an entirely natural process.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
I have no idea what you think I'm not quite right about. I can assure you that I didn't get my bonus points twenty years ago because I was in the "under-16's" age group, and on the other hand, I was still too young to be in the age bracket significantly affected by Alzheimer's.
As for senility not being inevitable, it very much depends. As I mentioned in post 273, there are many things you can do (and some you can avoid doing) that will delay the onset or the progression of dementia, but 76% isn't 100%.

The allegedly "inflated scores in some cases, often due to fast development, precociousness, etc." sounds like the bad excuses fans of the 'g' delusion come up with when their claims about IQ scores as predictive turn out to be wrong. Yes, some kids learn some things earlier than others, and other kids stop learning earlier than others. Some of them give up on learning "abstract concepts" when parents, teachers and the educational system have convinced them that it's something their 'g's aren't suited for and relegated them to classes for future menial labourers, the epsilons of the Brave New World of capitalism but without the Bokanowski process. In fact, people like Helmuth Nyborg claim that it's an entirely natural process.
Click to expand...
'g' is not a delusion. it is one of the most robust of psychometric measures. I don't understand why you spend so much time defending the 95% who fall in the +/-2 sd (two standard deviation zone). This is the oppressive majority who put people like Trump or Putin into power and determine the low quality of television, mass media and social media output. Because they are many, they have great pleasure in marginalising the severely intellectually disabled people and those others 'not in their league'. Bullying and cruelty is fun for those doing it and those doing it are the masses, so there is a warm buzzy sense of camaraderie to it of belonging, with even those tasked with policing turning a blind eye and even actively joining in. They don't need anyone defending them. So the average doctor or university lecturer will be at, say between 115 - 125 IQ, typically. Those guys think they are at the top. They have no insight or awareness that there are higher levels of intelligence; in fact, they tend to be outraged and affronted when it's met. Nothing drives them more crazy than when a female, in particular, runs rings around them. As male aggression and misogyny is 'normal', they'll follow those females around, shouting, 'Quiet, Piggy!' or exclaiming, 'How dare you express an opinion!' with absolute brute impunity. They get away with it because they know nobody will call them out. They see themselves as '"A" number-one, top of the heap' Frank Sinatra-style. So yeah, they're okay with coercive control and stalking because there is no self-awareness of their own limited intellect, and nobody to say, 'Whoa! it's simply not acceptable, and you are not the victim here!'. They think they are the wounded because that is how they feel when receiving a fleeting revelation of their shortcomings, hence the preoccupation with writing hate comments under the profiles of smarter people than themselves, especially the female ones. It'll be rationalised as their being self-proclaimed 'skeptical', when in reality, they are 'defenders of the norm' - which is the hill of the normal distribution curve on which they land - not 'skeptics' at all, as usually, they have never given much thought to things they claim to be 'sceptical' of or claim 'scepticism' about; it's usually just their word, or device, to assert their self-constructed hegemony of what constitutes highest intellect. In their world view, this highest intellect is, of course, themself.

BTW I am sure the 'menial labourers' you refer to are terribly romantic on paper, yet these are the same people who join unions yet go on marches chanting, 'Enoch [Powell] is right!'
 
Your rant is entirely bereft of facts and reason.
So the average doctor or university lecturer will be at, say between 115 - 125 IQ, typically. Those guys think they are at the top. They have no insight or awareness that there are higher levels of intelligence; in fact, they tend to be outraged and affronted when it's met.
Click to expand...
"Higher levels of intelligence" is as absurd as the 'higher levels of consciousness' that new agers and LSD users refer to when they pretend to be at a more 'elevated' level than everybody else. I have had more sensible debates with astrologers than with Mensans. The former are sometimes able and willing to listen to arguments and consider facts. The latter hardly ever are.
As for medical doctors, their usefulness is based on their study of medicine, not on their IQ score. If I hear that medical doctors spend time trying to improve their IQ instead of reading up on recent research in their field, I'll do my utmost to avoid being diagnosed and treated by them.

