Is It Possible To Increase Your Intelligence?

[Dessert_All_Day]

I agree. Just saying that you "believe in Heaven" is an automatic deduction of 50 IQ points.

Chris Langan might just be so smart that his belief in heaven makes heaven more likely to exist:p

 

[Travis]

It's an ill-defined concept. What some of our ancestors called "God" was probably not a "little man in the sky", but something else. I think that explanation was used as a primitive surveillance camera for control.

What if I were to say: If you don't behave like a good little slave, you are going to burn in hell and it will be all your fault. God makes that decision and he can see everything that you do. He's omniscient. This is a system of getting the Plebes to police themselves.

Meanwhile, all of the rulers and priest lie and cheat because they know its all a joke. Lying is the easiest, laziest, and most immoral way to gain control and power and people do it all the time.

I think we should have a system of ethics, but we don't need to create unicorns for that.

If what he means by "heaven" is afterlife in general, then he should make that explicit; and minus ten Langan IQ points for being imprecise with language.

 

[Queequeg]

I'm not sure if you read the article I linked for you to Chaneys study,the business insider articles are exactly what he speaks of,idiots who don't understand what they are talking about nor do they keep up with research.
Chaney refutes all of this,the other study I linked shows as has been known for centuries how statistics is used more for fraud than what it should be,whenever someone has a weak theory stick it into statistical format to make it seem more legit,there is a multitude of current and historical articles/books highlighting this.

The mainstream scientists signatories are mainly psychologists ,they are not scientists,they are Palm readers,Freud was a cociane addict basically the paradigm they follow.
The psychologists need IQ to exist for guaranteed tenure and jobs in general,with the addition of heritable genes for intelligence this would guarantee their importance in the world,the reality however is that all of this is complete fraud,an example of another hoodwink in this paper is the second paragraph ,he defines intelligence based on his meaning and then claims this is the meaning of intelligence,this is the hoodwink,he then provides evidence for his made up world,a bit like some aspects of mathematics where they create the reality,the true reality is they have taken a tiny portion of it and claimed its more significant than it actually is,the same with dna.

Even ignoring his definition of intelligence or going along with it you have to show me how the high IQ of 130 are gifted? I asked already to show this,if this test was a test of intelligence relevant to reality we would be able to observe this with the high IQ actions,instead we get reports of dysfunction/Low energy/depression with nature/reality.
High IQ folk of 160 plus we have theses days are mainly theorists ,theorists are not significantly more intelligent but creating complexity with data and using this as authority until someone takes the time to refute it,the true nature of realty based off quantum physics tells us any theory will fly so those with high IQ who offer nothing more physical other than paper theories cannot be seen as intelligent relative to the physical reality/nature. It's low energy behvaior but you can see how academia and the rule of high iq would allow those to become modern kings and queens who dictate what society should do while doing no physical work themselves.

The problem with emotional arguments from those in power or tenure against the bell curve is they will never argue the point like we would on here,an example is a doctor within a medical establishment requires certain IQ and even those against the bell curve view will few doctors as intellectual or above the norm in society ,what we see on here is iatrogenics off the charts and outright poisoning of people as not being intelligent,also regurgitaing from memory or regurgitating the authoritarian system and using words to cover actions of actual harm to other human beings ,solicitors/lawyers maintain a toxic system,the list goes on but the majority in said careers are oblivious to this behaviour.
To pull IQ cult curtain down you have to see iq correlates with what current human culture says is intelligent while all the while said high IQ types don't achieve anything worth noting,we can see how doctors were viewed 40 years ago as highly intelligent and should be respected ,compared to now where they are seen as quoting from memory and killing more people than curing.
We also see high functioning autism with high IQs who can't function outside a narrow domain and generally achieve nothing.

IQ of human is increasing over time and you mentioned you believe people are being dumbed down,this isn't the case according to IQ.......... We could say people are less inclined to act more in the physical,I understand using the brain is physical but nature/reality gave the body for a reason I'm sure.

I just read the Chaney study and I don’t see where it refutes any of the research conducted on IQ as a predictor of life outcomes. He is discussing behavioral genetics and the difficulty in determining how much of a person’s IQ or other behaviors can be attributed to inheritance. This is a completely different subject than whether or not measures of IQ mean anything.

