139 replies to this topic

[renfr]

I agree as some of you have stated, that hard work should be the foundation. BUT come on guys! Don't fool yourselves into believing that dedication will make you a genius. It doesn't matter how much you want something, if you don't have the optimal genetics. A person with an IQ of 100 can be the hardest working guy on the planet, but still he won't ever be able to achieve a PhD in physics. No way on earth renfr that you can "push" your IQ from 100 to 150. That's just childish...

It's not, I was truly dumber before and that was because my serotonergic system was too active while my dopaminergic system was very low. I was extremely lethargic near to CFS.
Before when my IQ was 100 I was sometimes even giving random answers to difficult questions or answers I'm not totally sure of.
When I did one again not only I was able to decode the mechanism to solve the problem but also I was able to give a firm answer therefore I don't find it surprising if it jumped by 30 or even 50.
Saying they will never is really a blunt answer, how can you know that? I know people who were pretty dumb but managed to make something out of their lives be it become a successful entrepreneur or get his degree.
Besides gene therapy might change it all, people with organic brain syndrome or traumatic brain injury could recover their function very fastly just by changing a subset of genes.

I don't know if online IQ tests can give us an answer near to reality (I know there are some serious ones) but I remember doing them and be around 95-105, I have found a website which seems serious and has 10 IQ tests all with random questions each time so I will try it out when I got the time.

To reiterate, complete horseshit. You cannot raise your IQ from 100 to 150. I would recognize someone with that level of intelligence by their sentence structure. Your IQ is largely fixed for life. That is blunt. And it is the truth. Binary logic. The only exception to this is if you suffer from a psychological condition which masks your true intelligence by diverting your attention or impairing your memory.

Think of the brain as a muscle. Like a muscle, training it improves it with time by the formation of more efficient synapses. But as anyone at the gym knows, some people are just naturally bigger and achieve greater gains. Others hit a limit determined by genetics. So too it is with intelligence. It's good to think of people as being born with a natural range. You need to practice to utilize the upper end of this range. But you will never surpass someone who is naturally gifted or is a genius.

I think it needs to be said that genius is a subjective term. But going by the OPs definition, the academic one currently accepted by psychometrics, I think we are talking about high IQ. With a high IQ comes an increased ability to problem solve, better acquisition of facts, and more mental stamina. This ability is largely innate and can only marginally be improved (I would guess 10 points at most) by extensive supplementation and learning. You have to accept hereditary limitations so that if you are not gifted chances are you never will be. This should not be confused with achievement. You do not need a super high IQ to make a mark on the world. Always aim to reach your potential as you never know where that is.

Why are you all quoting 150? I said 130 to 150 not 150, first get your facts straight.
No, IQ is not fixed at all, this is really pure BS.
The fact that you are saying "this is the truth" shows that your reasoning is biaised, also binary logic is usually not a good thing at all...
There are many studies which studied IQs between people having no degree, having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree or a doctorate. There were significant results (and not +10 like you say), it's obvious that people who study more are likely to have an higher IQ than those who doesn't study at all or get intellectually low jobs.
Following your logics then we can all say aurevoir to neuroplasticity, epigenetics and so on, everything is fixed from the beginning so it's pointless to do anything about it, that's what a call a blunt reasoning.
Most of people do not exploit their brain to their potential so you may be right when you say there is a limit, of course there is but you're unlikely to reach it in your life.
For 90% of people with no big genetic impairment it's not a problem, of course it will be very difficult or almost impossible to raise the IQ of someone with mental retardation .
Dual n back therapy, learning hard, eventually take supplements that increase neuroplasticity will help gaining a lot of IQ points, checkout Dave Asprey, he managed to higher his IQ significantly as well, I think he has an account on Longecity. He boosted it by more than 20 points.
Also sentence structure has nothing to do with IQ, it's like saying "you don't understand fermat's theorem so you can't have an high IQ", that's bollocks if the guy in question has never studied maths thoroughsly.
You can have an high IQ and be only able to form basic sentences just because you don't read much, that's my case (for the sentence part) since I don't have much time to read books with complex grammar, so why the ad hominem attacks? Besides my past doesn't help at all, let's think about the future instead of looking backward.
Anyway my point was that you can always become better, the limit is too high to be reached for most of us, you can always reach an higher state of reasoning, it's not optimism, it's what we can see empirically.

But as anyone at the gym knows, some people are just naturally bigger and achieve greater gains. Others hit a limit determined by genetics.

Brain intelligence is mostly not about size, in fact its size is too huge to be truly significant, there's this story of a guy with hydrocephalus and his brain is just a thin layer among a sea of water. Yet he can function normally though his IQ was 75 but 75 is still above retardedness.


One interesting case involving a person with past hydrocephalus was a 44-year-old French man, whose brain had been reduced to little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue, due to the buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in his head. The man, who had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away fluid (which was removed when he was 14), went to a hospital after he had been experiencing mild weakness in his left leg.
In July 2007, Fox News quoted Dr. Lionel Feuillet of Hôpital de la Timone in Marseille as saying: "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent."^[11] When doctors learned of the man's medical history, they performed a computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles in the skull. Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100. This would be considered "borderline intellectual functioning"- which is just next to the level of being officially considered mentally challenged.
Remarkably, the man was a married father of two children, and worked as a civil servant, leading an at least superficially normal life, despite having enlarged ventricles with a decreased volume of brain tissue. "What I find amazing to this day is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life," commented Dr. Max Muenke, a pediatric brain defect specialist at the National Human Genome Research Institute. "If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side."
And that's his brain !

