I just found out I'm basically an idiot

[pjoa09]

Re: I just found out I'm bascically an idiot

I suppose I'm asking if it is possible for someone's IQ to increase 30 points. From what you're saying in my case it is unlikely.

did you understand the questions? because I fucking swear I didnt have a clue at first and i got 80 or 90 on these online ones then again I did it with the gigi assessment? or something and it was at 119.

Indeed if the verbal IQ assessment is accurate (yeah I know its not but hope is all we need), then you are pretty well off with verbal sparring. That is all you are going to need. It's all about insulting everyone in their faces and not trying to determine how the child will look if a Native Indian had sex with an Aboriginal Australian.

That is a bad example but really, all I can remember from these IQ tests are cartwheels. (It was like this, then like this, then like that, how does it look now?)

 

[Thales]

pjoa09,

So you're saying you believe the verbal IQ to be inaccurate? Why so?

 

[pjoa09]

It's IQ. It is all inaccurate because all of it depends on other factors. There are probably infinite factors that determine one's IQ and the same goes with verbal IQ. IQ test, the word itself has turned into mush.

Even if it was even accurate. Your Pness doesn't determine how good you are at sex and the same goes with IQ.

It's all primitive insecurities.

 

[Thales]

It's all primitive insecurities.

Well, if nothing else I believe this statement sums up my character, however unintentionally.

 

[snafupants]

It's IQ. It is all inaccurate because all of it depends on other factors. There are probably infinite factors that determine one's IQ and the same goes with verbal IQ. IQ test, the word itself has turned into mush.

Even if it was even accurate. Your Pness doesn't determine how good you are at sex and the same goes with IQ.

It's all primitive insecurities.

That's an interesting proclamation, that IQ tests have turned into mush, considering validity, reliability, and correlation to hundreds of life factors have been streamlined over the decades.

To deal specifically with your limp penis analogy - which even as I write this I am not sure I understand its hidden genius - if penis length, girth, etc. correlated with as many life factors as IQ does (e.g., health, educational attainment, financial class) then I would eagerly want to know more about that through measurement and study. *

Why do these tests correlate highly not only with one another, but disparate tests of achievement and myriad life outcomes if they have been reduced to mush? No one is calling them the perfect instrument in gauging this global trait, but surely it rises above mush.

*The penis is far less complex within an individual and less diverse between individuals compared to the human brain. Of course the length of your dick would not pervasively inform your life, or maybe it would.

 

[pjoa09]

That's an interesting proclamation, that IQ tests have turned into mush, considering validity, reliability, and correlation to hundreds of life factors have been streamlined over the decades.

To deal specifically with your limp penis analogy - which even as I write this I am not sure I understand its hidden genius - if penis length, girth, etc. correlated with as many life factors as IQ does (e.g., health, educational attainment, financial class) then I would eagerly want to know more about that through measurement and study. *

Why do these tests correlate highly not only with one another, but disparate tests of achievement and myriad life outcomes if they have been reduced to mush? No one is calling them the perfect instrument in gauging this global trait, but surely it rises above mush.

*The penis is far less complex within an individual and less diverse between individuals compared to the human brain. Of course the length of your dick would not pervasively inform your life, or maybe it would.

I have yet to see a Mensa member to cure cancer.

So far IQ tests have been capable of only distinguishing retards.

As for the penis analogy, women tend to get aroused more with the technique and make out. Technological strides and innovations come from creativity and imagination and only need intelligence to carry out.

We certainly are aware of those with savant syndrome and how far have they progressed with calculating digits and yet fail to lead a normal healthy life without support.

A coke can pness and a 190 IQ wont do the trick.

As for Thales, someone could be more intelligent but what he thinks about while taking a dump is what matters.

 

[snafupants]

I have yet to see a Mensa member to cure cancer.

So far IQ tests have been capable of only distinguishing retards.

As for the penis analogy, women tend to get aroused more with the technique and make out. Technological strides and innovations come from creativity and imagination and only need intelligence to carry out.

We certainly are aware of those with savant syndrome and how far have they progressed with calculating digits and yet fail to lead a normal healthy life without support.

A coke can pness and a 190 IQ wont do the trick.

As for Thales, someone could be more intelligent but what he thinks about while taking a dump is what matters.

That was basically incomprehensible. One place where your comment makes a modicum of sense is the part about savant syndrome. Since disparate abilities don't always share the same brain region, sometimes the person may display merely a phenomenal memory without a commensurately high IQ or inflated scores in other areas. There is one women who can recall every day of her life, but aside from that she is rather quaint. Also, is something as rare as savant syndrome really a sturdy base for an argument?

Okay, actually the beginning of your post made sense too, in so far as I can understand what you're trying to convey. At this point your are probably trying to goad me, but whatever. To tee off on the first comment, has anyone cured cancer, Mensa member or otherwise? Second, there is a distinct difference between having the ability to excel and actually doing so. Just because I can swing like Sammy Sosa doesn't mean I play in the major leagues. As for the comment/crack that IQ tests have only been successful in distinguishing retards, are you going to argue that there is not a difference between someone with an IQ of 64 and an IQ of 148? Even if you do argue that for whatever reason, note that I never talked about the functional utility of the score, just the score and its validity, reliability, and correlations throughout the decades.

 

[Thales]

If nothing else, this thread has ended up amusing, which has been to my benefit, overall.

