Is there any way to increase one's IQ?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

drakkan2001

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
This is an open question so feel free to answer it any way you like.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Originally posted by drakkan2001
This is an open question so feel free to answer it any way you like.
Click to expand...

Pick smarter parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There are some clear ways to decrease it....drinking alcohol, malnourishment, sleep deprivation....wait, that sounds like college life. I guess college makes us dumber.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
practice eugenism
 
masturbation
 
play video games...seriously
 
Originally posted by finnpipette
play video games...seriously
Click to expand...


I think he wanted to improve his iq, not improve his mastubation technique.

but hey, how's the western blotting going?
 
chess
 
Originally posted by phatmonky
Reading is a proven way to raise your IQ :)
Click to expand...

I don't know if it improves your IQ, but it certainly will help your reading comprehension and that is very worthwhile. I second reading.
 
Originally posted by Kashue
I think he wanted to improve his iq, not improve his mastubation technique.

but hey, how's the western blotting going?
Click to expand...

Is "western blotting" a tongue-in-check bio-nerd euphemism for masturbation?
 
bleh. can't wait to start medical school. this year off has fueled my hunger to work ma butt off in med school. being a lab monkey sucks.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by finnpipette
bleh. can't wait to start medical school. this year off has fueled my hunger to work ma butt off in med school. being a lab monkey sucks.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain my brotha. I'm at work now, except I got nothing to do. My cells died...

RIP HEPG2 cells.
 
nootropics... probably won't raise the IQ, but can offer substantial improvement in memory and cognitive function
 
Originally posted by g3pro
does anyone remember that CNN article describing research conclusions that fellatio helps to prevent breast cancer?
Click to expand...

I would be VERY VERY interested in seeing this report.... :D
 
"I think it removes the last shade of doubt that fellatio is actually a healthy act," said Dr. B.J. Sooner of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. "I am surprised by these findings, but am also excited that the researchers may have discovered a relatively easy way to lower the occurance of breast cancer in women."

The University researchers stressed that, though breast cancer is relatively uncommon, any steps taken to reduce the risk would be a wise decision.
Click to expand...

:laugh: :laugh: :clap: :laugh: :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
you could always memorize the questions and then go to someone from MENSA, and ask them for the answers and then go back on another day and put in the answers.
 
Other than taking Aricept. The sure, and hard way, of increasing IQ is simply... use your brain as much as you can. Take hard classes, see things, do (smart) things,... brain is like a muscle, the more you use it, the stronger/smarter it gets. Stay away from mind-numbing TV, video games, alcohol, drugs, and other senseless activities. They make you dumber.
 
Stop reading the pre-allo forums on SDN.

I honestly think they lower everyone's IQ by at least a SD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd say that each person has their own IQ range which is completely genetically determined. Within this range, proper brain exercise should produce a higher IQ score.
 
What's the deal with IQ? Do you believe that some people are "inherently" smarter? I agree that there are some geniuses, such as Newton, Einstein, Mozart -- but for the other 99% of us, don't you think that any difference in natural smarts could be made up for by studying and hard work?
 
i think early childhood experiences count for sooo much.
i don't think i really believe in 'natural intelligence' for the majority of the population.
 
Originally posted by g3pro
does anyone remember that CNN article describing research conclusions that fellatio helps to prevent breast cancer?

it turned out that the study was done by someone in their free time at NCSW. :laugh:
Click to expand...

don't take offense to this, but if people had an ounce of online intelligence they'd look at the address bar when people send them less then believable crap. The address blatantly said it wasn't cnn.com and even more so if incase you forgot the news media and us americans thrive on anything related to sex and the penis (viagra, cialis, and the other erection pill commercial on during the superbowl) so if this were true it would have been mentioned on like jay leno, the daily show, even cnn i bet.
 
Originally posted by liberaeas
What's the deal with IQ? Do you believe that some people are "inherently" smarter? I agree that there are some geniuses, such as Newton, Einstein, Mozart -- but for the other 99% of us, don't you think that any difference in natural smarts could be made up for by studying and hard work?
Click to expand...

It's generally accepted that IQ is not a good predictor of success. Often it's "emotional intelligence" - hard work, initiative, discipline, etc. that make the biggest difference.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that there is wide variation in intelligence across the population.
 
Does reading a lot of textbooks help in reading comprehension? I don't have much time to read novels.
 
No, it's all genetically predetermined and the test is entirely accurate and unbeatable. ;)
 
honestly...

i think IQ measures nothing of importance and shouldnt be used as any sort of grounds to say one is more intelligent than another.

now time to go to work..
 
..did anyone mention masturbation yet?
 
