Can a teenager increase his IQ

Sort:
Avatar of fgsjd
MMTMIT wrote:

You are hypocritical. I'm not surprised when you are such a m0ron.

I can't believe you mock other people's little grammar mistakes and then you use a zero instead of an o. We're not writing college essays, typos don't matter and they don't reflect intelligence. The fact that you used a zero instead of an o proves that you know and agree with this.

Avatar of fgsjd

Heck Hikaru Nakamura uses the phrase "gg....gg yo". Think he's not a super genius?

Avatar of MMTMIT
fgsjd wrote:
MMTMIT wrote:

You are hypocritical. I'm not surprised when you are such a m0ron.

I can't believe you mock other people's little grammar mistakes and then you use a zero instead of an o. We're not writing college essays, typos don't matter and they don't reflect intelligence. The fact that you used a zero instead of an o proves that you know and agree with this.

You can't type the actual word on here. Try posting the word and see what happens.

Avatar of SaberSpeed77
MMTMIT wrote:
SaberSpeed77 wrote:
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
MMTMIT wrote:

Why wouldn't you want a high IQ to make your life easier? 

Now there's some palpable irony (right there).

MMTMIT, you are a living counterexample.

 

P.S. I am not trying to trigger you.  

You’re saying that I have a high IQ yet my life is hard?

You should be able to connect the dots if a 130 IQ, 15-year-old me could do it. Hint, analyze your responses towards other critics/trolls. The pattern is that your unfathomable intelligence conflicts with the average person causing you to become agitated and remind them how dumb they are. Thus proving that having a high IQ makes normal interactions harder. 

Avatar of SaberSpeed77

Good night, everyone. I will reply to anything in 10-12 hours.

Avatar of autobunny

Interlude

Avatar of Squidward18Q

Lol. This got trolly fast. Probably started at post #2. 

Avatar of MMTMIT
SaberSpeed77 wrote:
MMTMIT wrote:
SaberSpeed77 wrote:
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
MMTMIT wrote:

Why wouldn't you want a high IQ to make your life easier? 

Now there's some palpable irony (right there).

MMTMIT, you are a living counterexample.

 

P.S. I am not trying to trigger you.  

You’re saying that I have a high IQ yet my life is hard?

You should be able to connect the dots if a 130 IQ, 15-year-old me could do it. Hint, analyze your responses towards other critics/trolls. The pattern is that your unfathomable intelligence conflicts with the average person causing you to become agitated and remind them how dumb they are. Thus proving that having a high IQ makes normal interactions harder. 

Sorry, I didn't see how dumb everyone else is compared to me.

Avatar of Hawaiian_King
why
Avatar of Ziryab
SaberSpeed77 wrote:

Good night, everyone. I will reply to anything in 10-12 hours.

 

I haven't had that much sleep since I was a baby.

Avatar of Ziryab
SpiderUnicorn wrote:

A troll 

 

Avatar of Optimissed

<<In the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, genius is the ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person.>>

I would say that is reasonable, provided it's a consistent thing and not merely restricted to an area of "talent". I prefer what Kant said to Hume's attempts, although Hume is correct that people at either end of the intelligence spectrum tend towards a disconnection from normal society because their abilities are "not normal".

However, mankind's urge and instinct to survive tends to compensate from this disconnection, whether a person is "overly clever" or "overly stupid". A moment's reflection on this suggests that the foolish person may be better off than the very bright person in this respect, because the foolish person may instinctively try to fit in, whereas the very bright person may over-ride this instinctive reaction "because he or she is so clever that "fitting in" doesn't apply".

This is probably a rather stupid reaction, proving that even the very bright can be very stupid. It is a feature of the really intelligent to know when it is necessary to fit in, because intelligence is more than mere calculating ability and yet it is mere calculating ability that intelligence tests are set to measure. They have no brief to measure whether an intelligent person is actually stupid or not.

Avatar of Optimissed

<<In the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, a genius is someone in whom intellect predominates over "will" much more than within the average person.>>

I quite like some of Schopenhauer but he's wrong on this. He is clearly also allowing "will" to predominate over "intellect" in that he seems determined to make it all fit some dictum that he's following about "will". Simply because he is following the dictum that will presides over intellect in the non-genius doesn't make him correct because "all y is x" doesn't mean that "all x is y". Will and emotion play a strong part in matters of the intellect, obviously unbeknown to Mr S.

