How to become smarter...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by HenryCol, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. HenryCol Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    ...than you already are?

    How would you plan out your days if a) you wanted to raise your intelligence and become smarter and b) if you had the time and money for it.

    I'm certain that it's possible for anyone to raise their intelligence level because many people throughout history had accomplished just that. Genetics do play a role but so does environment and we can actively change our environment and in turn become smarter IF we chose to do so. By changing our environment we can also change our genetics, if I'm not mistaken.

    So, what would you do in order to attain such a goal? Would you read a lot of thought provoking literature? Would you change your eating habits and introduce a few helpful supplements? What about physical exercise? Perhaps listening to classical music as you sit and study? And so on! Those are only a few of the many things you could possibly do to improve the functioning of your brain so that you can, for instance, become a very sought out author or a famous professor, etc.

    I would very much like to you read your pertinent thoughts. Maybe you know of any books which answer my questions. Do share! And thanks in advance!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Who?
    How do you know they did so?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. answers Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    646
    If you are talking about intelligence as in spearman's g (general intelligence) that is theorized to be measured by IQ tests, then no you cannot do anything to raise your IQ permanently. However they have had some success with doing it temporarily, but then it just flattens out again. But there needs to be more research in that area, because they haven't tried all that hard to raise IQ permanently. These experiments involved teaching people for 6 months some IQ test like problem solving methods (from memory that's what I think they involved).

    However if you take a whole bunch of IQ tests, you get practice effects and can raise your scores that way.

    Anyway IQ is not important, they have found that asians with an average IQ can work in jobs that it takes americans with a 120 IQ to do. So having 20 points less in intelligence doesn't stop them from doing what the apparantly 'more intelligent' americans can do.

    Your focus shouldn't be on raising your general intelligence, if you want to be a professor go to college for 10 years, if you want to be a great author study literature at college.

    You cannot raise your IQ.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Considering its size & weight, your brain uses far more than its share of body resources (blood supply, glucose, oxygen, et cetera).

    Exercise & proper diet to improve your cardiovascular system & general health might have an effect on intellegence.

    Learning a bit of mathemetics & logic might also help. I have known many people who seemed intelligent, but who believed nonsense & acted stupidly.

    Lack of knowledge or experience with the use of critcal judgment & analysis capabilities might lower a person's "effective intelligence."
     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    You can certainly increase your intellectual capacity. So what is the difference?
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What do you mean by "intellectual capacity"?
    If you're using it as another term for IQ then see answers' reply.
    If you mean something else then please define it. And give us a link to support your statement.

    Knowledge may certainly be increased (that's called "getting an education"), but studies published so far support answers' comments. IQ increase tends to be short-term (and not a spectacular increase either).
     
  10. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Can someone link to the studies that show one can only increase IQ temporarily?

    If IQ is what is measured by IQ tests, I can't see why someone couldn't permanently increase their IQ. Let's take an extreme but not strange case. Some person who never really tried in school, had a rebellious personality and tended not to challenge themselves intellectually. They score around 100 on IQ tests. In their mid 20s they decide they are wasting their life and get a high school equivalency. Begin reading challenging works of fiction and non-fiction and discussing ideas with a new social group. Work through community college to a better college and start getting, essentially, professional feedback on their thought processes. At the same time they take a lot of IQ tests and discuss how people who scored higher solved problems, what short cuts they took, how they thought about the problems.

    i find it hard to believe that training their mind in this way would not increase both their knowledge AND their IQ.
     
  11. three-brane Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    so basically your saying that you have a maximum intelligence level preditermined by your genetics?
    so theoretically if you stop stimulating your knowledge youll settle back down to your density level. like silt in a pond. you stir it up and your knowledge is way up here then as you settle your once again just mud at the bottom of a scum filled pond.
    your not very nice you know that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    You can take fish oil, amphetamines and do a lot of cardiovascular exercise. There are also nootroopics, a class of drugs that enhance the function of the brain. Also meditation has been shown to increase brain mass somewhat. I remember some science article talking about some intensive programs which enhance one's abstract intelligence--short term/working memory--if you will.

    But as far as I know, the effects of all these things will be minimal. As others have indicated, intelligence is caused by genes. You can only truly enhance your intelligence by changing your physical consitution via gene therapy or perhaps neural implants.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    I'll try to find the ones I meant. But meanwhile.
    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/guest-column-can-we-increase-our-intelligence/
    http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm
    Note that for the latter link the "temporary increase" assumes that the subject is already in a conducive environment.