Edited by renfr, 14 April 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[arjacent]

Why are you all quoting 150? I said 130 to 150 not 150, first get your facts straight.
No, IQ is not fixed at all, this is really pure BS.
The fact that you are saying "this is the truth" shows that your reasoning is biaised, also binary logic is usually not a good thing at all...

It is the truth because that is what psychometrics says. It is actually an active area of research but it is almost universally accepted that IQ is at least 0.7 heritable. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7945151

I am well read on the topic, it fits my own personal experience, and I accept it as fact. For proof all I have to do is evoke evolutionary theory. You have not given convincing evidence to the contrary except for your dubious claim that you went from average to gifted by the use of online tests.

There are many studies which studied IQs between people having no degree, having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree or a doctorate. There were significant results (and not +10 like you say), it's obvious that people who study more are likely to have an higher IQ than those who doesn't study at all or get intellectually low jobs.

I was not aware that obtaining a degree raises ones intelligence. This may perhaps be true if one studies a logically grounded subject like math or the physical sciences where good reasoning techniques are learned. I would not however be surprised if someone from an impoverished environment suddenly became smarter after going to college by acquiring the prerequisite material that was absent in his childhood.

Following your logics then we can all say aurevoir to neuroplasticity, epigenetics and so on, everything is fixed from the beginning so it's pointless to do anything about it, that's what a call a blunt reasoning.
Most of people do not exploit their brain to their potential so you may be right when you say there is a limit, of course there is but you're unlikely to reach it in your life.
For 90% of people with no big genetic impairment it's not a problem, of course it will be very difficult or almost impossible to raise the IQ of someone with mental retardation .
Dual n back therapy, learning hard, eventually take supplements that increase neuroplasticity will help gaining a lot of IQ points, checkout Dave Asprey, he managed to higher his IQ significantly as well, I think he has an account on Longecity. He boosted it by more than 20 points.

I am not advocating pouting and becoming a couch potato because you are not the cream of the crop. As I said, improvement is imminent with all people so all should seek reach to their own potential however modest. But it is unrealistic to aim to become something that you are not. I may wish to look a certain way or posses remarkable ability in something but if it is unrealistic it is just a pipe dream that will only lead to frustration and disappointment. For this reason we have a lot of women with self-image issues and a bunch of frustrated pre-meds who couldn't cut it because they both believed a fallacy that told them the world is at their disposal.

I don't know about Dave Asprey - feel free to link me to some of his threads.

Brain intelligence is mostly not about size, in fact its size is too huge to be truly significant, there's this story of a guy with hydrocephalus and his brain is just a thin layer among a sea of water. Yet he can function normally though his IQ was 75 but 75 is still above retardedness.

I was not equating brain size and intelligence, though primarily data suggests there is a correlation. I was also not equating a low IQ being unworthy of life so I don't know why you convincing me that even he can function.

[renfr]

Why are you all quoting 150? I said 130 to 150 not 150, first get your facts straight.
No, IQ is not fixed at all, this is really pure BS.
The fact that you are saying "this is the truth" shows that your reasoning is biaised, also binary logic is usually not a good thing at all...

It is the truth because that is what psychometrics says. It is actually an active area of research but it is almost universally accepted that IQ is at least 0.7 heritable. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7945151

I am well read on the topic, it fits my own personal experience, and I accept it as fact. For proof all I have to do is evoke evolutionary theory. You have not given convincing evidence to the contrary except for your dubious claim that you went from average to gifted by the use of online tests.

There are many studies which studied IQs between people having no degree, having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree or a doctorate. There were significant results (and not +10 like you say), it's obvious that people who study more are likely to have an higher IQ than those who doesn't study at all or get intellectually low jobs.

I was not aware that obtaining a degree raises ones intelligence. This may perhaps be true if one studies a logically grounded subject like math or the physical sciences where good reasoning techniques are learned. I would not however be surprised if someone from an impoverished environment suddenly became smarter after going to college by acquiring the prerequisite material that was absent in his childhood.

Following your logics then we can all say aurevoir to neuroplasticity, epigenetics and so on, everything is fixed from the beginning so it's pointless to do anything about it, that's what a call a blunt reasoning.
Most of people do not exploit their brain to their potential so you may be right when you say there is a limit, of course there is but you're unlikely to reach it in your life.
For 90% of people with no big genetic impairment it's not a problem, of course it will be very difficult or almost impossible to raise the IQ of someone with mental retardation .
Dual n back therapy, learning hard, eventually take supplements that increase neuroplasticity will help gaining a lot of IQ points, checkout Dave Asprey, he managed to higher his IQ significantly as well, I think he has an account on Longecity. He boosted it by more than 20 points.

I am not advocating pouting and becoming a couch potato because you are not the cream of the crop. As I said, improvement is imminent with all people so all should seek reach to their own potential however modest. But it is unrealistic to aim to become something that you are not. I may wish to look a certain way or posses remarkable ability in something but if it is unrealistic it is just a pipe dream that will only lead to frustration and disappointment. For this reason we have a lot of women with self-image issues and a bunch of frustrated pre-meds who couldn't cut it because they both believed a fallacy that told them the world is at their disposal.