Russell is also wrong, partly in that there is no such thing as a "unique talent". He's misusing the word. All talents lie within the normal spectrum of abilities to which mankind has access.

Avatar of Optimissed
noname81 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

noname81 I'm not getting at you in any way. I only thought, from my superficial reading of what was said or written, that MMIT was making an ironic point and you missed it. Of course, if MITM comes back and tells us he doesn't do irony in any shape or form then I'll admit I was wrong about him.

He took a statement that required no interpretation and interpreted it. You liked how it sound. There is no irony just misinterpretation. If you were a genius why would you not just say you were. What is the point of say boarder line genius.  He also wrote “you said nothing” he was referring to you in this comment. He is all over the place

If there is a ironic point mtt what was it?>>

Of course MIT is "all over the place". I actually can't understand why his seemingly random comments are causing such interest and such a big response. That doesn't mean he isn't quite clever. He may well be so. I really couldn't care less, or as Americans are wont to say, "I really could care less", which is, of course, an ironic inversion of the normal saying, which I also quite like, although it may also mean that if they really tried, they might be able to delete something entirely from their data history, which is also rather ironic in any case, because such a thing is normally impossible.

Let's just say that I quite liked something that MIT wrote. If you want to get to the bottom of just what it is that I liked and why, I would suggest that you consider whether that is really necessary. If it is necessary, please put your questions into a logically unambiguous and meaningful format. wink.png

 

 

Avatar of Optimissed

<<Persons with genius tend to have strong intuitions about their domains, and they build on these insights with tremendous energy.[citation needed] Carl Rogers, a founder of the Humanistic Approach to Psychology, expands on the idea of a genius trusting his or her intuition in a given field>>

I do have a lot of respect for Rogers and he has done a lot to motivate the agenda in psychology which my wife follows and builds on as a psychotherapist. Of course he's right that a genius trusts their own intuition. What else do they have to trust? A procedures manual for geniuses? I think the request for a citation illustrates as well as anything possibly can that you will not learn about genius by looking at Wiki! tongue.png

Avatar of Squidward18Q

Wiki: aM I a jOKe To yOU?

Avatar of TimothyScottPuente

@ SpiderUnicorn, who copied and pasted,

Genius is expressed in a variety of forms (e.g., mathematical, literary, musical performance). Persons with genius tend to have strong intuitions about their domains, and they build on these insights with tremendous energy.[citation needed] Carl Rogers, a founder of the Humanistic Approach to Psychology, expands on the idea of a genius trusting his or her intuition in a given field, writing: "El Greco, for example, must have realized as he looked at some of his early work, that 'good artists do not paint like that.' But somehow he trusted his own experiencing of life, the process of himself, sufficiently that he could go on expressing his own unique perceptions. It was as though he could say, 'Good artists don't paint like this, but I paint like this.' Or to move to another field, Ernest Hemingway was surely aware that 'good writers do not write like this.' But fortunately he moved toward being Hemingway, being himself, rather than toward someone else's conception of a good writer."[12]

A number of people commonly regarded as geniuses have been or were diagnosed with mental disorders, for example Vincent van Gogh,[13] Virginia Woolf,[14] John Forbes Nash Jr.,[15] and Ernest Hemingway.[16]

It has been suggested that there exists a connection between mental illness, in particular schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and genius.[17] Individuals with bipolar disorder and schizotypal personality disorder, the latter of which being more common amongst relatives of schizophrenics, tend to show elevated creativity.[18]

 

Galton was a pioneer in investigating both eminent human achievement and mental testing. In his book Hereditary Genius, written before the development of IQ testing, he proposed that hereditary influences on eminent achievement are strong, and that eminence is rare in the general population. Lewis Terman chose "'near' genius or genius" as the classification label for the highest classification on his 1916 version of the Stanford-Binet test.[19] By 1926, Terman began publishing about a longitudinal study of California schoolchildren who were referred for IQ testing by their schoolteachers, called Genetic Studies of Genius, which he conducted for the rest of his life. Catherine M. Cox, a colleague of Terman's, wrote a whole book, The Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses,[1] published as volume 2 of The Genetic Studies of Genius book series, in which she analyzed biographical data about historic geniuses. Although her estimates of childhood IQ scores of historical figures who never took IQ tests have been criticized on methodological grounds,[20][21][22] Cox's study was thorough in finding out what else matters besides IQ in becoming a genius.[23] By the 1937 second revision of the Stanford-Binet test, Terman no longer used the term "genius" as an IQ classification, nor has any subsequent IQ test.[24][25] In 1939, David Wechsler specifically commented that "we are rather hesitant about calling a person a genius on the basis of a single intelligence test score".[26]