Look up average IQ by country. Choose top average IQ. Go live there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Or, as biologists love to do, figure out what that country's doing differently relative to other countries. Publish a paper saying, "IQ correlated with _____________."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The aggregate of data seems to show that IQ is largely heritable, and relatively fixed. The accuracy of various IQ tests is another matter.
 
chemist16 said:
Or, as biologists love to do, figure out what that country's doing differently relative to other countries. Publish a paper saying, "IQ correlated with _____________."
Click to expand...
"A Diet High in Soy Leads to a Longer Life, and Higher IQ"
 
liberaeas said:
What's the deal with IQ? Do you believe that some people are "inherently" smarter? I agree that there are some geniuses, such as Newton, Einstein, Mozart -- but for the other 99% of us, don't you think that any difference in natural smarts could be made up for by studying and hard work?
Click to expand...

LOL.

You don't think cognitive capacities vary naturally? You think the brain is somehow special and different from every other human trait? Of course it varies - stop buying into the liberal BS that says everyone was created equal, because that's a fairy-tale. The brain is no different than anything else, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Womb Raider said:
You don't think cognitive capacities vary naturally? You think the brain is somehow special and different from every other human trait? Of course it varies - stop buying into the liberal BS that says everyone was created equal, because that's a fairy-tale. The brain is no different than anything else, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Based on this, I think people of "higher" IQ should subjugate people of "lesser" IQ because their brains are inherently inferior and people of higher IQ should exploit the labor of the lesser classes to lead the world towards a superior society.
 
chemist16 said:
Based on this, I think people of "higher" IQ should subjugate people of "lesser" IQ because their brains are inherently inferior and people of higher IQ should exploit the labor of the lesser classes to lead the world towards a superior society.
Click to expand...
Wow you've got a messed up ethic.

The problem with you guys is you're thinking of "intelligence" as a single capacity on one spectrum. Don't think of it this way, think of intelligence as a hugely ambiguous term that applies differently in different situations. "Smart" may refer to someone that has an awesome memory, or someone that is artistic, or someone that is creative, or someone that can understand new complex concepts quickly, empathic abilities, or someone that can perform mental calculations, etc.. etc... etc... It's a combination of a variety of factors and it varies depending on the context.

Cognitive capacities are absolutely distributed unequal in the human population, but we have to start moving away from thinking we can quantify intelligence with a single number.
 
chemist16 said:
Based on this, I think people of "higher" IQ should subjugate people of "lesser" IQ because their brains are inherently inferior and people of higher IQ should exploit the labor of the lesser classes to lead the world towards a superior society.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly, intelligence varies. We don't have to make melodramatic moral judgements about this fact. Nor do we have to worry that acknowledging this fact will lead to some horrific fascist society.
 
Womb Raider said:
Wow you've got a messed up ethic.

The problem with you guys is you're thinking of "intelligence" as a single capacity on one spectrum. Don't think of it this way, think of intelligence as a hugely ambiguous term that applies differently in different situations. "Smart" may refer to someone that has an awesome memory, or someone that is artistic, or someone that is creative, or someone that can understand new complex concepts quickly, or someone that can perform mental calculations, etc.. etc... etc... It's a combination of a variety of factors and it varies depending on the context.

Cognitive capacities are absolutely distributed unequal in the human population, but we have to start moving away from thinking we can quantify intelligence with a single number.
Click to expand...
I believe s/he is being sarcastic, at least I hope so.
 
(Wow, you people have a messed up sarcasm detector.)

ZedsDed said:
Don't be silly, intelligence varies. We don't have to make melodramatic moral judgements about this fact. Nor do we have to worry that acknowledging this fact will lead to some horrific fascist society.
Click to expand...

I actually believe in a fascist-like society. World productivity can be boosted and made more efficient in this way. I'm not saying it's moral - just practical and efficient.

I think you should first come up with a satisfactory definition of "intelligence" before this proceeds further. If you define it broadly as knowledge, then it can vary but not according to any clear variable. If you define it more narrowly as "the capacity for knowledge," then sure, it varies genetically. And we should take advantage of this fact because there's really no practical reason we shouldn't. It's not a moral call - it's simply an evolutionary argument. If I have an ability that makes me able to exploit others, there's no reason why I shouldn't do it because my only concern is the propagation of my own genes. I can use my skills to make others bring me food and work for me because I can then spend most of my time reproducing. In fact, the only morally outrageous thing that can be done here is to not use my genes to my advantage.
 
Did someone really bump an 11 year old thread? And out of all the threads to re open-----THIS one?
 
chemist16 said:
(Wow, you people have a messed up sarcasm detector.)



I actually believe in a fascist-like society. World productivity can be boosted and made more efficient in this way. I'm not saying it's moral - just practical and efficient.