Also, I think snafupants is rigorously testing my intellect by bringing up complex psychological knowledge, as in seeing if I comprehend it. Clever man. Okay, I don't think you're really doing that, but it would add another interesting layer to our dialogue...:P

Which begs the question, do psychologists deliberately attempt to assess intelligence upon first meeting a patient? I'm sure they do this subconsciously, but if they do this consciously is the real question.

 

[Hadoblado]

Thales you are quite obviously more intelligent than average, do not be sad because you found yourself below average in some respects. Just being able to keep up with the people on this forum puts you at above average intelligence in my opinion, particularly when they're all whipping out all their technical knowledge about psychology etc.
I have had similar intelligence discrepancy experiences.

- I took remedial reading lesson in grade 3, I was also reading the Hobbit in my free time. I had no clue that the two were related, or why the hell I had to go read Bangers and Mash in the shed out the back. Coincidentally, I just got diagnosed with dyslexia, though I still don't believe I have it.
- I failed maths and science, but scored in the top 4% in the state for the tests.
- I can't remember street names, phone numbers or the vast majority of the information I study, however I can remember pretty much every move and what level which pokemon learned them from that phase in childhood. I know which one I'd prefer to remember, particularly since I haven't played pokemon in over 8 years!
- I have the smallest working memory of anyone I know, and anyone who took the test at the same time I did. I have 5 "slots" for manipulating information, the person next to me got 10 (the average is 7).

It sounds like you will take negative indicators as the golden standard of empirical evidence, but will salt positive indicators until they wither like slugs (or snow, apparently). As you have probably experienced, this is the reverse of a "healthy" thought process, where affirming evidence is given too much weight and contrary evidence is ignored. From what I can tell, you are upset because at worst, you are one point below average intelligence, when there is plenty of evidence to suggest you are well above average.

 

[Yet]

Thales

If nothing else, this thread has ended up amusing, which has been to my benefit, overall.

see ... nothing wrong with your intelligence !

btw I found executive functions can be of an annoying influence in test situations. I am not very good with attention and memory unless I am in a flow. A bit like ADD. That sort of stuff can have an impact on the outcome as well.

 

[Thales]

Thales you are quite obviously more intelligent than average, do not be sad because you found yourself below average in some respects. Just being able to keep up with the people on this forum puts you at above average intelligence in my opinion, particularly when they're all whipping out all their technical knowledge about psychology etc.
I have had similar intelligence discrepancy experiences.

- I took remedial reading lesson in grade 3, I was also reading the Hobbit in my free time. I had no clue that the two were related, or why the hell I had to go read Bangers and Mash in the shed out the back. Coincidentally, I just got diagnosed with dyslexia, though I still don't believe I have it.
- I failed maths and science, but scored in the top 4% in the state for the tests.
- I can't remember street names, phone numbers or the vast majority of the information I study, however I can remember pretty much every move and what level which pokemon learned them from that phase in childhood. I know which one I'd prefer to remember, particularly since I haven't played pokemon in over 8 years!
- I have the smallest working memory of anyone I know, and anyone who took the test at the same time I did. I have 5 "slots" for manipulating information, the person next to me got 10 (the average is 7).

It sounds like you will take negative indicators as the golden standard of empirical evidence, but will salt positive indicators until they wither like slugs (or snow, apparently). As you have probably experienced, this is the reverse of a "healthy" thought process, where affirming evidence is given too much weight and contrary evidence is ignored. From what I can tell, you are upset because at worst, you are one point below average intelligence, when there is plenty of evidence to suggest you are well above average.

You're correct when you say I put more "weight" on negative "evidence" than I do the positive kind. 99 is still in the average range but a layperson would perceive it as being lower than it is, double digits? laughable. Somehow, I have this "instinctual" sense of being below average, although instincts can very possibly be incorrect.

Even though I scored average on the Working Memory index, I consider mine in general to be well below average. It seems like when I consider a problem, a step forward automatically places me a step backward. Although I have been diagnosed as having add/anxiety/depression, which doesn't help matters, I'm pretty much a psychiatric mess, unfortunately.

While I do appreciate these compliments, and I'm sure they're coming from smart people, but are they coming from a psychologically experienced perspective? I suppose objectively speaking that doesn't necessarily have to matter. Though, I can't think of anything I have accomplished from an academic perspective that would place me above average, except reading comprehension tests (although because of my incredulously strange viewpoint I doubt their validiity) but those have been isolated instances.

I suppose you could say I'm "salting" pretty heavily right now. But you know, whenever I make a forum post I sit paralyzed wondering what I've written, or what I'm about to write, will be considered illogical by those individuals that have viewed it.

 

[Cavallier]

...it sickens me.

I imagine Kuu saying this in a chocolaty James Earl Jones voice. This is the voice I've assigned to Kuu. It makes me giggle.

I've known a lot of people with advanced educations that didn't rank higher than average on IQ tests. My soon to be sister-in-law graduated with a chemistry BS at UC Davis with a 4.0 and lived entirely off of her scholarships. Then she went to Purdue and got her PHD in microbiology and again lived almost exclusively off of her merit based scholarships. She's not really that smart. She was just very determined. As, many others have pointed out I don't really think the test matters much. However, you seem determined to count this test as an evaluation of your worth. Well then, what will you do to improve yourself? Personally, I would study up on recognizing patterns as that's what most IQ tests actually test. I don't think that there is some sort of magical ceiling of intelligence that a person simply can't rise above. I guess I mean to say some people just have to work harder to learn than others.