I don't know about Dave Asprey - feel free to link me to some of his threads.

Brain intelligence is mostly not about size, in fact its size is too huge to be truly significant, there's this story of a guy with hydrocephalus and his brain is just a thin layer among a sea of water. Yet he can function normally though his IQ was 75 but 75 is still above retardedness.

I was not equating brain size and intelligence, though primarily data suggests there is a correlation. I was also not equating a low IQ being unworthy of life so I don't know why you convincing me that even he can function.

What about the 30%? That gives a range of +30 which is very significant. Also genes are not something fixed in life, a major genetic change can have dramatic in your brain patterns.
And no these aren't online tests but an IQ test made by a psychologist. It came out as 100 almost 2 years ago and recently it came out as 135.
I put a range because I compared it with many online tests that are quite reliable, and they seem to be reliable since most of the results are around my 135 score. 150 was probably an exceptional result, your mood, your lack of sleep and so many other factors can influence on your IQ.
About Dave Asprey : http://www.bulletpro...ur-of-training/ (it's not Dave in fact but one of his friends who reached 18 IQ points)
Most of people dual n backing a lot report significant cognitive enhancement and higher reasoning.
And that's his account : http://www.longecity...00-dave-asprey/
What could explain my +30 points rise would be the fact that my cognitive function was largely screwed before, it may have had an influence but not on the entire growth that's for sure.

Edited by renfr, 14 April 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[arjacent]

What about the 30%? That gives a range of +30 which is very significant. Also genes are not something fixed in life, a major genetic change can have dramatic in your brain patterns.
And no these aren't online tests but an IQ test made by a psychologist. It came out as 100 almost 2 years ago and recently it came out as 135.
I put a range because I compared it with many online tests that are quite reliable, and they seem to be reliable since most of the results are around my 135 score. 150 was probably an exceptional result, your mood, your lack of sleep and so many other factors can influence on your IQ.
About Dave Asprey : http://www.bulletpro...ur-of-training/ (it's not Dave in fact but one of his friends who reached 18 IQ points)
Most of people dual n backing a lot report significant cognitive enhancement and higher reasoning.
And that's his account : http://www.longecity...00-dave-asprey/
What could explain my +30 points rise would be the fact that my cognitive function was largely screwed before, it may have had an influence but not on the entire growth that's for sure.

A lot can be said of the "30%". Maybe it is not there, and we are just not able to ascertain the results beyond that confidence interval. Maybe it depends on nutrition and upbringing. Maybe random mutations change the outcome. I can speculate to no end.

IQ tests are not very reliable. If you are curious, I find this one to be the most accurate: http://www.iqtest.dk

I don't why your result changed. Maybe the tests you used were flawed. Maybe you corrected some deficiency. Your results are highly atypical.

Edited by arjacent, 14 April 2013 - 12:55 AM.

[renfr]

What about the 30%? That gives a range of +30 which is very significant. Also genes are not something fixed in life, a major genetic change can have dramatic in your brain patterns.
And no these aren't online tests but an IQ test made by a psychologist. It came out as 100 almost 2 years ago and recently it came out as 135.
I put a range because I compared it with many online tests that are quite reliable, and they seem to be reliable since most of the results are around my 135 score. 150 was probably an exceptional result, your mood, your lack of sleep and so many other factors can influence on your IQ.
About Dave Asprey : http://www.bulletpro...ur-of-training/ (it's not Dave in fact but one of his friends who reached 18 IQ points)
Most of people dual n backing a lot report significant cognitive enhancement and higher reasoning.
And that's his account : http://www.longecity...00-dave-asprey/
What could explain my +30 points rise would be the fact that my cognitive function was largely screwed before, it may have had an influence but not on the entire growth that's for sure.

A lot can be said of the "30%". Maybe it is not there, and we are just not able to ascertain the results beyond that confidence interval. Maybe it depends on nutrition and upbringing. Maybe random mutations change the outcome. I can speculate to no end.

IQ tests are not very reliable. If you are curious, I find this one to be the most accurate: http://www.iqtest.dk

I don't why your result changed. Maybe the tests you used were flawed. Maybe you corrected some deficiency. Your results are highly atypical.

Well this test looks like the same one I did on the web though this one only uses figures. But it seems to be much better with increasing difficulty.
Did this one and turned out to be 130, it seems pretty consistent with the results I have had.

[thesearch4nzt48]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

[Hebbeh]

There are many studies which studied IQs between people having no degree, having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree or a doctorate. There were significant results (and not +10 like you say), it's obvious that people who study more are likely to have an higher IQ than those who doesn't study at all or get intellectually low jobs.

This is obviously self explanatory. People with low IQ will not have the ability to attain a degree much less an advance degree. People with a naturally higher IQ will have the natural gifts and tools to achieve more advanced degrees. So it is no surprise, but expected, that you will find people with degrees and advanced degrees having progressively higher IQ's. And the degree isn't what gave them the high IQ but it is the gifted IQ that allowed them to exploit their natural abilities to achieve the degree...not the other way around.