Sure you can lie with statistics but scientists working on IQ today are certainly not incentivized to try and make measures of IQ more important. The authors of the Bell Curve were savagely attacked in the press and in academia. Scientists today are incentivized to make IQ as irrelevant a factor as possible so that the progressive agenda of redistribution and government encroachment in the private sector can be justified. If IQ doesn’t explain anything than the fact that certain groups are not doings so well must mean that there is systemic racism at work and a job that only government can correct. I think that you are arguing a politics of IQ that is over 50 years old and has been thoroughly replaced by the new politics of inclusion and white privilege.

The rest of your arguments are just strawmen that have nothing to do with the fact that IQ test results do predict several measures of life outcomes. This doesn’t mean that IQ tests are not misused by society in anyway. They probably are but the strong correlation still remains and has been repeated by just about every study on the matter. Again if you have a study that shows otherwise feel free to present it. The one I saw that tried to refute the relationship did so by controlling for all other factors related to IQ like job, education and marital status that it completely removed any effects of IQ as intended. Talk about statistical manipulation.

 

[Queequeg]

Chris Langan is far from the smartest man alive, he might have a high IQ, but that apparently wasn't enough because he spends a good deal of his energy trying to justify creationism as if it's an actual scientific theory with sophistry. All the arrogance and nothing to show for it.

A lot of very smart people have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is untenable given the fossil record. I am not saying that creationists are correct but there is a lot of evidence that life had some intelligent design behind it and it was not all random.

 

[Constatine]

It's an ill-defined concept. What some of our ancestors called "God" was probably not a "little man in the sky", but something else. I think that explanation was used as a primitive surveillance camera for control.

What if I were to say: If you don't behave like a good little slave, you are going to burn in hell and it will be all your fault. God makes that decision and he can see everything that you do. He's omniscient. This is a system of getting the Plebes to police themselves.

Meanwhile, all of the rulers and priest lie and cheat because they know its all a joke. Lying is the easiest, laziest, and most immoral way to gain control and power and people do it all the time.

I think we should have a system of ethics, but we don't need to create unicorns for that.

If what he means by "heaven" is afterlife in general, then he should make that explicit; and minus ten Langan IQ points for being imprecise with language.

The question of universal intelligence and the use of religion are two entirely different things and we should treat it as such. I personally respect the ideas of ancient people as their perspectives lack modern day dogmatic patterns of thought (not saying they are right or wrong but it certainly provides fresh perspectives).
Also I personally don't think linguistics promotes intelligence. Rather the opposite. Language certainly enables us to focus thought processes and more but it also creates many logical fallacies, poor assumptions, and delusions regarding reality. A man without a language is a free thinker IMO.

 

[Constatine]

A lot of very smart people have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is untenable given the fossil record. I am not saying that creationists are correct but there is a lot of evidence that life had some intelligent design behind it and it was not all random.

The evolutionary process does seem have an element of mystery to it. Mutations seem purposeful and often times rapid. There is certainly more at play than the modern mainstream "Darwinism". Whether that means a sort of intelligence or just a very strange universe is up to one to decide.

 

[Queequeg]

The evolutionary process does seem have an element of mystery to it. Mutations seem purposeful and often times rapid. There is certainly more at play than the modern mainstream "Darwinism". Whether that means a sort of intelligence or just a very strange universe is up to one to decide.

Absolutely. I think Ray once said that the religious view on evolution is more grounded in reality than the Darwinian view.

 

[Constatine]

Absolutely. I think Ray once said that the religious view on evolution is more grounded in reality than the Darwinian view.

I think it was actually the Christian Church that dumbed down Darwin's ideas into "random mutations guided by natural selection". This sort of backfired and created a very mechanical view of reality that would directly oppose the Church. Darwin's original ideas were much more aligned with Peat's. If I were a religious man I would say the Church is what spawned the devil.

 

[Constatine]

Another good way to increase intelligence is to learn to think in multiple languages and then learn to critically think in no language at all.

 

[FredSonoma]

Keep in mind I don't deny human intelligence,it's using iq as measure,imo iq tests psychosis and obedience to authority,the Mensa members will be largely in obedient jobs.
You could definitely correlate that amount of Mensa members,they should as a group have done something significant within their community,it's doesn't have to be a cancer cure,also when the iq cult criticise cultures of low IQ and correlate successful or lack of community outcomes,based on this logic they highlight how as a community iq has significant effects on outcomes of said community yet nothing from a community of 130,000 Mensa members all with IQs in the range of "can do anything in life".
It's the elephant in the room.

I'm genuinely curious about this - how come you think people with psychosis would do well on IQ tests? And why do you think someone having a score above 100 would be a good indicator of psychopathy?