Then again I've known some real idiots. However, I think I consider them idiots based on their lack of desire to actually learn. Maybe intelligence is more about the desire to be intelligent?

 

[Thales]

According to the science intelligence can't be improved much, not with the current technology. Nootropics are in development, but who knows where that will lead. Whether or not the test was accurate in its assessment of my intelligence is my concern, there is something known as the "standard error of measurement." Psych said he did not believe the test results to be representative of my intelligence. I think I've kept repeating that throughout this thread as a means to convince myself.

A few people in this thread have been kind enough to say I'm above average, but I can't help be cognizant of the fact that simple social graces were the motivating factor, although it is very possible that they were genuine.

That speaks volumes about my self-esteem, doesn't it? I can't even take compliments seriously, but even if I do accept them as sincere projections of peoples' opinions, can't their opinions still be wrong occasionally? Human beings are fallible, aren't they not? I rationalize away any positivity.

Conversely, my mind is reactionary and receptive to even the slightest criticism. Most peoples' minds don't work that way, from my view.

Starting this thread was a waste of my time, I'll most likely never accept the advice or the compliments of others. I need objective validation, and that is most likely never to happen.

 

[crippli]

Have you tested out medication for adhd? There are many reports about C students progressing to straight As.

I have not looked in on this, but as in every area of performance there should be plenty of drugs that can be used to help you get the upper hand.

/please ignore if tip is already addressed.

 

[pjoa09]

That was basically incomprehensible. One place where your comment makes a modicum of sense is the part about savant syndrome. Since disparate abilities don't always share the same brain region, sometimes the person may display merely a phenomenal memory without a commensurately high IQ or inflated scores in other areas. There is one women who can recall every day of her life, but aside from that she is rather quaint. Also, is something as rare as savant syndrome really a sturdy base for an argument?

Okay, actually the beginning of your post made sense too, in so far as I can understand what you're trying to convey. At this point your are probably trying to goad me, but whatever. To tee off on the first comment, has anyone cured cancer, Mensa member or otherwise? Second, there is a distinct difference between having the ability to excel and actually doing so. Just because I can swing like Sammy Sosa doesn't mean I play in the major leagues. As for the comment/crack that IQ tests have only been successful in distinguishing retards, are you going to argue that there is not a difference between someone with an IQ of 64 and an IQ of 148? Even if you do argue that for whatever reason, note that I never talked about the functional utility of the score, just the score and its validity, reliability, and correlations throughout the decades.

Ok, I think I was slightly on a tired "high".

My point lies at his IQ of 99.

Which claims that he is 1 point below average.

Certainly he can come back for an IQ for 103.

Now he would be 3 points above average.

In my opinion, the ability to achieve whatever occupation one seeks is the most important thing. Being hampered by IQ in an attempt to achieve a certain occupation is the concern.

Thales is perhaps discouraged by his IQ scores because he believes that it will hamper his achievements.

What I am trying to say is that at his stand point he isn't less likely to achieve his occupation as compared to someone who has scored 10 or 20 points higher.

Marilyn Vos Savant has an IQ of beyond 200 went entirely unnoticed until her IQ test.

She went on to write articles for newspapers after graduating from Washington University.

Certainly it was her choice but she was no show stopping physicist or researcher.

IQ is not even close to the word "genius".

It takes a whole lot more.

 

[snafupants]

Ok, I think I was slightly on a tired "high".

My point lies at his IQ of 99.

Which claims that he is 1 point below average.

Certainly he can come back for an IQ for 103.

Now he would be 3 points above average.

In my opinion, the ability to achieve whatever occupation one seeks is the most important thing. Being hampered by IQ in an attempt to achieve a certain occupation is the concern.

Thales is perhaps discouraged by his IQ scores because he believes that it will hamper his achievements.

What I am trying to say is that at his stand point he isn't less likely to achieve his occupation as compared to someone who has scored 10 or 20 points higher.

Marilyn Vos Savant has an IQ of beyond 200 went entirely unnoticed until her IQ test.

She went on to write articles for newspapers after graduating from Washington University.

Certainly it was her choice but she was no show stopping physicist or researcher.

IQ is not even close to the word "genius".

It takes a whole lot more.

You're probably right in that genius is more than aptitude as measured by these tests, and relies extensively on personal and personality factors. Do you think the same criteria should be placed on labeling intellectuals?

 

[Cavallier]

According to the science intelligence can't be improved much, not with the current technology....

I rationalize away any positivity.

Conversely, my mind is reactionary and receptive to even the slightest criticism.

Starting this thread was a waste of my time, I'll most likely never accept the advice or the compliments of others.

Oh. Well, then there is only one thing left to do: Point and laugh.

BAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU SUCK!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I actually really rather enjoyed that.

 

[Névtelen]

I wouldn't give a second thought to I.Q tests. I've known someone who received a score of 158, yet he understands next to nothing and he has no real deductive capabilities. The only result of his score was a newly found domineering attitude and an inflated sense of self worth.

There really is no way to quantify something as subjective as human intelligence in terms outside of what most can't do. The results depend on the commonly accepted definition of intelligence relative to what most can or cannot do. Those few who are "lucky" enough to have a brain capable of performing a usually difficult, for the average person, and useful process are deemed gods and given a means of separation, the I.Q test, from the average-brained individual. I.Q doesn't necessarily test for anything other than what most tests do: the ability to pass the test. The results shouldn't be guaranteed to be commutable to any sort of application. At least that's how I see the issue.

