139 replies to this topic

[Nefertiti]

I can't help but feel there's a lot of wishful thinking in this thread . A master and a genius are not quite the same thing, imo... And what was Robert Greene a *genius* at, jiu jitsu?

[snazzhands]

Robert Green's genius is in distilling and analysing the successes of others... the links he draws between people from all different eras, walks of life, backgrounds are very impressive. How would you define a genius Nefertiti? To me the concept of genius is an excuse for people to not achieve as highly.

[soulfiremage]

I've just watched a bbc documentary on Feynman.

Do you think he took the time to consider this question...or was he just too busy being one?

[mandaryn]

It seems that some people seem to be forgetting that intelligence isn't just a function of certain quanitifiable parameters of the brain, such as short-term memory span, speed of reading or depth of memory. By far the most important variable in the equation of intelligence is your knowledge bank, and what you can do with it! Hard work and clever study habits can cover both of these! Don't fall into the trap of only trying to improve yourself via direct chemical methods, that will only get you a short way. It is merely an augmentation, not the main show!

Genius is determined by the content of your mind, not the chemical content of your brain.

I second that, hard work is what will help you become more intelligent. Chemicals won't make you instantly extremely smarter, they can help you but they're always a mean not an end.

[mandaryn]

Yes, but to sustain this hard work over a period long enough to benefit from it requires motivation and the ability to sustain focus. Persistence and repetition are what will lead to the reinforcement of new connections. Motivation is one of the primary functions of dopamine, so I have to give credit to the post that advocated the use of substances that enhance or mimic dopamine. This is where the persistence comes from. Your ability to maintain focus on a specific idea or concept is enhanced by only one thing (that I Am aware of); meditation. This all amounts to an exceptional challenge for someone with ADHD. Their inability to sustain attention is directly related to a difference in the way their brain excretes dopamine, and is why drugs like amphetamines make it possible for them to focus. If it were possible to cycle amphetamines, to limit down regulation, then they would represent a solution to the original poster's question. Sadly, amphetamines are not very specific in how they enhance dopa excretion and re-uptake inhibition. They trigger the reward circuit we are all so fond of, and make finding the will power needed to religiously cycle our use of them challenging. In the short term they might be the greatest nootropic currently known. Long term? They actually destroy neurons through excitotoxicity and downregulation, and the fact that they feel so good makes us helpless to prevent that eventuality. What's needed is a drug that can act on motivation without tripping the reward circuit, but the two are utterly connected.

[YOLF]

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...

I think there are times when this is feasible though. They are most likely very rare, but socioemotional states of mind can effect cognition and make concepts less available than they might have been otherwise. The question would be does OP fit into this category? Of course, we may find something that makes it possible to be a genius without having the genetics for it or we may be able to get gene therapy to advance our intelligence. I would hope that when it becomes available it's free to all and raises all of mankind rather than a select few. Effort and good parenting can raise an IQ 15% IIRC, stack that with 15% from nootropics and you're within a realm of possibility for someone who would otherwise be average to get to 130ish. 

 

Optimal health can be beneficial for intelligence also. If you're not at optimal health and could stand to lose some weight, esp. if you're a man, you may reap some benefit. Good luck OP/TS, and you never know when there will be a new advance that gives you additional opportunities. Don't give up yet, and always remember you could get cryonics and live to that time I mentioned a few lines back and beyond. Much intelligence awaits, all you need now are the balls to sign up for cryonics

[Keizo]

 

 

Another thing, I don't really believe IQ tests for determining much of anything. Especially this one: http://www.iqtest.dk

I took it an hour ago and scored a 110 (although I did guess the last 4 because I had to go). 30 minutes later, I take it again and score a 132. Yes, I did have a very small amount of practice, but that's a massive leap.

Taking the same test immediately after and scoring a standard deviation higher is not surprising. It is as if you had double the time to answer all questions. Try taking the test again in a year from now and you'll see the score will be closer to 110 (or slightly higher than that if you don't rush the last 4).