 

[Regina]

iq tests will decrease your intelligence.
Urinating is a better test of general intelligence than iq.
iq over 100 is likely a good test for potential psychopath,human becomes more incoherent with nature/environment as score moves over 100,nature being the nurturer.

Getting hammered drunk will decrease intelligence.
Heroin will decrease intelligence,crystal meth etc
Western and eastern medicine will decrease intelligence.
Western and eastern educational systems in general will decrease intelligence.
Various items stuck in your colon/anus will decrease intelligence.
Having your house/country invaded and people raped for centuries by psychopaths will decrease intelligence for a period.

Your experiences within reality is what will increase intelligence,getting experience with the real world and not so much deluded authoritarians definitions of reality,symbols on paper created by another humans definition of intelligence is less intelligent than an infant putting stuff in its mouth to "experience"the world,the infant has fist hand experience of a plastic square,round ball etc ,the test taker has first hand experience of anothers definitions of reality.

Ever wonder why we don't see a programme of stories about the great achievements of Mensa? They should be changing humanity by now with all this higher intelligence within one club?

 

[Regina]

Watching anything with Dave Asprey in it will make the average person feel like Albert Einstein.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Chris Langan is far from the smartest man alive, he might have a high IQ, but that apparently wasn't enough because he spends a good deal of his energy trying to justify creationism as if it's an actual scientific theory with sophistry. All the arrogance and nothing to show for it.

The arrogance is yours for commenting on a theory that you haven't read

 

[Energizer]

The arrogance is yours for commenting on a theory that you haven't read

The arrogance is yours for assuming I haven't read his "theory". Well I have read his paper, and it's complete crackpot garbage. Nowhere does it state anything that can be examined with scientific inquiry, it's just reiterating and attempting to justify intelligent design aka creationism. Hence my comment on it being dressed-up creationism, in annoyingly obscure language (it seems almost purposely obscure perhaps because either Langan is sloppy with his reasoning or maybe he just enjoys being completely unclear to maintain his image of superiority). I know of plenty of smarter people that write much more clearly than this guy). The full paper is freely available online: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
There's also a discussion on reddit about Langan's "CTMU": Have any of you guys read Chris Langan's CTMU? If so, what are your thoughts? • r/DebateAnAtheist

 

[Such_Saturation]

The arrogance is yours for assuming I haven't read his "theory". Well I have read his paper, and it's complete crackpot garbage. Nowhere does it state anything that can be examined with scientific inquiry, it's just reiterating and attempting to justify intelligent design aka creationism. Hence my comment on it being dressed-up creationism, in annoyingly obscure language (it seems almost purposely obscure perhaps because either Langan is sloppy with his reasoning or maybe he just enjoys being completely unclear to maintain his image of superiority). I know of plenty of smarter people that write much more clearly than this guy). The full paper is freely available online: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
There's also a discussion on reddit about Langan's "CTMU": Have any of you guys read Chris Langan's CTMU? If so, what are your thoughts? • r/DebateAnAtheist

Yes and you just listed all the same old complaints that have been uttered 1000 times. By people who have "read" his paper.

 

[artlange]

Newton had a high IQ and besides his famous laws of motion, he was a crackpot working on all sorts of mystical things including alchemy. He probably poisoned himself with mercury with his alchemy experiments. Just because you might be smart does not mean you can't go off the deep end with some seriously crackpot ideas.

 

[Constatine]

Newton had a high IQ and besides his famous laws of motion, he was a crackpot working on all sorts of mystical things including alchemy. He probably poisoned himself with mercury with his alchemy experiments. Just because you might be smart does not mean you can't go off the deep end with some seriously crackpot ideas.

I don't think any of their ideas are "crackpot" but rather intelligent people can have completely different perspectives and maps that govern their reality as well as different levels of "openness" to ideas that oppose their own idea of reality. Being intelligent does not mean you automatically follow a certain pattern of thought nor share similar experiences. "Going off the deep end" to one man can be genius to another. It all depends on our perceived limitations constructed by culture and experience. But limitations are only perceived, it is impossible to know them for sure.

 

[Queequeg]

I think it was actually the Christian Church that dumbed down Darwin's ideas into "random mutations guided by natural selection".

Nothing surprises me anymore. I'm curious if you have a source for that?