 

[pjoa09]

You're probably right in that genius is more than aptitude as measured by these tests, and relies extensively on personal and personality factors. Do you think the same criteria should be placed on labeling intellectuals?

Perhaps.

Although, it wouldn't demand extraordinary personalities it should require a pretty high level of discipline.

Judging from the definition of an intellect, it is an occupation I can't reach nor desire to reach with my level of focus and discipline.

Again, Christopher Langan (I know this is an extremely rare case) is actually the only sore example of a bouncer with a high IQ ranging from 190-200. He spent most of his time weightlifting.

In my opinion, yes a personality that is geared towards being an intellect is necessary for one to be an intellect given that they are capable of being educated in that specific field.

 

[snafupants]

Perhaps.

Although, it wouldn't demand extraordinary personalities it should require a pretty high level of discipline.

Judging from the definition of an intellect, it is an occupation I can't reach nor desire to reach with my level of focus and discipline.

Again, Christopher Langan (I know this is an extremely rare case) is actually the only sore example of a bouncer with a high IQ ranging from 190-200. He spent most of his time weightlifting.

In my opinion, yes a personality that is geared towards being an intellect is necessary for one to be an intellect given that they are capable of being educated in that specific field.

there are differences between an intellectual and an academic. also, it's downright impossible to achieve a score six to seven standard deviations from the mean without years of intense study and extraordinary genes.

 

[pjoa09]

there are differences between an intellectual and an academic. also, it's downright impossible to achieve a score six to seven standard deviations from the mean without years of intense study and extraordinary genes.

Well that is what you get off of all these unreliable sources. People leading ordinary lives but are geniuses.

OK, I am bored of arguing now.

Okay Mr. Thales,

Do you feel retarded?

That was rhetorical.

Ofcourse you do.

But so do I.

But what kind of an idiot thinks he's an idiot?

I've yet to see one.

Therefore, we are fucking smart.

And that is a happy ending.

Except really, 130 IQ verbal? seriously? and 99 IQ ? Doesn't that sound just a tad bit what-the-fuck-is-this-fucking-bullshit suspicious? The best explaination I have is that you zoned out half way for 30 minutes and resumed.

I know there are different intelligences and I don't know much about IQ but they are linked in one way or another. Those are 3 points in difference and you sound capable of being prominent in an intellectual cocktail party.

About the insecurities, I believe they are why humans strive. We see flaws and thats a good thing. But just don't get fixated.

 

[Thales]

pjoa09,

Thanks for the kind words, yeah the verbal IQ thing is more than a little suspicious and others are looking into it, other experts have claimed that it is most commonly a sign of ADHD. What constitutes the performance part was done after verbal and I mentally fatigue easily although in the tester's defense he asked if I need a break/water between tests. You are right, VCI is one of the most g-loaded (correlates with general intelligence) indices.

Something's wrong here, whether others acknowledge it or not. The point of contention is whether or not the flaw is fixable.

 

[a detached retina]

Just do what everyone else does and say "Yeah I got like a 142 or something like that... is that good?"

 

[a detached retina]

also is this a social experiment to see if others treat you differently if you claim to have an average IQ? Because communication skills are also g-loaded.

 

[Offbeat]

also, it's downright impossible to achieve a score six to seven standard deviations from the mean without years of intense study and extraordinary genes.

It's improbable, but far from impossible. I saw a documentary about this guy some time ago, so I presume his IQ score is legitimate. He didn't speak particularly eloquently though, and I have heard more stimulating ideas from people with IQ's that I'd imagine were only one standard deviation higher than norm. He also used his superior mind in a very odd manner; he falsified his legal documents so he could go through high-school three or four times in different states, as he found his original (and all subsequent) experiences unsatisfactory. After completing high-school the first time he scarred his torso, apparently inspired by Rambo. He then spent many years attempting to win "who wants to be a millionaire," disputing the anomalous and ambiguous question which cost him any real winnings the first time he participated in the show. Long story short, IQ certainly isn't perfectly predictive of much; the great minds of the past whose works continue to unanimously inspire us today, are unlikely to have had IQ's comparable to this eccentric bouncer.

Except really, 130 IQ verbal? seriously? and 99 IQ ? Doesn't that sound just a tad bit what-the-fuck-is-this-fucking-bullshit suspicious? The best explaination I have is that you zoned out half way for 30 minutes and resumed.

This is actually not that unusual, especially amongst those who aren't neurotypical, and in fact I think it's rare that anyone should have all their IQ scores align.

As for the OP; there are actually numerous ways to improve your fluid intelligence, if you search psychological publications for the correlates of high IQ's or of correlates of IQ increases, you'll see there's a great deal of info already available.

Working memory is a large component of IQ, and there's research that documents that practicing continuous feedback tasks such as "dual n-back" leads to statistically significant increases in IQ. Downloading the free version of this task would be my recommendation for you- practicing 30 mins a day for 17 days has been enough to show improvements in IQ scores and the density of matter in certain parts of the brain.

Nootropics are another possibility. Piracetam and pramiracetam are those that have been researched the most heavily -- and piracetam happens to be fairly cheap and completely harmless. It increases brain plasticity and activity in the corpus callosum, which improves inter-hemispheric communication. Take it with a choline source. A diet high in fish oils also correlates with a higher IQ, so take supplements or eat some raw fish each day.