IQ tests are not perfect. By practicing IQ type questiosn you can score higher on them without actually having a higher IQ. They also assume you have a basic understanding of logic and arithmetic and verbal reasoning. Not everyone does. But they are the best method we have of quantifying intelligence. You can also try your luck at various brain games to see how you measure up. Even with practice, you'll find your scores plateau eventually. Sign up at http://www.cambridge...test/digit-span

If you want an accurate measure you'd need to see a psychologist who would run a battery of different tests. That would take several hours and cost you a couple thousand dollars. Only then would you see your score doesn't fluctuate wildly.

 

You are quite wrong in that IQ is "fixed".

Here is a refereed study that shows that mental training/exercises can increase fluid Intelligence: http://www.pnas.org/...268105.abstract, and thus IQ scores.

IQ tests are good for making some people feel smart, and others feel dumb, or perhaps just average, but are poor for just about everything else.

 

Why poor? how so? Granted, in my knowledge of the thing, IQ can make a general statement. However this is very profound in my opinion. As for perhaps the ultimate graphic example, look at the world map by IQ and you will clearly see the predictive power.

 

As for practical application for the average person.. I'd say it can help a lot with self-awareness, granted the right framing. It's easy to become jaded and confused towards people's lazy appraisals and platitudes. Not to speak of lack of guidance.

I am rather pleased to have done WAIS-IV. I will no longer feel hesitation towards any education based on potential mental inadequacies (more or less), only motivation and so forth. And for example I can clearly see my mathematical achievements in another light. The conclusion being that math takes effort, which I've not put in at times. And some possible hints from the sub-scores, what type of work would be more or less in line.

The (perhaps vague) generalizations and correlations regarding IQ and profession, I have found helpful.

I personally doubt that mediocre people will contribute very much to humanity in the way of scientific achievement etc. Should not a civilization support the capable? Do you rank the feelings of the more degenerate higher?

A basic level of pride and tangible honest evidence could catapult people towards greater achievement. Being in the 2% makes me feel like I have a basic responsibility to fulfill. This might be hard to coax out of people nowadays. 

 

 

OnT: If you are around 115-125 IQ on the Wechsler scale I'm sure you could squeeze out quite a bit. 

130 is considered borderline can-do-it-all, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't seem too wild to overcome maybe 15 pts by various methods. Assuming the work in "physics" requires a IQ around 130 or more at all instances. Who knows how big the real hinders are in manipulating the mind.

You should probably get specific in trying to find out requirements and your capabilities. Study it to some extent, perhaps on your own and talk to people in the different places.

Also I am sure there are fields related to your interests that require less horsepower, and you could still perform valuable work.

 

Developing passion I'm sure is helpful in more ways than becoming a future genius.

Also it might be better to think about fame, achievement, personal goals, and so on and how they relate to you. Instead of the ill defined mythical genius. 

 

 

Regarding drugs.. I have found Cerebrolysin to produce rather interesting effects on language capabilities (or whatnot).  E.g. a profound ability to spontaneously produce mental imagery of different possible meanings regarding music I was listening to. This was only experienced a few times, however similar less shocking improvements in ability to experience and relating things have been more common. As well as some basic improved verbal fluency and things generally seeming easier. Also nice anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects, curing of protracted benzodiazepine withdrawal...etc.

So I imagine you could do a reasonable amount <of something> with different compounds, and perhaps diet and so on.

Edited by Keizo, 27 May 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Brafarality]

Depends on what you consider 'genius'-

 

i) If you mean being the next Melville, Whitman, Rembrandt or Van Gogh, of course you can. As soon as you affix word to page or pigment to surface, you are in the running. Just keep at it.

 

ii) If you mean the (IMHO) much less important IQ matter, then maybe not as much. But, again, IQ is useless. I joined one of those embarrassing 99.9% IQ societies to validate my lowly self-esteem in the early 2000s, but now cringe when I think about it. IQ has done nothing for me. If I end up being remembered for anything, it will be for visual art that requires nearly zero intellect to generate.