What would be surprising, would be an individual with a low IQ measured at anytime in their life achieving an advanced degree. That is the whole basis behind Intelligence Quotient tests....usually performed early on...to measure ones natural abilities and aptitude to succeed. IQ scores are intended to be predictors of future achievement and not measurements of past achievements. Intelligence and knowledge are two very different things. It's an Intelligence Quotient Test not a Knowledge Test.

Geniuses like Einstein displayed gifted intelligence early on.....not after they completed their schooling. Like everybody, Einstein was who he was by the genetics he was born with and was who he became by exploiting those natural gifts. Nobody (or very few) have had the ability to achieve what he did. Same with other gifted individuals. If all it required was a willingness to work hard and try harder, geniuses would be a dime a dozen....but the truth is, they are a true rarity. True genius and gifted intelligence is extremely rare and is what makes these individuals special.

Although it is true that many don't fully exploit the abilities they are born with....whatever those abilities and possible potential may be. But that is what makes each of us different and unique. And as someone else mentioned, geniuses, much like savants, often are gifted in one respect but deficient in another....as if the brain is overcompensating in one area at the expense of another area.

[thesearch4nzt48]

My IQ is between 115-125 and I want to study physics and acheive the equivalent of a PhD.

I have spent several years taking antipsychotics, watching TV and drinking beer, with little physical exercise, lots of junk food, and very little intellectual stimulation, so maybe I am an exception to the rule that people with low IQ's can't get physics PhD's. All I have to do is drastically change my lifestyle and over time my IQ will rise to it's full potential.

I gotta get that dual n-back game.

BTW a study proved that IQ's can be raised. The longer it lasted, the higher the IQ got. They didn't find a limit. However, they retested the IQ's maybe years later after the study had ended and found that the IQ's dropped back to what they were at the beginning. Why? Because the participants went back to their previous lifestyle.

[Hebbeh]

I'm sure with enough motivation and dedication, you will succeed but achieving a PhD in physics doesn't necessarily make a genius or even guarantee a successful career.

[Reformed-Redan]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

[Hebbeh]

Wasn't familiar with Richard Feynman but discovered quite a fascinating fellow (thanks to wikipedia). A very fascinating read... http://en.wikipedia....Richard_Feynman

Seems he fits the mold of genius where he is exceptional in some abilities at the expense of others...

He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions.

And he didn't believe in IQ tests as he tested above average but not genius....probably because his genius was in a focused area while others areas pulled his score down (see above)

In high school, his IQ was determined to be 125—high, but "merely respectable" according to biographer James Gleick.^[15] Feynman later scoffed at psychometric testing. In 1933, when he turned 15, he taught himself trigonometry, advanced algebra, infinite series, analytic geometry, and both differential and integral calculus.^[16] Before entering college, he was experimenting with and re-creating mathematical topics, such as the half-derivative, using his own notation. In high school, he was developing the mathematical intuition behind his Taylor series of mathematical operators.^[17]

Check out his accomplishments..

was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.^[3]
He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was a member of the Rogers Commission, the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing^[4][5] and introducing the concept of nanotechnology.^[6] He held the Richard Chace Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at theCalifornia Institute of Technology.
Feynman was a keen popularizer of physics through both books and lectures, notably a 1959 talk on top-down nanotechnology called, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, and the three volume publication of his undergraduate lectures, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Feynman also became known through his semi-autobiographical books, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?, and books written about him, such as Tuva or Bust!.

He applied to Columbia University, but was not accepted.^[20][21] Instead he attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a bachelor's degree in 1939, and in the same year was named a Putnam Fellow. While at M.I.T., Feynman took every physics course offered, including a graduate course on theoretical physics while only in his second year.^{[citation needed]}
He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions.^[19] Attendees at Feynman's first seminar included Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, and John von Neumann. He received a Ph.D. from Princeton in 1942; his thesis advisor was John Archibald Wheeler. Feynman's thesis applied the principle of stationary action to problems of quantum mechanics, inspired by a desire to quantize the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory of electrodynamics, laying the groundwork for the "path integral" approach and Feynman diagrams, and was titled "The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics".
At Princeton, the physicist Robert R. Wilson encouraged Feynman to participate in the Manhattan Project
This was Richard Feynman nearing the crest of his powers. At twenty-three … there was no physicist on earth who could match his exuberant command over the native materials of theoretical science. It was not just a facility at mathematics (though it had become clear … that the mathematical machinery emerging from the Wheeler–Feynman collaboration was beyond Wheeler's own ability). Feynman seemed to possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the equations, like Albert Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicistLev Landau—but few others.

[hippocampus]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

High IQ is necessary but not sufficient for being a genius. However, that doesn't mean it has to be exactly above some value, it has to be high enough (which depends on society, working domain ...). But as everywhere in nature, there is some variation - there may be few geniuses with low IQ (but really really few).
I'll repeat it again: genius = motivation + creativity + knowledge (in some domain) + intelligence. Simplifying it.

Edited by hippocampus, 14 April 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[Bron]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

[Bron]

I've noticed that very hard work and increasing my dopaminergic system has boosted my IQ a lot, I was at around 100 and pushed it further to 135-150.

What an absolute load of horseshit.

lol at the down votes. The people on this site are truly fucking idiotic.

You morons should really do a study on your ability to improve your stanford-binet scores by more than two standard deviations. It will be revolutionary. Oh that's right you can't you are just full of shit.