 

[Thales]

I know the IQ scores aren't going to align perfectly, but 30 points is pretty discrepant; extremely rare actually from what I've been told. I've recently been informed that it is most commonly a sign of severe ADHD, and I also have severe anxiety and noticeable depression. Both docs I've seen seem to be against the autism/asperger's diagnosis I've presented them with. An expert has told me, once a performance obstacle is removed a drastic increase is expected, so we will see. I'm not completely convinced yet.

also is this a social experiment to see if others treat you differently if you claim to have an average IQ? Because communication skills are also g-loaded.

Haha, no, but that is an amusing notion.

Actually, offbeat, emerging research is showing that nicotine has effects on the attentional parts of the brain and is in the preliminary stages of being transformed into a nootropic.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Actually, offbeat, emerging research is showing that nicotine has effects on the attentional parts of the brain and is in the preliminary stages of being transformed into a nootropic.

Let's all start smoking pipes again.

 

[Offbeat]

Actually, offbeat, emerging research is showing that nicotine has effects on the attentional parts of the brain and is in the preliminary stages of being transformed into a nootropic.

Let's all start smoking pipes again.

Even though I stick to tobacco these days, you could try throwing something else in there too; longitudinal studies have shown that five joints a week lead to average IQ increases of four points. And make sure to have something to wash it down with; the IQs of people who drink less than half a litre of wine a day are on average 3.3 points higher than those of teetotalers.

 

[snafupants]

It's improbable, but far from impossible. I saw a documentary about this guy some time ago, so I presume his IQ score is legitimate. He didn't speak particularly eloquently though, and I have heard more stimulating ideas from people with IQ's that I'd imagine were only one standard deviation higher than norm. He also used his superior mind in a very odd manner; he falsified his legal documents so he could go through high-school three or four times in different states, as he found his original (and all subsequent) experiences unsatisfactory. After completing high-school the first time he scarred his torso, apparently inspired by Rambo. He then spent many years attempting to win "who wants to be a millionaire," disputing the anomalous and ambiguous question which cost him any real winnings the first time he participated in the show. Long story short, IQ certainly isn't perfectly predictive of much; the great minds of the past whose works continue to unanimously inspire us today, are unlikely to have had IQ's comparable to this eccentric bouncer.


This is actually not that unusual, especially amongst those who aren't neurotypical, and in fact I think it's rare that anyone should have all their IQ scores align.

As for the OP; there are actually numerous ways to improve your fluid intelligence, if you search psychological publications for the correlates of high IQ's or of correlates of IQ increases, you'll see there's a great deal of info already available.

Working memory is a large component of IQ, and there's research that documents that practicing continuous feedback tasks such as "dual n-back" leads to statistically significant increases in IQ. Downloading the free version of this task would be my recommendation for you- practicing 30 mins a day for 17 days has been enough to show improvements in IQ scores and the density of matter in certain parts of the brain.

Nootropics are another possibility. Piracetam and pramiracetam are those that have been researched the most heavily -- and piracetam happens to be fairly cheap and completely harmless. It increases brain plasticity and activity in the corpus callosum, which improves inter-hemispheric communication. Take it with a choline source. A diet high in fish oils also correlates with a higher IQ, so take supplements or eat some raw fish each day.

yeah that guy is rick rosner, and he's definitely a character. he currently writes for jimmy kimmel and works part time as a nude model. thing is, iq connotes how deeply and how quickly you see things, and doesn't really denote anything. personally, i would rather have an iq of 152 and have my shit together than an iq of 183 and be all over the place. regarding balanced cognitive profiles, it is estimated that between 74% and 79% of gifted profiles show significant discrepancies among indexes, which is well above the norm. however, you're right in that a perfectly balanced set of scores (e.g., all indexes in the above average range) is actually the exception. finally, although i find your advice sound, fluid intelligence has historically been seen as the innate intelligence domain, whereas crystallized intelligence has been viewed as the cultural contingent area.

 

[Thales]

Even though I stick to tobacco these days, you could try throwing something else in there too; longitudinal studies have shown that five joints a week lead to average IQ increases of four points. And make sure to have something to wash it down with; the IQs of people who drink less than half a litre of wine a day are on average 3.3 points higher than those of teetotalers.

I think the University of Michigan did a study, where test subject completed dual n back training, which increased short-term memory (correlates with Gf) and performance on Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices test. However, no other tests were used and it is not yet known whether their gains are permanent.

The joint and wine correlations are definitely interesting. The more I'm talking to experts, but the more I'm seeing that a re-test is ultimately necessary.

I have no energy or drive to do barely anything it's as if there is not chemical stimulation to my brain (well, there has to be some, or I would've already met my demise).

Dag nabbit, I have to cut this short, I'll continue this later.

 

[Offbeat]

yeah that guy is rick rosner, and he's definitely a character. he currently writes for jimmy kimmel and works part time as a nude model. thing is, iq connotes how deeply and how quickly you see things, and doesn't really denote anything. personally, i would rather have an iq of 152 and have my shit together than an iq of 183 and be all over the place. regarding balanced cognitive profiles, it is estimated that between 74% and 79% of gifted profiles show significant discrepancies among indexes, which is well above the norm. however, you're right in that a perfectly balanced set of scores (e.g., all indexes in the above average range) is actually the exception. finally, although i find your advice sound, fluid intelligence has historically been seen as the innate intelligence domain, whereas crystallized intelligence has been viewed as the cultural contingent area.