 

It's funny that the more impressive attainment is open to more people than the less impressive one. It works that way sometimes.

Much harder to be a classical cellist than to be a punk musician. There is a lower barrier to entry for popular music forms.

But, classical cello is a dead end. Unless you are an avant-garde composer on the side, you have no hope of being a genius, none whatsoever. However, a punk musician can potentially rise to Ramones or Kinks heights. The sky is the limit. Easier to start, further climb to the heights.

[StevesPetRat]

It's remarkably easy to go the other way, though!

 

I had an IQ of 178 as a teenager, had a long rough battle with EBV in college and it knocked down to 150, started having "ADD" and "depression" after that, go figure, stupid f*cking psychologists and their 19th century views of the workings of the brain (adderall made me hyperfocus for days and SSRIs only worked one time for me when I was super bummed about a breakup), then years of binge drinking, untreated sleep apnea took it down a bit more to 138, and in the past year I've had mild cases of both hepatic and viral encephalopathy, and God knows what it is now.

 

At least I have my physical health -- oh wait, no, that's all f%cked up too. Well, I can curl up underneath my physics PhD to keep warm.

[Brafarality]

I can't help but feel there's a lot of wishful thinking in this thread . A master and a genius are not quite the same thing, imo... And what was Robert Greene a *genius* at, jiu jitsu?

 

I hope you are implying that Master is a much superior status than Genius.

Who would you rather be Matisse or Marilyn Von Savant (or whomever else is the latest high-IQ low-achievement type)?
 

[Major Legend]

Time is a compounding factor too, people who do well early get into better schools, have higher status friends, get scholarship. have more support early on which leads to a lot of support later.

A 30 year old who turns genius will still be behind a born genius, he wouldn't have say access to the circle of MIT graduates to feed him new ideas. This compounding factor is why we don't see much result from simply few years of nootropic use, but to tell you the truth. Nootropics and hard medicine turned my life 180 degrees around, so if you allow the small improvements to compound over time you will get some rewards and it's really worth it. Human augmentation is the future for underdogs like me.

 

As for the OP's question. I think its not possible at the moment for a 180 degree turn around into a genius (like raising 20 points IQ) because 1) the compounding factor, 2) our current tech is crude, and whilst there is something for everyone, the effect isn't like those you see in limitless, its more like oh I feel a little more sharper than normal, but you arn't going to go from someone who can't see patterns to someone who can. Nothing out there can radically change your intelligence by that much today. 3) The lack of diagnostic ability affordably.

 

You know the smart peeps I know, they would be able to recite songs, poems and novels word by word, when they were like 14. Thats the gap we are talking about.

 

Also never say never. Think of how much smarter you are just because you have the internet on your fingertips. Your smartphone itself is an intelligence augmentation device, more devices will come, more medicines will come.

Edited by Major Legend, 28 May 2014 - 05:38 PM.

[sparkk51]

It's remarkably easy to go the other way, though!

 

I had an IQ of 178 as a teenager, had a long rough battle with EBV in college and it knocked down to 150, started having "ADD" and "depression" after that, go figure, stupid f*cking psychologists and their 19th century views of the workings of the brain (adderall made me hyperfocus for days and SSRIs only worked one time for me when I was super bummed about a breakup), then years of binge drinking, untreated sleep apnea took it down a bit more to 138, and in the past year I've had mild cases of both hepatic and viral encephalopathy, and God knows what it is now.

 

At least I have my physical health -- oh wait, no, that's all f%cked up too. Well, I can curl up underneath my physics PhD to keep warm.

 

Please tell me you're giving scores from tests given by professionals. and not online tests.

[PWAIN]

Also never say never. Think of how much smarter you are just because you have the internet on your fingertips. Your smartphone itself is an intelligence augmentation device, more devices will come, more medicines will come.

 

This is where definitions of intelligence differ and become important.

 

Being able to memorise many things, being able to process many things in your brain quickly are 2 common definitions. These however are easily done on a computer. look to databases and calculators to start.