    This is where it gets iffy: when someone decides to improve their knowledge are they increasing their intelligence or simply catching up to the innate potential (for want of a better word)? Even IQ tests rely, to some extent, on background knowledge, i.e. they aren't measuring intelligence but intelligence AND knowledge.
    For example giving this question to someone who's never had an arithmetic lesson in their life would be pointless.
    Or this one:
    If you've never come across the word "congruent" how are you going to answer it?

    Not quite (maybe): see the second link I gave for Doreen.

    Oh, different question altogether. Absolutely I'd agree with that. And it's more than "theoretically". For example (and yes this is anecdotal) I'm a design engineer, but I'm out of work and have been for a while. In other words I haven't used, or needed to use, my engineering knowledge for quite some time. And I'm definitely aware of a "silting up".
    Use it or lose it. Do you think that smarts should be any different from, say, athletics? Would you expect a sprinter to be as capable of winning a race after 6 months with no training as one who kept in practice?

    Not very nice? Because I say something you dislike?
     
  14. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    Actually I have seen research that suggests it might be possible to improve ones intelligence (or at least ones score on IQ tests) by practicing certain kinds of mental exercises. The particular research I am thinking of resulted in this "game":

    http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

    It's a tricky bugger of a game and I don't find it too hard to believe that playing it would certainly exercise your neurons and probably improve your memory, and they claim that it has good 'transference', i.e. that it improves scores in other areas of IQ than it specifically trains (unlike lots of other such training tools, which only seem to help you at the specific tasks they train).

    I haven't looked into it all that much but maybe you'll find it interesting.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I read many things as possible to increase my knowledge about what is happening as well as ways to learn things that help me in life.
     
  16. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Tricky is the word!

    There are more fraudulent claims made about increasing intelligence than accurate claims. Lots of commercial sites promise to increase your brain power. Most are unscientific, untested, or outright charlatons.

    Yes, you can increase your intelligence, but only within definite limits. It is like training to run marathons. You can do it, but you are still extremely unlikely to compete in, much less win, the olympics.

    To get your brain power up with training requires several things.
    1. You need to be young. Older brains are less pliant.
    2. You need to have an undeveloped brain. If you have been to university and already have a Ph.D. in physics, you have probably trained your brain already.
    3. You need to specify what brain quality you are improving. Learning to play the electric guitar is not going to improve your language skills. If you want to improve maths ability, the training needs to be math focused.

    Even doing all this, the improvement will be limited, and dependent on your natural aptitudes.
     
  17. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    I found this quote in the first link above - and thanks, by the way for finding links.

    If environmental influences can have a strong effect, we should remember that one can control one's environmental influences, often very significantly, as in my story earlier.


    I specifically chose activities that, yes, would increase knowledge, but would also increase a variety of thinking skills. You can hang out watching sports and drinking beer with your friends for years and not learn much about how to tackle a problem. However I mentioned a shift to activities that get the brain used to dealing with mental obstacles, how to think logically, how to take something apart mentally, apart from the very specific training of taking IQ tests.


    Even IQ tests rely, to some extent, on background knowledge, i.e. they aren't measuring intelligence but intelligence AND knowledge.
    For example giving this question to someone who's never had an arithmetic lesson in their life would be pointless.

    Or this one:

    If you've never come across the word "congruent" how are you going to answer it?

    I used to teach people how to take the SATs - I am ashamed to admit since this favors those with money, but anyway - just by learning the tests and studying a variety of shortcuts and specific thinking skills you can increase your scores significantly. From not Ivy League to Ivy League levels. And Mensa allows or at least it did, SAT and GRE tests to stand in for IQ tests in their admissions process.

    It's the same with regular IQ tests. You can teach a bunch of strategies for approaching those number sequence questions or the spatial relations questions etc. There tends to be a limited set of types of questions. Further the kinds of thinking involved are improved just by working more generally with math and language critically, stuff you end up doing in college.
     
  18. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    I don't think you really want to use that analogy because I think it works against your position. The relatively untrained average jill or joe can radically improve their marathon time. Most would probably walk it and some would fail even this. After a couple of years of training they could probably come in hours faster than walking the course. And some would find out they had some innate talent.