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. That comment about fluid intelligence though; while it has historically been seen as innate, I think that the growing body of evidence concerning the plasticity of the brain has got to make you think that intelligence is far from fixed. I'm not sure what the neurological basis of intelligence would be exactly (and it'd probably be a whole host of things), but I doubt they're unalterable.

Attention seems to be a central component intelligence, so a degree of control over the oscillation of brainwaves is part of the neurological basis of it, and it's been demonstrated many times that this can be achieved. Being shown the oscillation of your brainwaves on a monitor while hooked up to EEG as they occur has been shown to have a lasting effect on the ability to manipulate them, and neuroimaging shows that structural changes occur following these sessions. The same ability and neurological changes have been found in people who meditate frequently.

Our knowledge of neurology is still pretty limited, but one thing that is definitely backed is the whole "fire together, wire together" hypothesis, which makes a lot of sense intuitively. If it's correct, then all our behaviours, perceptions, thoughts and even the substances we ingest have a continually self-reinforcing effect on our selves, and so all make a difference. That's how I think of it anyway.

I think the University of Michigan did a study, where test subject completed dual n back training, which increased short-term memory (correlates with Gf) and performance on Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices test. However, no other tests were used and it is not yet known whether their gains are permanent.

I think that was the original study, but there have been at least two replications of it now, one of which used MRI to show changes to the density of neurons in one part of the hippocampus. I guess it's still pretty uncertain whether these results are conclusive, though; the studies are expensive and time-consuming so there aren't many replications of them yet, there's the methodological issue of retest effects, and the the remote possibility of experimenter effects too.

Also, on that recommendation of piracetam, I think it's particularly good as it increases the activity of the corpus callosum, which is implicated in many things, probably because it connects the right and left hemispheres. It's also the part of the brain which has been found to continue to develop the longest. Viewed through the lens of the fire together, wire together hypothesis, taking a racetam can only be a good thing.

 

[Thales]

I think that was the original study, but there have been at least two replications of it now, one of which used MRI to show changes to the density of neurons in one part of the hippocampus. I guess it's still pretty uncertain whether these results are conclusive, though; the studies are expensive and time-consuming so there aren't many replications of them yet, there's the methodological issue of retest effects, and the the remote possibility of experimenter effects too.

Also, on that recommendation of piracetam, I think it's particularly good as it increases the activity of the corpus callosum, which is implicated in many things, probably because it connects the right and left hemispheres. It's also the part of the brain which has been found to continue to develop the longest. Viewed through the lens of the fire together, wire together hypothesis, taking a racetam can only be a good thing.

I tried a supplement with one of the racetams (there's many different forms, if I recall) awhile back, it seemed to help although I don't believe I had any in my sytem when I took the test. Also, yeah, omega 3 is a mood enhancer/nootropic of which I utterly approve.

Anyway, if my fluid intelligence was assessed accurately in that test (not conclusive yet and even the doc disagreed), I have no place in college.

I just want to make myself clear, my psychiatric issues can't be overstated, I believe they intefer greatly with my cognition, so I don't know what to think and am anxiously awaiting my appt with my other doc. We'll see how it goes. Additionally, my lack of mental fluidity manifests itself in awkward and ineffectual speech, something's wrong.

Also, I know all IQ index scores aren't supposed to perfectly align, but when they're that discrepant that warrants further investigation at least, especially when the high score is in a g-loaded index such as VCI. Someone also (more respected and educated than me) declared "it's both cruel and absurd to give someone an IQ test and then fail to properly interpret the results" referrig directly to my case. If the professionals (just one's isn't enough) I see reach a consensus that the score is legitamate, I'll relent, which would make me cease to have any academic ambitions.

My mind is in an odd state, and as I've said before if this deplorable state of mind is accurate and "can't be changed" then there is a problem for me.

I'm hoping my psych doesn't shoot down all of my view on this.

Also, for the WAIS is it mandatory to have to take it in one sitting? My mental stamina is that of a child's. Meh, I should've just said "penniless street urchin."

 

[BigApplePi]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but intelligence QUOTIENT loses it's meaning after a certain age. (I.Q. = mental age divided by chronological age.)

At age 25 one can increase their intelligence via learning. Learn one subject well and it becomes easier to learn other subjects provided one has the minimum intelligence.

I don't know economics very well. But if I were to study it, I'm sure I would not only gain knowledge, but be more intelligent in dealing with economical issues. This would help me understand other things better ... like politics.

My point is one can learn to be more intelligent.

 

[snafupants]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but intelligence QUOTIENT loses it's meaning after a certain age. (I.Q. = mental age divided by chronological age.)

At age 25 one can increase their intelligence via learning. Learn one subject well and it becomes easier to learn other subjects provided one has the minimum intelligence.

I don't know economics very well. But if I were to study it, I'm sure I would not only gain knowledge, but be more intelligent in dealing with economical issues. This would help me understand other things better ... like politics.

My point is one can learn to be more intelligent.

You would reason more soundly with economics by knowing the verbiage and protocols in that area, but you would not increase your ability to reason abstractly per se. It would be nice if understanding something like the LSAT would extend to completely novel tasks of critical thinking, but it seems like if that preparation came later in life, then new learning would be much the same before and after LSAT preparation. Why would a youngster study for that evil test anyway? Basically, it would help you with other subjects to the extent that the type of reasoning overlapped. Speaking more broadly, crystallized intelligence does increase with age, but fluid intelligence takes an inexorable nose dive in late adolescence to early adulthood; admittedly this sucks.