 

[Queequeg]

Newton had a high IQ and besides his famous laws of motion, he was a crackpot working on all sorts of mystical things including alchemy. He probably poisoned himself with mercury with his alchemy experiments. Just because you might be smart does not mean you can't go off the deep end with some seriously crackpot ideas.

You can't judge the beliefs of the past with today's knowledge. That's called hindsight and isn't very meaningful as a judge of another's intelligence at the time. Moreover a lot of scientists back then experimented with alchemy.

 

[Drareg]

I just read the Chaney study and I don’t see where it refutes any of the research conducted on IQ as a predictor of life outcomes. He is discussing behavioral genetics and the difficulty in determining how much of a person’s IQ or other behaviors can be attributed to inheritance. This is a completely different subject than whether or not measures of IQ mean anything.

Sure you can lie with statistics but scientists working on IQ today are certainly not incentivized to try and make measures of IQ more important. The authors of the Bell Curve were savagely attacked in the press and in academia. Scientists today are incentivized to make IQ as irrelevant a factor as possible so that the progressive agenda of redistribution and government encroachment in the private sector can be justified. If IQ doesn’t explain anything than the fact that certain groups are not doings so well must mean that there is systemic racism at work and a job that only government can correct. I think that you are arguing a politics of IQ that is over 50 years old and has been thoroughly replaced by the new politics of inclusion and white privilege.

The rest of your arguments are just strawmen that have nothing to do with the fact that IQ test results do predict several measures of life outcomes. This doesn’t mean that IQ tests are not misused by society in anyway. They probably are but the strong correlation still remains and has been repeated by just about every study on the matter. Again if you have a study that shows otherwise feel free to present it. The one I saw that tried to refute the relationship did so by controlling for all other factors related to IQ like job, education and marital status that it completely removed any effects of IQ as intended. Talk about statistical manipulation.

Chaneys article was relevant to thé business insider article that mentions gènes and IQ,thèse article rarely are about IQ without heritability and genes popping up,the same research names swarm around this topic,it's pathological.

I don't view this politically but I get those implications,it's the definitions of intelligence and the fact that high IQ within Mensa and elsewhere achieve nothing worth noting ,and how the term "life outcome" is another way of saying "obedient human".
You ask me for evidence based on this logic but the "correlates" from the research you point are defined by humans who presume their way is correct yet said humans live in a system where people are dying in large numbers daily from chronic diseases,nuclear threats,increase use of ssri's,poor quality foods grown with pesticides,poor drinking water etc etc. Who caused all these issues ? The low IQ folk,no it was those we would call high IQ with better life outcomes!
Remember it was a bacteria on a Petri dish that extended human lifespan,most great finds were gifts from nature you could say,if the guy in the lab didn't find the bacteria a random guy eating a dodgy piece of food could have sometime later and as I mentioned it could have been found in the past.

The rest of my points are not strawmen they are questions to answer,for example you use the term "life outcomes" I have explained who defines good life outcomes,it's defined by obedience to those in power.
My point on dog intelligence highlights how humans define intelligence,the more obedient the dog and less energy from the human to train this obedience the more intelligent the dog,hilarious logic when put it into the context of other animals.

On top of that I am asking you and everyone else in this thread to show me what those in society and Mensa with IQ over 130 have done? According to IQ logic this is near genius/genius level of "intelligence".
I've already stated that in a world where the corrupt financial system has the majority of us cornered and needing money to get by why don't the high IQ types of near genius just tick those boxes and become financially secure within a few years,said system should easily be decoded by near genius intelligence,the financial system is one of the biggest infleunces in the human world currently,the high IQ should naturally and quickly spot this system and look to act on it instead they end up in administration or tenure in a dead end university talking about high IQ with mortgage and debt,is this the wisdom of genius on there part,I can do it but I'm not interested says high IQ man,I like my 9-5 admin job and see myself as Einstein the clerk and genius,but wait mr high IQ here's an idea,why not just take 10,000 dollars and turn it into a few million,start your own lab and library and be Einstein full time!
If a guy selling hot sauce with an IQ of 85 can do it or better still the low IQ street drug dealer not currently with a great life outcome has made himself a millionaire and not got caught,if they can surely mr high IQ can!

Here's a "low IQ" kind with Downs syndrome on his way to becoming a millionaire selling socks this makes him smarter and more worthwhile in contemporary society than Sam Harris lol! Sam Harris is a sponge in said systems,begging for grant money off the tax payer,the kid with Down's will contribute more than Sam ever will.
Man with Down syndrome on track to become millionaire businessman