 

For me, real intelligence and the 'type' of intelligence I seek is in abstract reasoning and true creativity. These are the things computers cannot do at all. This is the intelligence that allows for major breakthroughs and for paradigm shifts. No google, no smart phone or any other device can help you with this. This is what I seek, everything else is a nice to have.

[Major Legend]

Pwain, my personal opinion: True creativity and abstract reasoning are as vague terms as the word intelligence itself. Those words are in ways linked to intuition and pattern recognition. In the western world such traits are almost heroic because the need to create value upon a myriad of basic products and services already made perfect. In business they call this moving from the red ocean (the ocean of cheap services and goods with no brand) to the blue ocean (superior products people recognise as brands).

 

So what I mean is that intuition and to some extent abstract reasoning has to come from education and exposure to a myriad of different sources of materials. This is why I was talking about the "compounding" effect of knowledge on intelligence. Are Chinese and Indian genetics genuinely uncreative? I highly doubt so, as their economies develop into western style economies, we are seeing that they are capable of the same creativity the western world champions, and why is that? Because it's education and methodology. People think you are born with creativity, if you go to art school they teach you how to look at art, they expose you to multiple styles, typography, layouts and so on, the history behind in.

 

You think Japanese people are inherently great artists? Think again, when you go to art school in Japan they make you go through and memorise hundreds of japanese art textbook references of people postures, different styles, landscapes and so on. When they draw they are taught to use these references then add to them. How long did the Beatles play in Amsterdam before they got good? I went to film school and I was taught how to see a film frame by frame, shot by shot, the blocking, the layers and so forth. 

 

I don't deny there is a cognitive parameter underneath that predisposes certain people to superior creativity or abstract reasoning, I think that's definite - some people are gifted.

 

What I'm saying is without a "support network" of proper experiences, materials and perhaps most of all labourous hours invested, no amount of creative talent will help you, and I argue that this "support network" is more important than any miraculous edge you would gain from current or medicines in the next say 2 to 5 years, assuming your brain is functioning at least of that of a neurotypical (standard human brain without deficits). OF course I advocate on using both things holistically

 

And your smartphone, google, the internet, do no different than to increase your "support network" in effect, it gives your intelligence leverage to accomplish things you would not have done before.

 

Yes you are right, computers can't make life or death decisions for businesses, or for society, they don't have that perceptive ability yet, but what they are doing is serving as a great and perhaps horrific equalizer for everyone else. The fact is somebody intelligent today is put at a disadvantage, and somebody who is stupid gains the advantage. This equaliser is what is created the current problem of society. In the past somebody who is stupid would never question his grunt work, somebody who is smart would never have to worry about computers taking over his smart work (generalisation here, but you get the point).

 

Just to add another note: And then we have the issue that the kind of genius you are talking about often arises from individuals who do have some mental mutation, but often the cost of the mutation is you will never fit in with anyone else, would u say sacrifice your empathy, your friends, for say the gift of creating beautiful organic objects beyond words, or being able to program like speaking your first language? It is an interested question, because I often wonder if giftedness is actually a result of brain disorders. 

 

In fact I think they identified brain cells of autistic people fire a lot more and intensely than normal people, giving them a extremely stimulated version of the world, again that would cost you socially I think.

Edited by Major Legend, 29 May 2014 - 05:36 AM.

[Major Legend]

Well since I have nothing to do today because of my experimentation of automated outsourcing, I will add that which you seek intuition and abstract reasoning are fundamentally human elements, but you seek to increase your ability in those elements exactly because of the fact is computerisation is replacing everything else, especially in the first world, this is why you value those two things so much.

 

Am I going in circles here? Because I am.

