How to increase your IQ level ?

[P.J. Denyer]

Can you think yourself dumber?

If anyone else is up to the challenge it's the OP.

 

[Thermal]

Speaking of which, how are we feeling about rooster tails ITT?

 

[sackett]

A father cried to his son, "Ya ain't iggerant enuff, son! Ye gots to work at it!"
His son replied, "Muh, I'm purty iggerant, Pa. I ain't so bad."
"Oh yeah? Have ya heard o' Warsaw Indianner?"
"Uh, yeah."
"Well I never have! See what I mean? Ya gots to strive, son!"

 

[wise47]

I recommend the table from the first post for exercises.

 

[JayUtah]

I recommend the table from the first post for exercises.

Those are attributes you say attend people with abnormally high I.Q. but you never explain what to do to get those scores and thereby gain those attributes. At 160 you say you have an interest in music. I've been a musician for more than 50 years, plus active in a profession that demands a great deal of brainpower. What would you say my I.Q. is?

Conversely I see kids listening to music on ear pods practically nonstop. That's the 160 level, which also includes "paranoia," for some reason. Some of these kids seem like they might be paranoid. But they all look dumb as a bag of hammers. What are we missing?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I recommend the table from the first post for exercises.

I have taken the liberty of updating that table to incorporate your recommendations. My additions are in red.

IQ (S.D. = 15)	Attributes
1600	Stupid on stilts.
1200	Suggested target if your real-world IQ is 120
300	Recommended IQ from the first post
185	High natural...in a hurry
180	New creation
175	Knows intelligent...
165	Formalisation...less hiding
160	...paranoia... (Legitimate IQ tests max out at 160 or less.)
150	Trivial... (Some IQ tests max out at 150.)
145	...slavery to conditioning (higher than 99.85% of all legitimate IQs)

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm still looking for an answer to this:

Pardon my ignorance, but can you please tell me exactly what a "point" of IQ represents?

 

[theprestige]

Reaching 800 points would also be a significant achievement, it doesn't necessarily have to be 1600 points, although that prospect seems tempting.

Someone who can reach 800 IQ should be a lot more intelligent about communicating to a suspicious audience.

 

[Joe Random]

I'm still looking for an answer to this:

Clearly it represents a point you didn't put into something like STR or CHA ...

 

[Thermal]

Anyone else starting to clock the Passage of Time by the next emtpy seagull dropping?

 

[Joe Random]

Anyone else starting to clock the Passage of Time by the next emtpy seagull dropping?

Measuring in units of 'wise' will produce coarse results. We could measure in units of 'rusty' for added precision, but might risk a buffer overflow.

 

[wise47]

I'm still looking for an answer to this:

A point will be the same as what is normally measured, let's say 100 points is the population average, and this is how a point should be understood in this case.

 

[Mojo]

I suspect that Arthwollipot is still looking for an answer.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A father cried to his son, "Ya ain't iggerant enuff, son! Ye gots to work at it!"
His son replied, "Muh, I'm purty iggerant, Pa. I ain't so bad."
"Oh yeah? Have ya heard o' Warsaw Indianner?"
"Uh, yeah."
"Well I never have! See what I mean? Ya gots to strive, son!"

Been to Warsaw, Indiana. Heading north for the apple harvest.

 

[Thermal]

A point will be the same as what is normally measured, let's say 100 points is the population average, and this is how a point should be understood in this case.

Then you are more woefully wrong than we thought. 100 points is set as an average. It's not a cumulative score that can go very high, as you appear to imagine.

You appear to have no understanding at all of how IQ points are measured and scored. There is no mechanism to score beyond 300 points or so. The administrator wouldn't be able to score it, as the answers on the timed sections (such as assembling patterns out of multicolored blocks) would be basically instantaneous, which is not humanly possible.

 

[JayUtah]

A point will be the same as what is normally measured, let's say 100 points is the population average, and this is how a point should be understood in this case.

If your intent is that your scores should be reckoned on the scale described by

x ~ N(100, 15)​

then it has already been explained to you why scores x > 140 or x > 160 are not well defined and why scores such as x ≥ 1600 are statistically impossible in that distribution. It's as if you're claiming your car engine can run at 100,000,000 rpm but you can measure it on the standard gauge that only goes to 8,000 or 10,000 rpm.

You have not specified how you measure (not estimate) these values. If you intend to use the standard scale, you must use a measurement that conforms to the standard. Previously you have said merely that it is an "imaginary" scale. Now that you've clarified that you mean the scale as distributed for everyone else, we take that "imaginary" must mean that you simply imagine what the score might be. This, of course, is not a measurement in any useful sense of the word. Now please clarify what your measurement procedure is.

This is entirely separate from whether you can actually demonstrate the commensurate intelligence. Frankly we're waiting for you to demonstrate three digits at all.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Warning: This note contains legitimate mathematics, of the sort known as a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

If your intent is that your scores should be reckoned on the scale described by

x ~ N(100, 15)​

then it has already been explained to you why scores x > 140 or x > 160 are not well defined and why scores such as x ≥ 1600 are statistically impossible in that distribution. It's as if you're claiming your car engine can run at 100,000,000 rpm but you can measure it on the standard gauge that only goes to 8,000 or 10,000 rpm.

An IQ of 1600 is as likely as an IQ of −1400.

Not about as likely, but exactly as likely, with mathematical precision. Both numbers (1600 and −1400) are 100 standard deviations away from the mean, which is set (arbitrarily) at 100.

How likely is that? That's hard to say with mathematical precision, because the probability density function of a standard normal distribution is an exponential function, which becomes slightly messier when generalized for means (⁠μ) other than zero and standard deviations (⁠σ) other than 1, and the cumulative distribution function is obtained by integrating that exponential.

When computing exponential functions and their integrals, we normally use floating point arithmetic, but 100 standard deviations takes us far outside the dynamic range of IEEE floating point arithmetic. To calculate an easily calculated (but extremely loose!) upper bound for the extraordinarily small probability associated with being 100 standard deviations from the norm, I observed that, for non-negative values of x, the probability density function (PDF) of a standard normal distribution is (substantially!) less than f(x) = 2^−x. That implies that, for positive x:

Σ_n=x^∞ 1 / (2ⁿ) > ∫_x^∞ PDF(t) dt = 1 − CDF (x)​

where CDF is the cumulative distribution function for a standard normal distribution. Which means an IQ of 1600 or greater occurs with probability

1 − CDF (100) ≪ 1/2⁹⁹ = 1/633825300114114700748351602688 ≈ 1.5777218104420236 x 10⁻³⁰​

where the ≪ symbol means vastly less than. Which is to say an IQ of 1600 is vastly less likely than one in a nonillion (short scale). Which is to say that, if a million humans had been born every second since the universe began, the probability that one or more of those humans had an IQ of 1600 or greater is vastly less than one in a million.

And is exactly the same as the probability that one or more of those humans had an IQ of -1400 or less.

This is entirely separate from whether you can actually demonstrate the commensurate intelligence. Frankly we're waiting for you to demonstrate three digits at all.

I'm willing to concede two digits (preceded by a minus sign).

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Warning: This note contains legitimate mathematics, of the sort known as a back-of-the-envelope calculation.


An IQ of 1600 is as likely as an IQ of −1400

After reading this thread I'm starting to think that's possible.

 

[JayUtah]

After reading this thread I'm starting to think that's possible.

Quite. We're in bowl-of-petunias territory now.

 

[arthwollipot]

A point will be the same as what is normally measured, let's say 100 points is the population average, and this is how a point should be understood in this case.

Yes, but what does it actually represent?