    Perhaps someone here suggested one could train up their IQ to genius level - which would be the equivalent to winning a marathon - and that is an odd position to hold. If you are a genius after training your were probably pretty damn smart before.
    I agree with this. Of course they might have avoided language type skills to a serious degree. So they might be able to up their IQ score significantly with training in that area. But overall they are not going to have much of a jump.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2010
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Meh, I realised that you could have used that argument against me when I posted about sprinters and training.
    But it comes down to what do you actually mean by "intelligence"?
    And I probably managed to weasel round round it with the phrase "simply catching up to the innate potential (for want of a better word)".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You CAN improve your fitness: but only up to a certain point (AFAIK). Some people will never be Olympic sprinters no matter how much training they get - (likewise my arm muscles are dreadfully weak despite training but don't ever get in the way of a kick from me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) - and some people (most?) will never be a genius no matter how much they read/ learn/ "train"....

    Ah, but that's the question, isn't it?
    What changes do you make to the environment to increase intelligence?
    A decent diet, good schooling, loving parents (or really pushy ones?)...?
    Presumably bad diet (or even good but irregular) will have an effect on development, as will, maybe, a disrupted family life.

    Hmm, does improving a score on a test actually show anywhere other than in other (similar) tests?
    In other words do those that study, practice and learn for the sake of getting a higher score on an IQ test (so they can claim "genius-level intellect") show any evidence of increased intelligence in the real world?
    Do you know of any studies as to how (or even IF) the improved score translates across to improved "performance" in life?
     
  20. answers Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    646
    Dywyddr

    This essay I wrote should answer your question:

    The Validity of Mainstream Intelligence Tests

    There appears to be many empirical findings that support the validity of intelligence tests, yet I will demonstrate that there are in fact glaringly obvious problems associated with the validity of mainstream intelligence tests. After all, these tests are made by Westerners for Westerners, testing for Western schools, and applicable to Western jobs. Is it little wonder that it seems that this is all they are good for? This appears to be evident when examining the empirical evidence. Firstly the Flynn effect will be discussed in relation to the validity of intelligence tests. Cross cultural flaws in the validity of intelligence tests will also be discussed. A critical discussion of the true predictive power of intelligence tests will also be undertaken. Social intelligence will be discussed in regards to its importance and also its absence from intelligence tests. Practice effects will be discussed and shown to demonstrate that intelligence tests may in fact be influenced by factors other than intelligence. And lastly practical intelligence will be examined and discussed in relation to whether or not it is measured by intelligence tests.
    Intelligence Defined
    Before we can answer the question of whether or not intelligence tests are valid for testing actual intelligence, we must define intelligence. This however, is no easy task. There are many theories which seek to define exactly what intelligence is and what it involves. I will be focussing on a broader, more encompassing definition of intelligence, as I view intelligence as pervasive in all areas of our lives. First let’s examine what intelligence is, and then what it encompasses. Gottredson (1997a) defined intelligence as:
    ...a mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. (p.16)
    Gardner (1983) study (as cited in Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998) proposed that there are multiple types of intelligence, these include: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodilykinesthetic (physical ability), interpersonal (social skills) and intrapersonal (understanding of oneself). Furthermore some authors argue that there is a general form of intelligence (g) that pervades all aspects of peoples’ lives, and this general intelligence is not limited by culture (Gottredson, 1997b). Furthermore these authors argue that this g is the most important predictor of actual intelligence, as seen in its predictions of whether or not: white adults obtain college degrees, live in poverty, are unemployed, go on welfare temporarily, divorce, bear children out of wedlock, or commit crimes (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). If these claims about the predictive and pervasive nature of g are true, then mainstream intelligence tests which test for this general intelligence must therefore have strong validity.
    The Flynn Effect
    The above claims concerning general intelligence appear to have many faults. I propose that mainstream intelligence tests do not adequately test for g. The Flynn effect is one demonstration of this (Neisser et al. 1996). The Flynn effect refers to an observed average gain of around 3 IQ points per decade. Since 1940 this rise in IQ should equate to an increase of a full standard deviation, which is a dramatic rise in intelligence scores. Mainstream intelligence tests make the firm and simple claim that they measure intelligence, therefore with rising intelligence scores seen by the Flynn effect there should be a mutual rise in academic intelligence. However this is not the case. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) saw a decline in scores from the mid 1960s to the early 1980s, at the same time as IQ scores continued to rise (Flynn, 1984 as cited by Neisser et al. 1996). How can one claim that IQ tests measure general intelligence, which predicts academic achievement, while there are cases such as this that show the exact opposite occurring? At the very least, this demonstrates that the validity of mainstream intelligence tests are partially flawed and limited to certain situations.
    Cross Cultural Flaws
    Another flaw in the validity of mainstream intelligence tests is seen when comparing intelligence scores of Westerners to intelligence scores of Asians. Many authors justify the validity of intelligence tests by claiming that they predict academic performance and job performance. Yet in this comparison we see this prediction fail. A 1980 census showed that amount of Chinese Americans employed in managerial, professional, or technical occupations was 55%, and those that were Japanese was 46% and those that were whites was only 34% (Neisser et al 1996). It has been calculated that whites would require an IQ of 120 to reach the same job success as their Asian counterparts. As per the predictions of intelligence tests we would expect the Asians to have higher IQ’s than the Americans in order to justify their relative job success; however this has not been observed. Rather what we see is Asians with an average IQ slightly below 100 achieving that which would take whites an average IQ of 120 to achieve. We are therefore faced with the observation that IQ does not accurately predict job success for Asians. Furthermore it has been demonstrated that IQ does not accurately predict academic success for Asians either. Asian Americans have a well above average record of academic achievement; this is demonstrated in school grades, and SAT results. Once again these intellectual achievements should coincide with greater IQ; however this is not the case. Many studies have been analysed by Flynn (1991) (as cited by Neisser et al. 1996) that show the mean IQs of Japanese and Chinese American children always around 97 or 98. These irregularities in the reflection of academic achievement by IQ cast serious doubt on the validity of mainstream intelligence tests.
    Predictive Power
    Many authors claim that there appears to be strong predictive power of IQ tests on academic performance and future job success in Western societies (Herrnstein & Murray, 1996). However it appears that the validity of IQ tests is flawed and limited due to its lack of predictive success with non-Westerners. Furthermore the actual extent of the predictive power of IQ tests on academic and job performance is also limited in Western cultures. Herrnstein & Murray (1994) acknowledge that IQ usually only accounts for 10% of the average variation in individual’s success according to a number of different areas of success surveyed. Therefore 90% of the variation in an individual’s success remains unaccounted for (Neisser et al, 1996). Truly how valid can a measure of intelligence be, if it doesn’t account for 90% of the variation in an individual’s success? Is it simply that intelligence doesn’t matter in regards to success, or is it that these measures of intelligence aren’t testing the aspects of intelligence that do matter?
    Social Intelligence
    For an intelligence test to be valid, it must test for all aspects of intelligence, however it is widely agreed that this is not the case (Neisser et al 1996). As previously mentioned, Gardner lists intelligence as appearing in many forms, arguably one of the most important forms, is interpersonal social skills. Many cultures value social intelligence, as reflected in social skills, as more important than academic intelligence. Sternberg & Kaufman (1998) report that African cultures as well as many Asian cultures emphasize the social aspect of intelligence rather than the Western IQ notion of intelligence. If indeed social intelligence exists and is as important as many cultures regard it to be, then for IQ tests to be accurate, they must test for social intelligence. However this is not the case. Therefore how can IQ tests have strong validity when they do not test important aspects of intelligence?
    Practice Effects
    Furthermore intelligence tests are significantly influenced by practice effects. Kulik, Kulik & Bangert (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of 40 studies regarding practice effects for intelligence tests. They found that practice effects were reliant on the similarity of practice tests to criterion measured, the number of practice tests, and the ability level of the population studied. Results of the meta-analysis showed that a single practice trial on an identical IQ test raised the typical score from 100 to 106; this is a change from the 50th to the 66th percentile. Results also found that the effect of a single practice on a parallel IQ test raised the typical score from 100 to 103, which is a change from the 50th to the 59th percentile. Therefore it appears that intelligence tests are susceptible to practice effects. The question must be asked, are intelligence tests actually testing intelligence or are they also testing how familiar people are to intelligence tests?
    Practical Intelligence
    A final problem seen with the validity of intelligence tests is the observation that practical intelligence seems to be evident in many cases, while at the same time the psychometric tests and academic achievements of the individuals, do not reflect this observed practical intelligence. Carraher, Carraher, & Schliemann (1985) (as cited by Neisser et al. 1996) found that Brazilian street children demonstrated the ability to do the math that was required for their street business; however they had failed mathematics in school. Furthermore Lave (1998) (as cited by Neisser et al. 1996) found that female shoppers in California were able to demonstrate the ability to compare product values at a supermarket but were unable to demonstrate the same mathematical skills when doing a paper-and-pencil test. One final example of practical intelligence that wasn’t detected by intelligence tests, was observed by Ceci &
    Liker (1986) (as cited by Neisser et al. 1996). It was observed that the reasoning skills of horse race handicappers was extremely complex, basing decisions on a model with up to seven variables. However these handicappers’ complex reasoning skills were not reflected in IQ tests. It appears that practical intelligence is not adequately accounted for by intelligence tests. Therefore the validity of intelligence tests has to be questioned, when yet again the tests do not adequately measure important aspects of actual intelligence.
    Conclusion
    It has been demonstrated that there appears to be many flaws in the validity of mainstream intelligence tests. This has been shown by examining the Flynn Effect and discussing inconsistencies between rising IQ and academic performance. The validity of intelligence tests has also been questioned in regards to its cross cultural flaws, as shown by comparing the inconsistent IQs of Asian Americans’ with their academic performance. Furthermore the actual predictive power of IQ tests has been questioned, in regards to only 10% of the variance associated with success measures being predicted by IQ. Social intelligence has been shown to be an important aspect of intelligence, yet this is not tested for by intelligence tests. Practice effects appear to drastically affect the outcome of intelligence tests, raising further questions regarding the validity of the tests. Finally, practical intelligence has also been shown to be an important aspect of intelligence, yet this is also not tested for by intelligence tests. Considering all the flaws that have been discussed, it appears that there is convincing evidence that mainstream intelligence tests have questionable validity.