[Major Legend]

Yes, but to sustain this hard work over a period long enough to benefit from it requires motivation and the ability to sustain focus. Persistence and repetition are what will lead to the reinforcement of new connections. Motivation is one of the primary functions of dopamine, so I have to give credit to the post that advocated the use of substances that enhance or mimic dopamine. This is where the persistence comes from. Your ability to maintain focus on a specific idea or concept is enhanced by only one thing (that I Am aware of); meditation. This all amounts to an exceptional challenge for someone with ADHD. Their inability to sustain attention is directly related to a difference in the way their brain excretes dopamine, and is why drugs like amphetamines make it possible for them to focus. If it were possible to cycle amphetamines, to limit down regulation, then they would represent a solution to the original poster's question. Sadly, amphetamines are not very specific in how they enhance dopa excretion and re-uptake inhibition. They trigger the reward circuit we are all so fond of, and make finding the will power needed to religiously cycle our use of them challenging. In the short term they might be the greatest nootropic currently known. Long term? They actually destroy neurons through excitotoxicity and downregulation, and the fact that they feel so good makes us helpless to prevent that eventuality. What's needed is a drug that can act on motivation without tripping the reward circuit, but the two are utterly connected.

 

Nicotine cycled is a good and brain healthy replacement for amphetamines, and reinforces habit formation if you are taking nicotine whilst doing the activity. There is also AMP Citrate (4-amino-2-methlypentate citrate), though whether that is neurotoxic is not known.

 

And totally agree with the genetics of motivation is very important due to compounding of intelligence as mentioned. Enough posts from me. I'm in a talkative mood today sorry.

 

http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

[StevesPetRat]

It's remarkably easy to go the other way, though!
 
I had an IQ of 178 as a teenager, had a long rough battle with EBV in college and it knocked down to 150, started having "ADD" and "depression" after that, go figure, stupid f*cking psychologists and their 19th century views of the workings of the brain (adderall made me hyperfocus for days and SSRIs only worked one time for me when I was super bummed about a breakup), then years of binge drinking, untreated sleep apnea took it down a bit more to 138, and in the past year I've had mild cases of both hepatic and viral encephalopathy, and God knows what it is now.
 
At least I have my physical health -- oh wait, no, that's all f%cked up too. Well, I can curl up underneath my physics PhD to keep warm.

 
Please tell me you're giving scores from tests given by professionals. and not online tests.

Yeah most online tests max out at roughly 140.

Edited by StevesPetRat, 29 May 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[Major Legend]

Sorry I doubt back on Nicotine, it could be carinogenic because it causes angiogensis in both rats and in vivo

 

Read this thread first before proceeding

http://www.longecity...reme-nootropic/

 

Sorry bout that.

 

 

[zeroskater6979]

This is my simplistic take on radically increasing intelligence (+>20 iq points, gaining an einstein, plato, michelangelo etc level mind). I think that a combination of supplements directed at certain neurotransmitters (not necessarily noots) along with hardcore training of whatever subject (enhanced with brain machine interfaces, EEG, tDCS etc) will lead to this increase. And if I'm not mistaken a high degree of expertise in one field sometimes transfers into another (eg Aubrey de Grey: software engineer to gerontologist). And if most of us believe in the AI singularity and nanobots and such then we should expect a radical change in intellect far surpassing what is achievable today (which I think is more than we assume). Kinda lame ampakines fizzled out and most other promising experimental noots are 5-10 years away from pharmacy shelves. But I'm in the camp that any significant iq boost will come mostly from tech anyway. I have no idea though what will ultimately be the cure for stupid brain

[Turnbuckle]

It's remarkably easy to go the other way, though!

 

 

 

No shit. Teenagers have more synaptic connections at that age than they will ever have again, so the maintenance of intelligence is a battle between synaptic complexity and synaptic myelination, and generally the myelinated brain loses.

[Luxflux]

Genius is as genius does. Genius according to who, and for what? Arts, sciences, leadership, politics, military conflicts - all have geniuses of different kinds. Genius comes from protracted periods of work in a given field. Horsepower is highly overrated. A highly intelligent person with no work ethic is just going to be someone who finds a resting point a bit higher than the average person, but who won't produce anything remarkable. An average person with work ethic will surpass a highly intelligent person with low work ethic in almost every case, and I have seen this first hand when I have tutored students in mathematics. If you are lucky enough to have high intelligence and high work ethic, then that is a recipe for genius perhaps. But many who are considered genius simply used their time more wisely than those forgotten by history, or thought the things they did when the time was right to be thinking them....there is plenty of luck involved in addition to high intelligence and hard work.