 

[Thales]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but intelligence QUOTIENT loses it's meaning after a certain age. (I.Q. = mental age divided by chronological age.)

At age 25 one can increase their intelligence via learning. Learn one subject well and it becomes easier to learn other subjects provided one has the minimum intelligence.

I don't know economics very well. But if I were to study it, I'm sure I would not only gain knowledge, but be more intelligent in dealing with economical issues. This would help me understand other things better ... like politics.

My point is one can learn to be more intelligent.

Thanks for the response. But, I view a high IQ score like a "head start" barring brain injury or dementia, you can keep it then obviously you'll always be ahead of your peers, well the "average" ones anyway.

Also, I guess I could try and play to my verbal strengths, I'm not sure how high the VCI goes, and I'm sure stimulant meds would increase my working memory, or at least the focus that feeds into it.

 

[BigApplePi]

You would reason more soundly with economics by knowing the verbiage and protocols in that area, but you would not increase your ability to reason abstractly per se. It would be nice if understanding something like the LSAT would extend to completely novel tasks of critical thinking, but it seems like if that preparation came later in life, then new learning would be much the same before and after LSAT preparation. Why would a youngster study for that evil test anyway? Basically, it would help you with other subjects to the extent that the type of reasoning overlapped. Speaking more broadly, crystallized intelligence does increase with age, but fluid intelligence takes an inexorable nose dive in late adolescence to early adulthood; admittedly this sucks.

Hi snafuP. I'm not sure what "fluid" intelligence versus "crystallized intelligence is, as I hadn't thought of breaking up intelligence into parts that way. I'm still sticking with intelligence = the general ability to deal with stuff. You say, "You would reason more soundly with economics by knowing the verbiage and protocols in that area, but you would not increase your ability to reason abstractly per se." Isn't it quite possible by learning economics I might learn some new kind of reasoning not known before? I'm not sure but my impression is economics has a structure not duplicated in any other area of knowledge (that is a conjecture). If so, I might be able to abstract it and apply it to politics. That would be intelligence learned.

At the same time my intelligence might be decreased because I would encounter "senior moments" of forgetfulness with age.

 

[Thales]

Many more children are gifted than test in the gifted range. Underestimation of gifted children’s abilities, unfortunately, is much more common than accurate appraisal. When the examiner knows enough about giftedness to recognize this inherent danger in testing, all test results are subjected to confirmation with other data. If, for example, a child’s reading achievement score is 160, but the IQ score is 125, the IQ score must be an underestimate. It is impossible for a child to achieve beyond his or her capabilities. (This is why "overachiever" is an oxymoron.)

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to me, but I found it interesting regardless. I really doubt anyone with gifted learning capacity has scored a 99 overall score. Meh, I need to just do some intensive research on my particular issues and see what I come up with. I have an appt with my psychiatrist tomorrow and I'll get his opinion on all this.

 

[^_\\]

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to me, but I found it interesting regardless. I really doubt anyone with gifted learning capacity has scored a 99 overall score. Meh, I need to just do some intensive research on my particular issues and see what I come up with. I have an appt with my psychiatrist tomorrow and I'll get his opinion on all this.

Sorry about:
all the bracketed explanations if they explain too far: It's a hang up of mine.
the writing: grammar, syntax, repetitiveness etc
the tone: it's 5am (edit: 5:30 now), I'm a lazy 17 year old.

You seem to be blind to the many explanations for why your scores (including verbal reasoning) might have been low, most of which come from your psych and therefore untainted by any bias you might have: Off the top of my head, psych said you looked anxious, psych said it looked as if you needed stimulation to perform well (sounds like your ADD playing up), you have ADD, you are depressed. ADD already predisposes you to score poorly in certain areas where the most concentration is needed (whether it be to focus on a boring section or to focus away from anxiety.) Depression disposes you to score poorly overall. ADD and anxiety and depression together make directing your focus very difficult. A lack of education/practice makes you underscore in many areas.

I don't see how you could possibly have gotten an accurate result unless all these problems were balanced by a massively well taken test + a lot of luck, which it does not sound like happened. Also, note that anxiety and depression will have made ADD much more of a problem than it is normally (anxiety makes it hard to focus anyway, and ADD makes it hard to deal with anxiety. Depression means you have less energy to force concentration). In terms of removing barriers, if the influence of either of these problems is reduced, the reduction in scores due to ADD will also be reduced.

On top of this your posts indicate someone who has verbal skills well above average, and show someone with above average average intelligence and iq.

It looks like your 99 score was the tainted one (I hesitate to say anomaly as your depression and anxiety will not resolve overnight. [if ever! {slaps self on wrist}]) And plenty to believe your 130 score was not an overestimate (You can't exceed your capacity, and any multiple choice luck does not cover two standard deviations)

Worst case scenario your overall/performance/whatever-it-was-called-iq is (slightly better than) average and you are near genius level in verbal intelligence (which is, I rush to mention, highly G forced/stringed/lol), Otherwise you went went two standard deviations out of whack via sheer luck on multiple choice. More likely you actually underperformed due to stress, anxiety, depression, ADD.

Even if your iq is 99 (which it isn't) you do have the iq of many who go on to take phds. Remember, if the mean of people with phds is 125, for every guy with an iq of 151, there is a guy with an iq of 99. Also, how many phds who know their iq is low relative to their peers are going to step forward and be tested.

One last thing that occurs to me is that your "existential" problem. I forget exactly what you said and can't be bothered to look it up, but have you heard of dissociation? If as I suspect, I'm way off base it's probably something that will resolve when you fully think the problem through, or are less depressed.