[Reformed-Redan]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

125 is not "genius" level. Though, he was a genius at physics.

[Bron]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

125 is not "genius" level. Though, he was a genius at physics.

I am not a big proponent of the stanford-binet test. Nevertheless, it has its place and that is the reason it is still used as a placement test.

I think more along the lines of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, although, it is not like I believe it to be some sort of law, just a better understanding of intelligence.

But I digress, I am simply just pointing out more of the falsities posted on this thread. Misquoting someone's IQ by 25 points is significant. I really don't give the slightest fuck what his IQ test score was.

[Reformed-Redan]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

125 is not "genius" level. Though, he was a genius at physics.

I am not a big proponent of the stanford-binet test. Nevertheless, it has its place and that is the reason it is still used as a placement test.

I think more along the lines of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, although, it is not like I believe it to be some sort of law, just a better understanding of intelligence.

But I digress, I am simply just pointing out more of the falsities posted on this thread. Misquoting someone's IQ by 25 points is significant. I really don't give the slightest fuck what his IQ test score was.

I'm sure you'd feel butthurt if I misquoted your IQ by a point. My IQ is bigger than your IQ!

[Bron]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

125 is not "genius" level. Though, he was a genius at physics.

I am not a big proponent of the stanford-binet test. Nevertheless, it has its place and that is the reason it is still used as a placement test.

I think more along the lines of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, although, it is not like I believe it to be some sort of law, just a better understanding of intelligence.

But I digress, I am simply just pointing out more of the falsities posted on this thread. Misquoting someone's IQ by 25 points is significant. I really don't give the slightest fuck what his IQ test score was.

I'm sure you'd feel butthurt if I misquoted your IQ by a point. My IQ is bigger than your IQ!

Another fucking moron.

[Reformed-Redan]

OP, why do you equate genius with high IQ?

Because all geniuses have high IQ's.

The famous physicist Richard Feynman had a IQ of 100 I've heard. It is of more importance to like what you do than to force your brain to change.

False.

http://books.google....ge&q=iq&f=false

125 is not "genius" level. Though, he was a genius at physics.

I am not a big proponent of the stanford-binet test. Nevertheless, it has its place and that is the reason it is still used as a placement test.

I think more along the lines of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, although, it is not like I believe it to be some sort of law, just a better understanding of intelligence.

But I digress, I am simply just pointing out more of the falsities posted on this thread. Misquoting someone's IQ by 25 points is significant. I really don't give the slightest fuck what his IQ test score was.

I'm sure you'd feel butthurt if I misquoted your IQ by a point. My IQ is bigger than your IQ!

Another fucking moron.

Case in point. So, what is your IQ? 125?

[CrazyIguana]

You fail to realize the difference between 100 and 150. The difference between the two are just insane! Just from what you've written thus far, I can see that you don't have an IQ of 150. How? By looking at your grammar, vocabulary and content. People with that high IQ are masters in grammar and formulating sentences.

Mega, I don't mean to get down on you, and while what you are saying is valid up to a certain degree, you can not validate someone's IQ by means of their capacity to master a language. While I am a decent writer, I am by no stretch of the imagination a master of the English language, and this being said: my IQ is ~160. I've been tested multiple times now, first, during my second year of primary education due to my disability to read on par with my classmate counterparts. Although for drastically different reasons, I was then tested again in High School concluding similar results.

One reason this is simply wrong, is because the English language is highly irregular and doesn't make much logical sense. Take our number system for example; one, two, three . . . ten, eleven, twelve . . . fifteen . . . eighteen . . . twenty; that is strikingly irregular. Logical people like logical things, of which, human language is clearly not one. To be clear though, someone with a higher IQ can be expected to perform better than someone with a relatively lower score. But I do not find it reasonable to claim that a person's IQ could be inferred through a method of informal writing. As long as their writing skills are decent, I would say they could still hold potential for a high IQ.

---

IQ is good at measuring logical reasoning and pattern recognition, NOT intelligence. This is a very common misconception as it is tempting due to the name, "Intelligence Quotient." Intelligence is many magnitudes too complex for a single index to measure; nevertheless, it does regularly correlate with an individual's intelligence. Similarly, IQ is NOT a measure that can definitively determine a genius or not. Genius, in addition to a high IQ, is accompanied by other aspects including a grand imagination.

While I may not be a master of the human language, I am a master of computer languages and math, and taught myself how to program when I was about 10 (c++). I was working on artificial intelligence applications, designing programming languages, patenting new ways to store data, and even founded a company by the time I was 15 years of age. I now attend one the most prestigious institutions in the world and am working on cutting edge research in computational neuroscience this freshman year, and am working to redefine the way the world thinks one day. Although that may sound somewhat poetic, it is more literal than figurative. Whilst this may be, I will never forget that I was once thought to be below average, but yet I've accomplished so much.

If you ask me, anyone can become a genius, but not everyone puts forth the effort nor the motivation nor the required interest to do so. It takes a tremendous passion and drive to set forth to accomplish whatever you want. If you've ever thought you couldn't do something, you were wrong, you could, but just didn't try hard enough. I've lived my life with the idea that my imagination is my only limiting factor, and to date, it has not failed. I dare you to do the same.

Stay hungry, stay foolish.
Find your passion, and you will thrive.

