How to increase your IQ level ?

[Thermal]

No, they cannot.

Pointless pedantic quibble supporting the can-do spirit: they *can try* to reach 1200. That the test does not have a mechanism to achieve it is another matter.

 

[sackett]

If you're told that your IQ score is 70, you can ask to take the test again, and this time pay
attention. If your new score is 85, call that good enough and get the hell out the whole game.
Brains are only a crutch for wimps with no muscles.

 

[Thermal]

If you're told that your IQ score is 70, you can ask to take the test again, and this time pay
attention. If your new score is 85, call that good enough and get the hell out the whole game.
Brains are only a crutch for wimps with no muscles.

I think we should use manhood length and girth instead. That keeps the womenfolk where they belong as a side benefit.

 

[arthwollipot]

There is one reliable demonstrated method for increasing your IQ, and that is to practice doing IQ tests.

 

[EHocking]

I think we should use manhood length and girth instead. That keeps the womenfolk where they belong as a side benefit.

What about tra….


(sorry)

 

[wise47]

Verifying the results my method yields in intelligence tests would require further research. But IQ levels can undoubtedly be raised.

 

[Thermal]

Verifying the results my method yields in intelligence tests would require further research.

The floor remains yours to do so. Right now, as far as we know, it's not even a method.

Have you tested this by having *real* IQ tests administered before and after listening to the radio on headphones? If not, you're just screwing around.

But IQ levels can undoubtedly be raised.

Can they be raised enough to get you to respond to multiple questions, challenges, and criticisms put to you repeatedly?

 

[JayUtah]

Verifying the results my method yields in intelligence tests would require further research.

Yes. And having done that research before stating one's conclusions is what would have made you a scientist. Stating your conclusions before having applied a scientifically valid method to test them is pseudoscience, not science.

But IQ levels can undoubtedly be raised.

How do you know that?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes. And having done that research before stating one's conclusions is what would have made you a scientist. Stating your conclusions before having applied a scientifically valid method to test them is pseudoscience, not science.


How do you know that?

I made some suggestions when I did the test for the VA. You'd have to ask them what they were, not stored in my memory bank. (If they kept them, if they implemented any of them, if they would give me credit (which I don't seek).) The VA doctor feller took me to lunch after we had a chat about my score. (They paid for me go to Purdue, as did the State of Indiana.)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Verifying the results my method yields in intelligence tests would require further research. But IQ levels can undoubtedly be raised.

Your research has already convinced me that IQs can be lowered.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

W. D., if one doesn't have clue how IQ are alloted then they'll make unfounded assumptions. Fundamental lack of being informed of the fundamentals as it were. I saw a lot of that when I took Abnormal Pysch at Purdue.

 

[ahhell]

So why hasn't the OP used his own method?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The name of the test is usually included with the score sheet.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In preparation for the Eleven Plus exams in England when I was a child our school had us practice with previous years tests. I, for one, did better with having practised rather just meeting a test for real in the actual exam.

Later in life I bought and used all the "Improve Your IQ" books written by Hans Eysenck. With a struggle I managed to raise my IQ a couple of points to 126. No MENSA for me.

After a bit'o Googling it appears that even if you get all the answers correct in a 50 question test the IQ measurement tops at at around 200. I suppose the only way to double it would be to get all the answers right twice.

 

[Trebuchet]

You could always be like me and just have a natural talent for taking standardized tests. Which was the curse of my school years, because I was always accused of not working hard enough to the get the grades to match the test scores.

 

[Thermal]

God yes. "Bright but lazy" is all I heard in school. I am certain that the big IQ tests favor those who have the knack for testing well, whatever that may be. I scored far above what I think I should have in formal testing. But my wife insists that's not the case, beyond a few points of noise range variation. You can't fake it, or lucky guess it. The compilers of the test thought long and hard about mitigating that effect.

Eta: when my then-girlfriend was in grad school learning to administer the tests, I volunteered to be one of the subjects. I took them three times- once administered by the professor, once by my babe, and once for some random other student who needed a subject. Freaking hours of those damn tests, man, but there was little I wouldn't do for that smokeshow {inception ETA: when I volunteered to be a second subject for the young lady who didn't have a subject, the prof asked me to submit to one more round with him, as like a control for comparison in group discussion, since so few volunteered to do it more than once}. In addition, I was asked to write to my primary school early on for a certified copy of the S-B that I took in kindergarten (they apparently kept records for nearly 15 years). Blind tests to my other scores across the board.

The results were within a couple points of each other as an adult, and just a few off from my childhood test. My score was expected to improve by a point or maybe two on the second test, and not improve for any subsequent ones. My girlfriend scored me the lowest, and actually knew it, because in her own words, she thought I could have answered some of the questions better, and so didn't give me points that she would have given to a stranger.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So why hasn't the OP used his own method?

Maybe he did and W.D.Clinger is right.

Your research has already convinced me that IQs can be lowered.

 

[sackett]

If your test score went up for every wrong answer, the results might be more interesting. As we
all know, every test includes some bonehead-easy questions that we zip past scornfully. Getting such questions
wrong would take a bit of care and thought; you'd need some creativity to make sure you didn't
accidentally get anything right.

I'd wager, if I was a gamblin' man, that hardly anybody could finish the whole fandango within
the allotted time and score 100% wrong.

 

[sackett]

You could always be like me and just have a natural talent for taking standardized tests. Which was the curse of my school years, because I was always accused of not working hard enough to the get the grades to match the test scores.

I can top that!

Some years ago, I had to submit to an hours-long battery of IQ, brain function,
and aptitude tests. (The State of Michigan was suspicious about my aging
brain's ability to drive a car, god blast and damn their thuggish hearts.) Some
parts of these tests were familiar, some novel, some rather odd. There was an interview
session with the head shrink too. After a few days, they commanded me
to come back and review the results -- and the head shrink was HORRIFIED!
at some of my scores! A man of my HIGH! intelligence, scoring Low Normal on simple
math challenges! Oh! And the simulated driving tests! Low Normal again!

When the poor woman had fought off an attack of the vapors, I asked, Well,
but what is your baseline? (My math skills have always been sub-enviable, no
news there. And I evolved long before laptop driving games came to be. So WTF,
Dr. Shrink?) She began to hem n haw n harrumph, and could only come up with
the impression she had formed from my interview. That was her baseline:
The wealth of Western boolsh I had fed her. Hell's on fire, we all enjoy talking about
ourselves.

In the end, my tests were enough for the State of Machinations to let me
keep my driver's license. But later I discussed this episode with a psychologist,
who scoffed and said he'd never heard of Low Normal; either you fail or you pass.
Her baseline? Not worth the paper it wasn't plotted on.

Only thing I learned was don't engage with a patent psych evaluator you
found online!

 

[JayUtah]

So why hasn't the OP used his own method?

He has, declaring that he can raise his I.Q. into the hundreds—but only if you measure the I.Q. by his method. According to him, this would make him literally the world's smartest person by several factors.

A person can reckon himself to be very smart by any method he wants, or believes he can get others to accept. I've interviewed hundreds of candidates for employment and therefore I have devised a method by which to measure claims of aptitude for my narrow purposes. But if one wants to claim a very high number that can be directly compared to the numbers obtained by a particular method, one must follow that method. Otherwise there is no meaningful comparison.

Declaring oneself to be quantifiably able to improve one's intelligence according to one's own method of measurement is the fox guarding the henhouse. Our OP seems to think his intelligence-improving methods are visible according to the standard methods of measuring I.Q., which is absurd on its face and admittedly unproven.