TLDR: Your score of 99 is almost certainly not accurate. Your score of 130 is if anything too low. IQ is not a prerequisite for anything other than Membership of mensa et al.

 

[Thales]

I have low resolve tonight, but I believe you deserve a reply, however short, because of your detailed response. If nothing else, I am a uniquely principled individual :P

The psychiatrist I visited recently believed ADD/Anxiety was definitely effecting my scores, claiming "I think you have plenty of intelligence but your ADHD makes it hard to harness." While I do agree with you "false negatives" (seemingly exceeding your cognitive ability) should be investigated, scores can be naturally skewed in and of themselves due to autism, I was assured I don't have this though.

Anyway, I can't concentrate due to this infernal racket I'm forced to endure, so I will give a more detailed reply when I am able.

Oh, and this wasn't a "multiple choice test" btw, just to let you know.

Yeah, I've heard of dissociation. I probably have a little bit of this, especially regards to the social environment/the importance of it (I've separated myself from these things somewhat, that is).

 

[dumas]

i think you need to get out more.

we get that you're smart.

now what are you going to do about it?

...is how this thread makes me feel.

 

[Arachnid]

Alright, I registered for this forum for the sole purpose of responding to the OP.

Okay, so an IQ is determined by first measuring performance on multiple facets of cognition, then the results are run through equations, and finally a number is spat out that is used as a way to summarize the results. That number is supposed to be able to predict the results you obtained on the subtests you took and also predict your performance on other subtests you could take in the future.

Now, this number as previously stated is only valid under certain circumstances. You do not meet the criteria and therefore a full scale IQ score cannot be given for you! I repeat, you do not have an IQ of 99.

So, what do I think you can take from the results of your testing? Number one, you have very strong verbal abilities and this is likely to reflect your verbal abilities across the board. Yay! However, you have a pretty below average performance score, which as I've understood it makes sense considering you have ADD.

To make a stupid analogy, your legs are strong, but your arms are weak. Typically, people are similarly strong all over, however, for whatever reason (ADD, depression, etc.) you have a jagged cognitive profile. I believe cases such as yours are referred to as twice exceptional. You're exceptionally talented at one thing while also being intellectually impoverished in another.

Please do not think you are average because this does not adequately summarize the results of your testing. You are very smart at some things and less talented at others.

I would second the suggestion that you try out dual n-back and see whether or not a consistent effort may result in changes. DNB training hypothetically targets the area you are weak in. There isn't really anything to lose other than 30 minutes a day.

If you or anyone else is interested, there is a google group titled "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" that likes to explore and discuss the scientific literature on intelligence enhancement. You could post up something about your own cognitive profile and probably get a few posts from people that have knowledge in this area.

 

[Reluctantly]

Social intelligence is what society pretty much expects. I'm a firm believer in iq being mentally conditioned; like an artist learning to draw or paint, those that spend lots of time independently thinking through unique problems will score high iqs. But the downside can then be weak interpersonal or social intelligence, which is only concerned with making other people feel positive towards yourself. It seems if your iq is low that I might envy you. But then again, I've never taken one of those official tests, so maybe the reason I find life frustrating is because I'm really just stupid from a practical standpoint of society.

 

[Col]

Iv done tests that put me in the 120's, tests that put me in the 140's and the occational dumb test that tells me im in the 160's or higher because I got all of their 20 questions right! haha. If you want a proper score you won't find it on the internet - try the mensa home test and send it off? Good luck.

 

[scorpiomover]

Re: I just found out I'm bascically an idiot

Everything you've written, shows me that you have an intelligence that is very high. But you are also showing classic signs of a seriously high inferiority complex. It's not-uncommon for some highly intelligent types with an inferiority complex, to be so intelligent, their subconscious can seriously screw them up. Sort out your inferiority complex. Then you'll see your IQ rocket.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You can know a lot of stuff without having a high raw intellect, you know. It comes down to what and how you do things, not raw talent. A genius who never applies himself will get nowhere, but a man with a 90 IQ and passion and drive and motivation will accomplish things.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I kinda hope I get a low score when I end up taking an IQ test.

 

[Hadoblado]

I took one the other day online (three months ago). I'm still waiting for the results after paying $10 for it, I can't help thinking that the test was whether I would pay $10 to potentially be called smart, and I failed...

 

[SpaceYeti]

What test, given by what organization?

 

[Thales]

Re: I just found out I'm bascically an idiot

Everything you've written, shows me that you have an intelligence that is very high. But you are also showing classic signs of a seriously high inferiority complex. It's not-uncommon for some highly intelligent types with an inferiority complex, to be so intelligent, their subconscious can seriously screw them up. Sort out your inferiority complex. Then you'll see your IQ rocket.

I appreciate the compliment, but it seems to me that if you don't accept a compliment (outwardly) it offends people. As if you're doubting their ability to observe someone else's intelligence. I can't accept it until there is more objective proof, I did read of someone's IQ improving very significantly, but these are exceedingly rare cases.

I'm sure I need to sort out the "inferiority complex" to achieve peak cognitive performance, but where it truly lays I cannot say. I'm also wondering if I have a neurological issue as opposed to psychiatric ones. I suppose the former can't be corrected nearly as much as the latter. But, I also have anxiety and depression and the psychologist who scored me said that he has never tested anyone in my mental state before.

It surprises me this thread is still going, though.