Edited by CrazyIguana, 15 April 2013 - 03:48 AM.

[Luminosity]

The original poster doesn't seem to be "incredibly dull." People who are don't care if they become geniuses. That having been said, some people make a fetish of worshiping intelligence. The most intelligent people might not fit into society that well.

Edited by Luminosity, 15 April 2013 - 03:52 AM.

[Hebbeh]

If you ask me, anyone can become a genius, but not everyone puts forth the effort nor the motivation nor the required interest to do so. It takes a tremendous passion and drive to set forth to accomplish whatever you want. If you've ever thought you couldn't do something, you were wrong, you could, but just didn't try hard enough.

Easy for you to say but if you really believe that everyone among us has the propensity to be genius, then quite frankly, you you have no idea what you are talking about. We are all quite different individuals due to our unique genetics and biology and therefor I can no more be you than you can be me.

To suggest that any of us has not achieved genius due to not trying hard enough is naive at best and cruel at worst. And like I said earlier, if it was this simple, there would be a genius on every street corner....as every one of us would be as smart or smarter than you...think about that.

And if you truly believe what you just stated, then you must be guilty of not trying hard enough or you would of at least accomplished as much as Richard Feynman at the same age...especially since your IQ is a staggering 35 points higher....

was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known asFeynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.^[3]
He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was a member of the Rogers Commission, the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing^[4][5] and introducing the concept of nanotechnology.^[6] He held the Richard Chace Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at theCalifornia Institute of Technology.
Feynman was a keen popularizer of physics through both books and lectures, notably a 1959 talk on top-down nanotechnology called, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, and the three volume publication of his undergraduate lectures, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Feynman also became known through his semi-autobiographical books, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?, and books written about him, such as Tuva or Bust!.

He applied to Columbia University, but was not accepted.^[20][21] Instead he attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a bachelor's degree in 1939, and in the same year was named aPutnam Fellow. While at M.I.T., Feynman took every physics course offered, including a graduate course on theoretical physics while only in his second year.^{[citation needed]}
He obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics—an unprecedented feat—but did rather poorly on the history and English portions.^[19]Attendees at Feynman's first seminar included Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, and John von Neumann. He received a Ph.D. from Princeton in 1942; his thesis advisor was John Archibald Wheeler. Feynman's thesis applied the principle of stationary action to problems of quantum mechanics, inspired by a desire to quantize the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory of electrodynamics, laying the groundwork for the "path integral" approach and Feynman diagrams, and was titled "The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics".
At Princeton, the physicist Robert R. Wilson encouraged Feynman to participate in the Manhattan Project
This was Richard Feynman nearing the crest of his powers. At twenty-three … there was no physicist on earth who could match his exuberant command over the native materials of theoretical science. It was not just a facility at mathematics (though it had become clear … that the mathematical machinery emerging from the Wheeler–Feynman collaboration was beyond Wheeler's own ability). Feynman seemed to possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the equations, like Albert Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicistLev Landau—but few others.

[CrazyIguana]

Easy for you to say but if you really believe that everyone among us has the propensity to be genius, then quite frankly, you you have no idea what you are talking about. We are all quite different individuals due to our unique genetics and biology and therefor I can no more be you than you can be me.

To suggest that any of us has not achieved genius due to not trying hard enough is naive at best and cruel at worst. And like I said earlier, if it was this simple, there would be a genius on every street corner....as every one of us would be as smart or smarter than you...think about that.

Hebbeh, I have spent many nights staying up, wondering, and exhausting my imagination as to why inequity still exists in this world. Although I cannot say I have a solution, I do know that, for the most part, a person's life is their command, and what is ultimately reality was once imagination or the lack thereof. It is to the degree of which you exercise this ability, that defines who you are and what you do. There may be exceptions to this, for example, if someone is unfortunate enough to be mentally retarded, then there is more or less little hope for them to one day fulfill a normal, let alone, an extraordinary life. But, wherever imagination is harbored, genius can be born. This is the point, of which I guessed you missed entirely, that IQ and genius are independent of each other.

This is where I presume you failed to understand what I was saying. As is most notably evident when you say, "propensity to be genius," unless this was a careless choice of words, I did not say this. I said, anyone has the ability to be a genius. What you said implies everyone has the inclination to do so, which is much different than their ability. Just as you or I have the ability to become an alcoholic, I'd hope we would not have the propensity to do so. Do you see the difference? This is what sets aside genius for the ones who possess the willpower to do so, not just the ability. Now, I suppose there may be grounds for an argument as to what willpower boils down to, but I digress.

And if you truly believe what you just stated, then you must be guilty of not trying hard enough or you would of at least accomplished as much as Richard Feynman at the same age...especially since your IQ is a staggering 35 points higher....

I don't follow your logic. According to what I said, anyone has the ability to do what they want, and what I want may be vastly different than what Richard Feynman wanted. Furthermore, you are attempting to directly compare the two of us, who have completely different goals and interests, different lives, and each of our own uniqueness's, as I may point out you stated a moment ago. Also, you're assuming I consider myself a genius. I am still in the process of accomplishing my goals, and a true genius cannot be defined by a microscopic view of one's life, as it is a collection of truly great innovations which define genius, in my eyes. Also, you do not know my goals and accomplishments, as I cannot even discuss with you many of them.