I think you should first come up with a satisfactory definition of "intelligence" before this proceeds further. If you define it broadly as knowledge, then it can vary but not according to any clear variable. If you define it more narrowly as "the capacity for knowledge," then sure, it varies genetically. And we should take advantage of this fact because there's really no practical reason we shouldn't. It's not a moral call - it's simply an evolutionary argument. If I have an ability that makes me able to exploit others, there's no reason why I shouldn't do it because my only concern is the propagation of my own genes. I can use my skills to make others bring me food and work for me because I can then spend most of my time reproducing. In fact, the only morally outrageous thing that can be done here is to not use my genes to my advantage.
Click to expand...
1.) I picked up on your sarcasm, see above.
2.) We don't really need to define anything. This topic has been debated among scientists ad nauseam, and there are accepted standards.
3.) I can't tell if you're trolling with the political diatribe.
 
GrapesofRath said:
Did someone really bump an 11 year old thread? And out of all the threads to re open-----THIS one?
Click to expand...
People click on similar threads without looking at the dates. And then we (i.e. I) respond without looking at OPs date
 
ZedsDed said:
1.) I picked up on your sarcasm, see above.
2.) We don't really need to define anything. This topic has been debated among scientists ad nauseam, and there are accepted standards.
3.) I can't tell if you're trolling with the political diatribe.
Click to expand...

1) The sarcasm quote wasn't directed at you.
2) There's no reason to think that scientists' definition of intelligence is the correct or only one because it is an intangible that becomes tangible only when assigned a measurable.
3) Give me a biological reason why a person with superior mental capacities should not compel others to work for him/her. Don't evoke some vague "moral" code.
 
chemist16 said:
1) The sarcasm quote wasn't directed at you.
2) There's no reason to think that scientists' definition of intelligence is the correct or only one because it is an intangible that becomes tangible only when assigned a measurable.
3) Give me a biological reason why a person with superior mental capacities should not compel others to work for him/her. Don't evoke some vague "moral" code.
Click to expand...
IQ is a relatively well-defined metric that correlates (more than poverty or education) with life outcome, that's why it is used.
Biology has no reason. The only argument one can make is a moral one.
 
ZedsDed said:
IQ is a relatively well-defined metric that correlates (more than poverty or education) with life outcome, that's why it is used.
Biology has no reason. The only argument one can make is a moral one.
Click to expand...

Okay, but I'm sure you are aware of the numerous studies that detail various flaws/inherent biases in the IQ tests available.

Morals are a human construct and vary across societies. There are no "morals" in the grand scheme of the universe. We are no different from animals. We all exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to propagate our genes. Any phenotype that hinders or prevents us from doing so is selected against. Again, I state that there is no biological reason why the intelligent should not subjugate the unintelligent to help propagate the intelligent's genes. This is an evolutionary imperative rather than a "moral" (or immoral) suggestion. You initially said that there is no need to make a moral judgment/statement about the fact that some people are more "intelligent" than others. Well, I'm not. I'm following the logical biological outcome from such a premise.
 
chemist16 said:
Okay, but I'm sure you are aware of the numerous studies that detail various flaws/inherent biases in the IQ tests available.

Morals are a human construct and vary across societies. There are no "morals" in the grand scheme of the universe. We are no different from animals. We all exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to propagate our genes. Any phenotype that hinders or prevents us from doing so is selected against. Again, I state that there is no biological reason why the intelligent should not subjugate the unintelligent to help propagate the intelligent's genes. This is an evolutionary imperative rather than a "moral" (or immoral) suggestion. You initially said that there is no need to make a moral judgment/statement about the fact that some people are more "intelligent" than others. Well, I'm not. I'm following the logical biological outcome from such a premise.
Click to expand...
Ok, I have a feeling we're not going to convince each other, and that's fine. I don't really have any interest in getting caught up in pedantic arguments on SDN. But let me ask you, do you consider yourself part of this cognitive elite? Something tells me you wouldn't have these beliefs otherwise. Also, your *ahem* "worldview" seems utterly incompatible with practicing medicine, imo. What is your justification for wanting to go to med school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

K
Is there any value to MMI?
Replies
7
Views
368
blameitonbaby
blameitonbaby
N
Best way to ask to shadow?
Replies
6
Views
259
Hollow Knight
Hollow Knight
blinks
Is there a "Cycle Results" thread? Would it be possible to start one?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
L
Any way to count this as clinical?
Replies
6
Views
528
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
L
  • Question
Is there any advantage to submitting Day 1 if the MSAR gives a later "Application review begins" date?
Replies
4
Views
364
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
Top