 

As far a raising IQ, mine has jumped 20 points in 14 years, from 125 on the WAIS-R to 145 on the WAIS IV. This is not supposed to happen, but, it happens more frequently than you might think. Larger gains are certainly possible. Mine came through a combination of nootropics, academic work, and general improvement of my living situation. I don't think IQ is very important for achievement. People who do poorly in subjects usually just don't try long enough. They fail once and it makes them feel stupid, so they stop. People who believe they are intelligent (perhaps from IQ scores) often see temporary failure to grasp something as a challenge, and will simply try again until they get it. When they do, they are seen as more intelligent. I've seen plenty of people, once they learn the trick of simply "Trying long enough", learn things they didn't think were possible.

 

Don't let IQ be your metric of genius. Genius comes from lots of determination and work, and probably a large dose of luck to. Without the luck, you will certainly master a topic anyway, which is reward enough.
 

[teacult]

If you can tune the definition of normal intelligence and genius accordingly, anything is possible. 

[rocinanteexpanse]

Genius is subjective,we all see world differently....

 

I think maybe in the future there will be someone who will prove others wrong by surpassing Einstein and contributing great things in science and engineering

 

A person with avg intelligence cannot become a genius but even though has the ability to win nobel prize or fields medal with effort,hardwork,focus and determination

Also you can increase your mental abilities

(link)

https://www.quora.co...lem-solving-etc

 

 

[rocinanteexpanse]

Steve Jobs didn't do the electrical engineering nor was he a programmer. He did not create Macintosh, Steve Wozniak did. Wozniak was the real genius. Though I got to give it to him, Jobs had exceptional creativity and a business plan.

Jobs did not push/"transform" himself into a genius, nor can you. Everything is genetically decided. Sure, we can do mental exercises to inhibit cognitive decline, but you really can't get "smarter" working out your brain. To get smarter we need to alter our genetics or the neurochemistry as we are trying to do here.

No sir you are wrong,everything is not genetically decided....read my above post and check out in the link i have given in that post

please read other forums about this rather then sticking to this only(you are doing nothing but demotivating people here)

 

 

No, it is unlikely someone with an average IQ could ever become a genius. That is not to say you cannot improve your intelligence to an extent. Currently, the best substances for that are creatine, modafinil, and the racetams. Mental exercises like dual-n-back also improve working memory which influences IQ. So improvement IS possible, but it will not move you too far from your natural baseline.

Read my above post and check out the link please....

i agree that a person with avg iq cannot become genius.But he/she can at least improve his/her mental ability 

but anything you have or do has a price,if someone has born with gift of genius-ness(i.e awesome mental ability) than he/she might have payed a high price of another part of his/her body.

 

(just an advice you should see the movie whiplash movie which shows that to become great you might lose happiness or something precious and breaking bad which gives message that actions have consequences)

[Cory]