As for the IQ difference, it comes back to exactly what I said earlier, and that is a genius is someone who is not only intelligent, but also has other fine qualities. If you're still missing my point, IQ isn't the whole shabang. Take for example Lewis Terman's experiment, and since you are so clearly an expert in this area, you should know about this.

Hebbeh, do not make the mistake of thinking I seek approval for what I do or even thinking I care about what you think by me responding to your post. Your logic is inherently flawed, your grammar is an oil spill, and you're just like a disease - you plague weaker people with your stigma. In your current state, you do not have the propensity to do anything you please, you live in an imaginary box, and there you shall stay, for those are your walls constructed by yourself and no one else. Please do not construct those walls around other people as you have done for yourself.

Edited by CrazyIguana, 15 April 2013 - 05:12 AM.

[Major Legend]

Now now, let's not get condescending...Crazy I agree with your notion that imagination is the key to creating and most people have this ability but choose to not tap into it, but I disagree with your idealistic views of the world, you seem intelligent but also very young. In another thread you said you liked the idea of "survival of the fittest" and think those with less intelligence should be eliminated (as you read intelligence correlated with wealth), disregarding the fact that most people in this world are born into places with low social mobility. I think your views will change drastically by the time you are 25. I think if you are smart and energetic like you seem to be, than it is hard to actually comprehend/sympathise what people who suffer the lack of imagination and the lack of cognitive ability feel like. I say this because for ages I was like you, and then I had brain damage.

I would say Steve Wozniak was the genius, whilst Steve Jobs is an example of good genes.

Can I add, that to me the idea of "genius" is pretty flawed and ill defined. A social stigma if you will, it's just a label. It comes from the myth of the master builder - the idea that things in the world are built by one person, one creator, one artist. With the immense complexity of the modern era, take for example - aviation , this genius idea becomes pretty ill defined as most projects like persay the Airbus A380 would be the combined effort of thousands of very intelligent people across many countries, many of them would not fall under the traditional notions of the term genius. The idea of a one man do it all made sense last century, but no longer this century.

The fact that genius or highly gifted people come in many forms are already discussed, however it seems rarely acknowledged here that hard work and time is a big factor in achieving that "genius" in any area.

Now you can argue that hard work and time can also be down to genetics, and whether one has a chance to persue one's born talents are down to nurture, location, monetary support and luck., but there is no escaping the fact that "genius" is often a gift that is honed and honed over the course of a lot of time, whether it's been shoved down by your university or you have chosen to spend the time yourself, intelligence is pretty inane without some form of instruction/direction. Thats why everyone should read - its way better than any nootropic out there.

Don't forget the guy with the highest IQ in the world working as a bouncer. Genius does not equal success. I might also add that this guy never had the chance to persue much higher education due to a problematic family.

It's easy to take an idealistic/simple view of the world, when the reality is a lot more complicated. A lot of people who are very successful are not highly intelligent but win out in other factors like social greasing, or getting in with the right people.

As for medicine raising IQ from an average of 100 to 150? I don't think there is anything like that, not even on the horizon. I would harness a guess that even the best nootropic stacks here "might" increase a 10 points at most, but as Crazy pointed out, IQ isn't a measurement of everything. Somebody who is too good at logic, could easily be deficient in other essential cognitive traits.

Edited by Major Legend, 15 April 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Your logic is inherently flawed, your grammar is an oil spill, and you're just like a disease - you plague weaker people with your stigma. In your current state, you do not have the propensity to do anything you please, you live in an imaginary box, and there you shall stay, for those are your walls constructed by yourself and no one else. Please do not construct those walls around other people as you have done for yourself.

You know no more about me than I about you but you take it upon yourself to judge. That in itself speaks volumes.

And if you believe your assessment of me, then you've proven my point. Enough said.

[CrazyIguana]

Legends, you are absolutely correct, I am young (19), and I acknowledge that my views are probably naive. I've admittedly grown up in an upper class bubble my entire life, protected from the "outside world".

The point I was arguing, is that IQ can have a lot to do with genius, but at the same time, it can also have very little to do with genius. This is because geniuses use what they have to extend their ability, what ever it may be, to great heights. And to the topic of this thread, "Can someone with an average IQ become a genius? How or why not?", I say yes for this reason.

My ideas toward survival of the fittest are solely based on the hard facts of nature, not any intuition I've ever had. But to make it crystal clear, I do not believe those with lesser intelligence should be eliminated, I believe those who choose to use their abilities to their fullest will be the ones who succeed, and the ones who don't will fail. This legacy continues generation by generation, and this is why intelligence correlates with wealth. So yes, I do think that is a good model to optimize a species, and has proven greatly successful, or you nor I would be here today.

As for raising one's IQ, there have been studies which show that an individual's IQ can be raised as much as 20 points by simply rewarding the subject with monetary gain. That's astounding, so I suppose it's how you look at the situation.

Legend, if I may ask, what kind of brain damage do you suffer?

Hebbeh, judging others is natural. Those were merely my observations and conclusions of you. You're correct, I do not know you very much at all, but based on what you have said, I do know that much, and this is from what I based my observations on. As to this "point" of your's that I've so diligently proven, I don't think you ever made it clear what it is, nor have you ever offered any evidence for it. I came down so harshly on you because I don't take kindly to being attacked based on false claims, if you don't agree with my view points, say so in a clear and civil manner. I promise you will make much more headway in an argument this way.

