How to increase your IQ level ?

[wise47]

Your IQ can be raised, even very high, using a relatively simple method. It allows you to raise your intelligence level to 180, 200, 400, 600, or even 1600 points. To achieve this, you need to properly prepare yourself and tune yourself to achieve a higher IQ. In the proposed method, your mind is simply transported to a higher IQ level. You can tell yourself you're going to achieve a higher IQ, for example, 180, and you shift to that level. This method allows you to achieve up to 1600 points, although not immediately. You should first try lower levels to mature towards 1600 or 1200 points.
To support this method, I suggest listening to music from the radio through large headphones. At very high levels, the music begins to sound noticeably better, and interesting sound effects appear. Similarly, analyzing the lyrics of a song you're listening to allows you to practice at higher levels.
The rule is that the maximum level, the suggested maximum, is ten times your normal IQ level. So, if you have an IQ of 100, you'll get 1,000 points; if you have an IQ of 120, you'll get 1,200 points; and if you have an IQ of 160, you'll get 1,600 points.
In practice, I recommend raising your IQ to 300 points. You should aim to reach 300 points, and only occasionally go above 1,000 points.
To begin, it's worth practicing with the levels presented in the table below.

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, 2023

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

see also my threads on this forum:

Nuclear war and going back of Hitler
A new approach to the evolution and structure of society
Does qualitative change come down to quantitative change ?
An extended version of A. Comte's theory of science

 

[The Great Zaganza]

ah, I remember when my IQ was only 1600.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I thought IQ stood for Intelligence Quotient not Idiot Quality?

 

[wise47]

The original text on which I based the initial post in this thread can be found here: How to increase your IQ level ? How to improve your IQ ?

 

[Thermal]

Globally unevidenced/false claims. This is getting a bit dull.

wise47: please describe the methodology you used to arrive at these somewhat goofy claims. In particular, have qualified administrators of IQ tests evaluated them?

ETA: also, you forgot to establish what scale you are using. None of the globally accepted scales can possibly reach the values you claim. Answering a perfect score on the untimed sections of a test, and responding correctly to the timed sections at speeds beyond comprehension would theoretically land a score within the 300-400 range, at which point an administrator would be unable to match the speed to even record or physically understand the responses. No confirmed test in human history has landed a 400 score. The highest confirmed score is in the upper 200s.

In short, what you are presenting us appears exceptionally ridiculous, indeed hallucinatory.

Add'l ETA: please do not try to spam people over to your site as an answer. That is not a valid response. Before most readers here will bother, we want to know if there might be anything of value. Until you can answer basic questions, you are establishing that there is nothing of value to waste time looking into.

 

[theprestige]

Your IQ can be raised, even very high, using a relatively simple method.

But IQ has no practical applications.

 

[catsmate]

<gibber snip>

This is complete rubbish.

 

[JayUtah]

Your IQ can be raised, even very high, using a relatively simple method.

No, it cannot.

Your I.Q. is simply what an I.Q. test measures. What a test measures has certain statistical and physical properties that together make the scores largely immutable for an individual despite a repetition of the test. Your method purports to produce scores that can be compared with scores obtained by these well-established and statistically-controlled methods, but you have already admitted that there is no reproducible or objective principle behind your method. Your method on its face produces a volatile metric. At best this means your scores are not directly comparable. At worst it means your method is scientifically worthless because. Further, your claim to be able to increase your own intelligence to godlike proportions is suspect on its face. As with all such claimants, you are not an unsung genius.

see also my threads on this forum:

Nuclear war and going back of Hitler
A new approach to the evolution and structure of society
Does qualitative change come down to quantitative change ?
An extended version of A. Comte's theory of science

Your work has been thoroughly discussed in those threads, with little if any meaningful feedback from you. In those threads you have devolved mostly to one-line denials and spam repetitions of links to your web site. Yet you continue to open threads for discussion. If you are not interested in a meaningful, in-depth discussion of your work, then this forum is not for you.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

standardized IQ test with representative number of participants only go as high as 160, meaning they can measure up to 180 in IQ.
Anything beyond that has to be individually made.

I would be curious to see what an IQ 1600 test sheet looks like and who was qualified to design it.

 

[Helen]

Did Trump university teach maths, I wonder?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

But IQ has no practical applications.

The only thing IQ Tests measure is the ability to do IQ Tests.

 

[alfaniner]

How to increase your IQ level ?​

Simple. Don't watch Fox, NewsMax, or One America News.
(Oh, too easy...!)

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Wibble.

Damn! I hate headphones and always use loudspeakers, usually listening to CD or vinyl, only occasionally radio. However, I do like volume and paying attention to music...

 

[JayUtah]

I would be curious to see what an IQ 1600 test sheet looks like and who was qualified to design it.

@wise47 refuses to give the details of his method. But what little he has shared with us suggests that you just feel in your heart that you have an I.Q. of 1600 and voila!

When we discussed this previously—and we have, at length—we pointed out that saying your car can go 500 miles per hour depends heavily on an agreed-upon meaning of "mile" and "hour." Without that standardization, your score is meaningless. We norm the tests via several controls to 𝒩(100, 15), meaning that purporting to score 185 or higher on that scale comes with a z-score of 5.667 and a p-value < 7.266 ✕ 10^-9.

Did Trump university teach maths, I wonder?

Only the math required to add up tuition.

The only thing IQ Tests measure is the ability to do IQ Tests.

Among claimants with no particular qualifications or skills, an abnormally high I.Q. is often cited as the claimant's justification nevertheless to be accepted as an expert on some specialized subject. "I've never designed or operated a guidance system before, but I'm very smart so that's how I know you're doing it wrong." In most other cases, the claimant has taken some toy test that flatters them with inflated scores as a marketing tool. But as @Thermal reminds us, a properly administered I.Q. test is not a trivial or inexpensive thing. Here, however, it seems that our OP's method revolves around simply imagining what one's I.Q. is. I believe Dunning and Kruger had something to say about self-assessed intelligence.

Wibble.

 

[theprestige]

The only thing IQ Tests measure is the ability to do IQ Tests.

And the only thing IQ is good for is enriching IQ test producers and administrators.

 

[Thermal]

And the only thing IQ is good for is enriching IQ test producers and administrators.

Seems to be a real asset in identifying specific cognitive difficulties in children, and recognizing gifted ones which helps them be guided in developing their potential.

 

[theprestige]

Seems to be a real asset in identifying specific cognitive difficulties in children, and recognizing gifted ones which helps them be guided in developing their potential.

Ah, so it's racist and sexist as well.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I’m over 8000!

But I’m still not better than Goku!

 

[JayUtah]

Seems to be a real asset in identifying specific cognitive difficulties in children, and recognizing gifted ones which helps them be guided in developing their potential.

In that regard I would tend not to look at the composite score but the individual cognitive area scores. If I want to hire a design engineer, I might be attracted by a high perceptual reasoning score even if, say, the mental processing speed score were lower.

Ah, so it's racist and sexist as well.

Winkie noted, but yes there are a number of concerns about the various biases that might affect a score on one the standard tests. I tend to lump all that into the general problem of what intelligence actually might mean compared to how one proposes to measure it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's a bit odd that we would be more concerned to give a 130+ IQ child extra support instead of one with a below 90 IQ.
Supposedly the smart kids will be able to figure things out for themselves.