Intelligence according to Howard Gardner is multifaceted, and It is also malleable. Neuroplasticity changes in the brain according to your work ethic and your thoughts. Studies are now showing that the very thought in which you think can have a equal reaction to your DNA; in this case, intelligence. To improve your IQ, you can gauge it by benchmarking with an IQ test, but know that it will fluctuate during different parts of the day. IQ testing is also a flawed systematic way of measuring a minuscule aspect in the human brain, so this is unreliable. So, can you turn yourself into the mainstream 'Genius'? I'll say yes. The reason is because the way society seems to view Genius is a very misconstrued perception. Movies love to portray the Genius as a very well balanced person who just has a dna strand that no one else has, and is pure lucky and successful. The reality of this notion is a far cry. Many authentic 'Geniuses' are not without major drawbacks like being a Savant, or severely handicapped I.e., Schizophrenic, Autistic, etc. Those that seemingly are highly Intelligent are not where they are today because of an accident. They worked sweat, blood and possibly tears for decades to get where they are. There is no magic in anyone to transform them into knowing it all over night. The saying by Edison says it best, "Genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% luck". Einstein even said that "creativity is more important than knowledge". So, you can get there with hard work. Find your passion as people of renowned have, and dive in. You can as well monitor what you eat. The saying goes without question that "you are what you eat". Get away from MSG based food that causes brain cell excitotoxicity, take brain health supplements, become more of a hard worker and set goals. You may also look into dual n back training as well. Im currently doing all this, and am not talking out my end. I also have a fascination with the concept of 'Genius', and have conducted much research. Best of luck

[teacult]

Achieving high intelligence requires some degree of being lost. Lacking many things makes you very potent. 

 

When, ...

 

You dont know formula, you dont know howto's or any workflow diagrams, you should learn fast and improvise. 

You dont know where to go you should figure it out. Your senses enhances.

You lack security and safety, you get more alert.

You lack specific boundaries you engage many things.  You dont have rules and do's and don'ts, hence you have a wider playground.

You dont have ego and assumptions about self. You discovery yourself better and use yourself better ...

You dont know what is possible and impossible you have imagination. 

You dont have any tools or parts you have your creativity. You build what you need and eventually a better one with less parts ...

You dont have morals, you experience what is really bad and have a wiser insight what is really good and why ,with a lot of experience instead of rotten memorization or mundane routine.

You dont have knowledge you have your curiosity.

You dont have negative self image, you dont self sabotage.

You dont have false identity and fake pretty and fake entitlement, you have real (functioning) things in your hands.

You dont have negative view of what you got, you utilize your sources best way you can. 

...

 

I can give n*k more sentences but it boils down to that:

Intelligence is to compensate what you dont have and it is a tool for survival.

As a proof , most of from-birth-very-rich man lacks creativity and fast adapting brain. 

They have everything they need. And its ok. Because their grand grand fathers deserved this for themselves and their grandchildren.

 

Why would anyone wants to be genius ? 

So what to aim for ? A fun life with self sufficiency and healthy growth ? 

 

As a direct answer to your question:
I think, If someone push themselves hard enough, exclusively only to do more with less, he/she can be very "resourceful" and "intelligent" and maybe genius one day.

 

Personally, what I aim for is correct thinking and deep comprehension, to see the truth and reality (functioning and meaning) beyond what it seems to be. 

It is very enriching and increasing sense of self worth greatly, if interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions are added. 

In such pursuit, there is no room for what people call intelligence. Also there is no room for deceits , lies and what is called wicked. There is simply no time and energy for these. 

These so called immoral behaviors steals resources to feel better and have more fun. 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeaceAndProsperity]

I contend that necessary properties for intelligence is being hyposocial and hyposexual.

 

[gamesguru]

I contend that necessary properties for intelligence is being hyposocial and hyposexual.

 

Or just by not being hyper.  If you're only working 40 hours and mix it up at the office, you can work the situation in your favor.  My boss is pretty chill.  He doesn't mind me dabbling 40 minutes in chess, pubmed stubs, and/or obscure programming magazines.  You can also go home, cook, work on your projects and still have time to hangout a few.

 

I think whoever mentioned the +20iq figure is pretty wise to the facts.  But that may even be pushing it, I would put my guess at 15 (but only 10 for already high IQ people).  And I would like to achieve it naturally.  So, basically, to answer the question.. no you cannot go from 100 to 155.  Not today.  You're also unlikely to regress all the way from 155 to 100, even with the most reckless of habits

[YANNO]

So who is going to recommend where to test IQ? Any tests that are reliable?

 

[iseethelight]

Yes only thru brain damage..., if you have a major head injury that doesn't disable or kill you, it can turn you into a genius or savant... 

http://www.livescien...ath-genius.html