    Reference List
    Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C, C., & Bangert, R, L. (1984). Effects of practice on aptitude and achievement test scores. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 435-447.
    Neisser et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.
    Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479-502.
    Gottredson, L. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.
    Gottredson, L. S. (1997b). Why g matters: the complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
    Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press, 1-24.
     
  21. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Oh, yeah, well I knew before you posted the links that I would find supporting evidence for my..... Oh, darn. I didn't.

    Yeah, I have sympathy for that position. It is a very, very tricky issue, this idea of potential vs. realized abilities. But I don't think it should be dismissed.

    Underlying my posts here is a certain disdain for IQ tests and our ideas about the measurement of intelligence. Which is at least partially sympathetic to this notion of potential intelligence.

    Once we start doing research on intelligence we are often stuck with using IQ tests as measures. Therefore intelligence, scientifically, becomes IQ test results. And I think these can be changed significantly. But there is a snide little smile on my part as I take this position.
    marathon runners and now sprinters. And again with the olympic levels type goals. Sure, I agree. But lend me a willing computer game obsessed, couch potato cousin of yours for 3 months - note, willing - and I will very significantly improve his or her 100 meter dash times. I mean, I am talking serious % changes.

    I never said we could turn some shmoe into Einstein.

    First and foremost, exposure to whatever test is involved. And train for taking that test. But I think a lot of other stuff can contribute.

    Sure.


    Oh, so you think the colleges in the US have their heads up their asses. (OK, I kinda agree.)

    But notice, once you take the test out the equation, I get to question, I would guess, any research showing that changes in intelligence are minor and short term, because they darn well used something like intelligence tests to figure this out.

    I think they would show changes in relation to problem solving skills that would come up in colleges and work places. But generally I agree, I think a broader approach including with knowledge increase and the uses of knowledge - how to problem solve in more societal contexts - would make people seem much smarter.
    Oh, good God, no.

    Though if you get a higher SAT score you get to go to a better college, which might mean you get a better education, and it certainly makes you more marketable and confident - on average - so you will probably seem smarter - or more smartassed.

    But seriously....if you go back to post number 7. Here I laid out a person who I think would significantly increase their intelligence and/or their expression of their intelligence potential - nod to you - adn their IQ test scores.

    I do believe that someone who has been challenged intellectually - and challenged themselves - and had resources is less likely to make big leaps. But I do think people who have not been in this situation can make very large leaps and keep them - this is based on experience and intuition, for whatever these are worth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2010
  22. answers Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    646
    It all depends on what you define intelligence as.

    Gottredson (1997a) defined intelligence as:
    ...a mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.

    There is NO EVIDENCE that this can be permanently and significantly increased.

    Intuition is all well and good, it's great for forming a hypothesis, however when there is NO EVIDENCE to support your hypothesis, you have to start questioning it.

    Sorry but did I mention... NO EVIDENCE =)
     
  23. three-brane Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    I was taking a stab at humor. you never said we were as smart as mud, but i implied you did. sheesh keep up smarty.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page