[arjacent]

Legends, you are absolutely correct, I am young (19), and I acknowledge that my views are probably naive. I've admittedly grown up in an upper class bubble my entire life, protected from the "outside world".

Take it from someone who has seen the contrast in different enviornments that intelligence lies on a spectrum which is largely innate. Some of the loweliest people I have met were those in prison and psychiatric wards. Their degree of dysfunction did vary but it was even clear among the innmates which ones were dullest. After some time you learned that is was impossible to teach most of these people anything beyond elementary education. At first I blamed their unfortunate circumstances, as many did grow up in bad enviornments, but when you studied their families and siblings it was clear that the dullness was what was responsible for this and not the other way around. I'm sure you would argue they were just not willing but I will counter with saying it takes too much effort for their brain so they are naturally pushed away from intellectual pursuits. The ones who were slightly smarter did master basic high school material but at a very slow pace.

Then I examined the other side of the spectrum, those who were gifted. No matter what their circumstances they possessed a logical mindset, seemed to grasp concepts quickly, and generally succeeded in life. The lesson I learned was that nature was cruel. And that is one contributing factor of inequality. But this was not the most shocking lesson. What struck me the most was that those on the lower end of the bell curve were more aware of this reality and were closer to the earth as it were. Intelligent people were more idealistic and up in the clouds. They had complex and intricate theories for social injustice that were very far removed from reality. I attribute this to two things. First, they are usually more educated and well read and are just relaying what mainstream society has taught them. And society teaches egaliatariansm and liberalism which are both fashionable. Ruffians don't pay attention in school, they get street smart. Second, I think greater intelligence comes with more developed emotions. Gifted people can construct how society works and be burdened by it more by being more sensitive. They have an inner sense of fairness and try to avoid coming to terms with the harsh reality. Dull people don't dwell on complex topics and are more interested in beer, entertainment, and sex.

These are exteremes, but I also witnessed these patterns in college. The most attentive students and highest achievers were usually identified as gifted. That is not to say they always had the highest grades. But in a class enviornment, it was clear they were abosorbing the most and contributing to class discussions.

The point I was arguing, is that IQ can have a lot to do with genius, but at the same time, it can also have very little to do with genius. This is because geniuses use what they have to extend their ability, what ever it may be, to great heights. And to the topic of this thread, "Can someone with an average IQ become a genius? How or why not?", I say yes for this reason.

Again, genius is a relative term. I think the OP agreed to use the one of high IQ which has been correlated highly with academic achievement. I think that high IQ is a neccessary, but not sufficient, condition to being a genius.

My ideas toward survival of the fittest are solely based on the hard facts of nature, not any intuition I've ever had. But to make it crystal clear, I do not believe those with lesser intelligence should be eliminated, I believe those who choose to use their abilities to their fullest will be the ones who succeed, and the ones who don't will fail. This legacy continues generation by generation, and this is why intelligence correlates with wealth. So yes, I do think that is a good model to optimize a species, and has proven greatly successful, or you nor I would be here today.

I would argue that "motivation" is also partly genetic. You can easily see that taking dopaminergic stimulates gives you the desire to pursue goals. What's to say some people are not simply wired this way naturally.

And no, society does not currently have good breeding mechanism in place. Our most intelligent and successful elements are having the least kids and focusing on careers whereas the lower class is being subsidised by social programs and the like where they have little else to do but breed. What was very scary among the prison population was how many offspring they had; whereas most professors had few.

As for raising one's IQ, there have been studies which show that an individual's IQ can be raised as much as 20 points by simply rewarding the subject with monetary gain. That's astounding, so I suppose it's how you look at the situation.

I am ignorant of such a study but am very dubious of its claim.

Legend, if I may ask, what kind of brain damage do you suffer?

Although this question was not directed at me I will say that Paxil and other SSRIs damaged my brain. I was simply not as sharp as I was before and my memory was impaired. I was no longer the math whiz who could work with wave functions in his sleep and could barely remember a simple organic mechanism. I have largely reversed this by working with duan n back, taking modafinil, and stimulants such as ritalin. Maybe I just got older too.

[thesearch4nzt48]

Movies I like:

-Good Will Hunting (about an extraordinary genius)

-Phenomenon (about a man who turns into a genius)

-Finding Forrester (about a young genius writer who is mentored by another genius writer with "issues")

-Limitless (about a man who discovers NZT 48)

-Molly (about a mentally disabled woman who becomes a genius after an experimental procedure)

In real life, the highest recorded IQ belongs to Marilyn vos Savant.

[thesearch4nzt48]

Oh yeah, I forgot my question. Do people like Will Hunting exist? Hopefully you've seen the movie. And can you give examples of such people? Thanks!

[Godof Smallthings]

I've noticed that very hard work and increasing my dopaminergic system has boosted my IQ a lot, I was at around 100 and pushed it further to 135-150.

What an absolute load of horseshit.

lol at the down votes. The people on this site are truly fucking idiotic.

You morons should really do a study on your ability to improve your stanford-binet scores by more than two standard deviations. It will be revolutionary. Oh that's right you can't you are just full of shit.

It really shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the real reason you get reds. Drop the redneck lingo and attitude, and observe what happens.