The Terman longitudinal study in California eventually provided historical evidence regarding how genius is related to IQ scores.[27] Many California pupils were recommended for the study by schoolteachers. Two pupils who were tested but rejected for inclusion in the study (because their IQ scores were too low) grew up to be Nobel Prize winners in physics, William Shockley,[28][29] and Luis Walter Alvarez.[30][31] Based on the historical findings of the Terman study and on biographical examples such as Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius,[32][33] the current view of psychologists and other scholars of genius is that a minimum level of IQ (approximately 125) is necessary for genius but not sufficient, and must be combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development.[34][35][36]

Some high IQ individuals join a High IQ society. The most famous is Mensa International but others exist including The International High IQ Society, the Prometheus Society, the Triple Nine Society, and Magnus.

Various philosophers have proposed definitions of what genius is and what that implies in the context of their philosophical theories.

In the philosophy of David Hume, the way society perceives genius is similar to the way society perceives the ignorant. Hume states that a person with the characteristics of a genius is looked at as a person disconnected from society, as well as a person who works remotely, at a distance, away from the rest of the world.

On the other hand, the mere ignorant is still more despised; nor is any thing deemed a surer sign of an illiberal genius in an age and nation where the sciences flourish, than to be entirely destitute of all relish for those noble entertainments. The most perfect character is supposed to lie between those extremes; retaining an equal ability and taste for books, company, and business; preserving in conversation that discernment and delicacy which arise from polite letters; and in business, that probity and accuracy which are the natural result of a just philosophy.[37]

In the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, genius is the ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person. For Kant, originality was the essential character of genius.[38] This genius is a talent for producing ideas which can be described as non-imitative. Kant's discussion of the characteristics of genius is largely contained within the Critique of Judgment and was well received by the Romantics of the early 19th century. In addition, much of Schopenhauer's theory of genius, particularly regarding talent and freedom from constraint, is directly derived from paragraphs of Part I of Kant's Critique of Judgment.[39]

Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other.

In the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, a genius is someone in whom intellect predominates over "will" much more than within the average person. In Schopenhauer's aesthetics, this predominance of the intellect over the will allows the genius to create artistic or academic works that are objects of pure, disinterested contemplation, the chief criterion of the aesthetic experience for Schopenhauer. Their remoteness from mundane concerns means that Schopenhauer's geniuses often display maladaptive traits in more mundane concerns; in Schopenhauer's words, they fall into the mire while gazing at the stars, an allusion to Plato's dialogue Theætetus, in which Socrates tells of Thales (the first philosopher) being ridiculed for falling in such circumstances. As he says in Volume 2 of The World as Will and Representation:

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

In the philosophy of Bertrand Russell, genius entails that an individual possesses unique qualities and talents that make the genius especially valuable to the society in which he or she operates, once given the chance to contribute to society. Russell's philosophy further maintains, however, that it is possible for such geniuses to be crushed in their youth and lost forever when the environment around them is unsympathetic to their potential maladaptive traits. Russell rejected the notion he believed was popular during his lifetime that, "genius will out".[41]

 

I hate to argue a beleaguered point, however, some of these men in your little post up yonder, believed the world

was flat even though some knew better. Take from example, the Holy Bible, more specifically, the book of

Revelations held that Saint John was witness, in a dream four Angels held back the four winds at the four corners

of the earth. 

Stephen Hawking noted in, A Brief History of Time, it was the Greeks who first conceived the world was round.

In sum, you and your source should know it is June 10th, 2019.

Ciao,

Timothy Scott Puente

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive

Brain Training Apps is a $5 Billion industry ... and it's all BS.

Want to increase IQ ?

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11993078/brain-training-games-dont-boost-iq

Avatar of Squidward18Q

Pooper Scoopers is a $10 Billion industry... and it literally is BS.

Avatar of Optimissed

The above article is so full of flaws, it's really rather funny. Each additional year in school adds IQ points? Or longer time spent in education correlated positively with IQ?

And this:
<<People who respond to the ad on the left may also be more likely to believe that intelligence is malleable. And past research has found that a person’s beliefs about the malleability of intelligence can predict who will improve the most during brain training>>

That proves or demonstrates exactly what? I got the impression that the authors could use some "cognitive enhancement excercises".