As for the menial laborers I know personally, the few of them who are old enough to know about Enoch Powell would probably chant, 'Enoch Powell is dead – and a good thing, too.'
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
'g' is not a delusion. it is one of the most robust of psychometric measures. I don't understand why you spend so much time defending the 95% who fall in the +/-2 sd (two standard deviation zone). This is the oppressive majority who put people like Trump or Putin into power and determine the low quality of television, mass media and social media output. Because they are many, they have great pleasure in marginalising the severely intellectually disabled people and those others 'not in their league'. Bullying and cruelty is fun for those doing it and those doing it are the masses, so there is a warm buzzy sense of camaraderie to it of belonging, with even those tasked with policing turning a blind eye and even actively joining in. They don't need anyone defending them. So the average doctor or university lecturer will be at, say between 115 - 125 IQ, typically. Those guys think they are at the top. They have no insight or awareness that there are higher levels of intelligence; in fact, they tend to be outraged and affronted when it's met. Nothing drives them more crazy than when a female, in particular, runs rings around them. As male aggression and misogyny is 'normal', they'll follow those females around, shouting, 'Quiet, Piggy!' or exclaiming, 'How dare you express an opinion!' with absolute brute impunity. They get away with it because they know nobody will call them out. They see themselves as '"A" number-one, top of the heap' Frank Sinatra-style. So yeah, they're okay with coercive control and stalking because there is no self-awareness of their own limited intellect, and nobody to say, 'Whoa! it's simply not acceptable, and you are not the victim here!'. They think they are the wounded because that is how they feel when receiving a fleeting revelation of their shortcomings, hence the preoccupation with writing hate comments under the profiles of smarter people than themselves, especially the female ones. It'll be rationalised as their being self-proclaimed 'skeptical', when in reality, they are 'defenders of the norm' - which is the hill of the normal distribution curve on which they land - not 'skeptics' at all, as usually, they have never given much thought to things they claim to be 'sceptical' of or claim 'scepticism' about; it's usually just their word, or device, to assert their self-constructed hegemony of what constitutes highest intellect. In their world view, this highest intellect is, of course, themself.

BTW I am sure the 'menial labourers' you refer to are terribly romantic on paper, yet these are the same people who join unions yet go on marches chanting, 'Enoch [Powell] is right!'
Click to expand...
In case anyone is wondering what this roman à clef is about:
Vixen

Thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Given the recent navigation around the moon, this topic seems to have resurfaced. Here we have deniers, such as Marcus Allen ~vs~ Dr Tony Cook of Aberystwyth University, explaining their arguments re: gravity, photography, shadow, wind, stars, radiation, craters, computers and lasers. Uploaded recently.

 
Mojo said:
In case anyone is wondering what this roman à clef is about:
Vixen

Thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Given the recent navigation around the moon, this topic seems to have resurfaced. Here we have deniers, such as Marcus Allen ~vs~ Dr Tony Cook of Aberystwyth University, explaining their arguments re: gravity, photography, shadow, wind, stars, radiation, craters, computers and lasers. Uploaded recently.

Click to expand...
The main difference between that thread and this one is that this thread began by inviting us to increase our IQ, while the other began by inviting us to decrease our IQ.
 
Mojo said:
In case anyone is wondering what this roman à clef is about:
Vixen

Thread 'Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk'

Given the recent navigation around the moon, this topic seems to have resurfaced. Here we have deniers, such as Marcus Allen ~vs~ Dr Tony Cook of Aberystwyth University, explaining their arguments re: gravity, photography, shadow, wind, stars, radiation, craters, computers and lasers. Uploaded recently.

Click to expand...
Please explain.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Getting back to those stars you so easily photographed, could you just tell us the following?

- Camera type
- Film type
- Aperture setting (if applicable)
- Exposure setting (if applicable)
- Any accessory equipment you used to facilitate taking the images
Click to expand...
Good heavens! Ladies running around with tripods and cameras! Whatever next? "Make me a cup of tea, luv, and stop trying to be erudite. This is the <fx lowers pitch> Man's Room."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mojo, we ladies love it when guys come along claiming to be our new manager. It's awfully gallant of you but please would you mind consulting me first before claiming to represent my views? Thanks!
 
Vixen said:
Mojo, we ladies love it when guys come along claiming to be our new manager. It's awfully gallant of you but please would you mind consulting me first before claiming to represent my views? Thanks!
Click to expand...
You asked me to explain. I think what I've quoted illuminates the situation.

I have not claimed to be your "manager", or to be representing your views. I have merely quoted you. Please stop misrepresenting my position.
 
Reaching 800 points would also be a significant achievement, it doesn't necessarily have to be 1600 points, although that prospect seems tempting.
 
wise47 said:
Reaching 800 points would also be a significant achievement
Click to expand...
...as well as a statistical impossibility.

wise47 said:
it doesn't necessarily have to be 1600 points, although that prospect seems tempting.
Click to expand...
...and completely fantastical. You haven't explained how you actually do what you claim to be able to do.
 
JayUtah said:
Can you think yourself dumber?
Click to expand...
Finally! Something in which I can brag about publicly!

I've been thinking myself dumber for the past twenty-two years and have made some considerable progress, thank you very much!

I just passed the 800 IQ point and and shooting for a sub-seven hundred score by the end of the year. This thread will be of considerable help, of course.

Wish me luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom