Is there really no way to make yourself more intelligent, /sci/?
If you're born dumb, is it hopeless?
>>7850307
Exactly how intelligent would you like to be, if you could pick right now?
>>7850341
I don't know.
Just intelligent enough to achieve something worthwhile and be relatively successful. Well, not only that; I also want to understand things and have a grasp of how "life" works.
I feel like I'm doomed to being mediocre no matter how hard I work or how desperately I strive to be "special". I'll graduate soon, and I feel that I had to put in 10x more work than anyone else--where everyone else gains an intuitive understanding nigh instantly, I'm stuck here for hours trying to comprehend simple concepts.
I think there are 2 types of genius. Some, like Gauss, are just magical. Theres no fucking explaining how he did some of the stuff he did - these people are on another level.
But plenty of genius fall in to the other category - people who are brilliant and do great things, but you get the feeling that if you work hard enough you could be just as great. Eg: Feynman.
The only way to increase your intelligence is practice. Just like weightlifting or any other kind of training, you wont progress unless you are frequently pushing the edge of your mental faculty. Work, work, work. Every time you fuck something up it means you are progressing - dont get discouraged, just take some time, work on it a little longer, and then move past it.
Check the /sci/ wiki for useful textbooks in your chosen field.
>>7850358
No matter how smart you got you would never be smart enough.
>>7850364
Alright undergrads, listen up.
Feynman was a rare case and there is still contention about how accurate his IQ tests were since he took them when he was very old (and because of other reasons too).
But still, even including Feynman, can you find me any "special" person in academia who has an IQ lower than 115?
Nigh, now before I get into the rant OP, know that only 0.01 percent of the world commits suicide (approximately) before they're in that old age where your physical health knocks you down more than your mental health.
My point is, the "average" person's life isn't that bad, you can be very happy even if you are not intelligent through introspection and I strongly believe that the ability to introspect, although more present in intelligent people, can be just as easily induced in dumber folk, since it involves more encouraging than teaching, that is, you don't need to understand things inside you as much as you just need to look at things inside you.
I feel you are doing yourself a great disservice if being "special" is your goal in life, but still, if you just want to be "special" unless you're truly exceptionally stupid (you might just be in a very good college which is why your peer group is smarter) it's not hard with hardwork.
Of course I'm assuming by "special" you mean somewhere around the 10th or 5th percentile of the population for any given indicator (wealth, power, bitches, etc).
On the other hand, if you have a much more selective definition of special or if you're truly, very, very, very stupid, then you should give up.
This is especially true if you're planning to get into academia (tell me if you are because there is another important rant I need to make about stupidly ambitious "I want to be a math PhD from Stanford even though my IQ is 92, haha IQ can't measure my ambition!" sort of folk).
(cont.)
>>7850376
TL;DR: Natural talent matters for relative success compared to other people. With the correct introspection, natural talent very weakly correlates with happiness.
Also,
>>7850368
Quoting some of the sparse good teachings of the Catholic church, "Greed hath no end".
Also, google the hedonic set point theory.
Depends on your definition of intelligence and what you want to achieve. if you want to be intelligent in that you can spend your free-time reading and doing maths instead of resorting to things that cost money and feel empty at the end of the day, you can definitely do that.
However, let's say you want to be successful in academia... this requires a lot of adaptation and imagination. one can overcome their adaptation problems but, if you're generally imperceptive and have a one-track way of solving problems it is very very unlikely you will get anywhere past your bachelors.
>>7850383
If you have both adaptive and imaginative proficiency, you just need to plan your post-grad studies well.
>>7850358
>I don't know.
That would be a problem, wouldn't it? Suppose I were to magically give you the intellect necessary to read the entire evolutionary history of anything you laid eyes on. You would see people not as people, but as the entire chain of types of events that led up to them. It would become nearly impossible to interact with people socially because you could see their parents' psyches, their four grandparent's psyches, and the whole of their entire social lineage. You could pinpoint the exact point at which every parent goofed and ended up raising a murdered, or a psychopath, or any of the other human atrocities that have occurred over the millennia. This is the kind of intellect people fear; the kind that brings not only men to their knees, but entire nations as well.
Honestly though it sounds like you might have autism. Not the social disorder necessarily, but an actual neurological learning disability. Have you ever been diagnosed?
>>7850376
>can you find me any "special" person in academia who has an IQ lower than 115?
IQ is a normative measure that doesn't necessarily correlate to general intelligence, if genius even is a type of general intelligence. More specifically, your rhetorical question/argument is that smart people are smart as measured by other smart people. You can get the same tribal effect by measuring any socially desirable trait among any socially coherent group. Basically it's a circular argument that conceals its circularity behind an organization.
>>7850395
Don't listen to this person, they're just shitposting.
Read the Western Canon OP. I'm serious about that. Something about reading how these thinkers break down information and rebuild it really transmits into your psyche.
Saging own thread.
I couldn't seem to get my words out. Thank you all for responding and I'll take your words into deep consideration.
>>7850404
If they have actual autism then it's not as simple as just telling them to consume material that resonates with you. Autism in its most severe form changes the way the brain learns entirely. It's not as simple as just giving better reference material if they really are neurologically autistic.
>>7850402
Interesting point.
Still, would you not say that the people who are labelled smart by smart people are more likely to succeed in academia and outside?
The fact that IQ correlates decently with money and education adds some weight to it no?
Even if it is not necessary would you not say it gives a pretty damn good estimate especially in academia where it gives an almost perfect estimate.
To prove my point of almost perfect, can you name one successful academic other than him who has a low IQ?
>>7850404
By Western Canon you mean the philosophers.
If so, fuck Platotle.
Start with Desecartes and then Hume and Leibintz and Locke and then Kant.
>>7850455
>would you not say that the people who are labelled smart by smart people
I wouldn't, only because I refuse to engage in circular arguments before properly categorizing them as such. I get what you're trying to say or imply, but what it boils down to is that 'smart' is just another personal trait with a backing demographic behind it. It wouldn't be a notable trait if the category hadn't yet been named. You can easily imagine a world that looks 99% the same as this one, but with a scientific publishing a paper where they study the just-as-mysterious trait of general intelligence, but they have to make a name for it rather than using the existing term because there isn't on in that (hypothetical) world.
>IQ correlates decently with money and education
The problem with correlation is that you don't know if either of the correlated values is the cause or not.
There could be some third cause of both traits that we don't see because society invisibly factors it out.
To answer your question, nobody here cares to study the history of science in enough depth to form an opinion on the matter. IQ tests are widely regarded as not normative of a trait that correlates to anything inherently meaningful or useful. I'm not different in that regard.
>>7850474
>with a scientist publishing a paper
>>7850474
>IQ tests are widely regarded as not normative of a trait that correlates to anything inherently meaningful or useful.
Widely regarded by most people yes.
In academia, it's a pretty conventional proxy for "intelligence".
It's basically impossible for a guy to get HIV from a female via sexual intercourse.
>having sex out of wedlock
Disgusting.
>>7850486
>conventional proxy
That's literally what I meant by:
>not normative of a trait that correlates to anything inherently meaningful or useful
It's useful by proxy alone, so it's not inherent in its access to a measure trait.
>>7850492
Not him, but its still a pretty good way of testing outcomes between different people since its standardized.
>>7850307
yes they're called books
>>7850307
You can. The brain is not some static machine.
For an introduction, read "The Brain that Changes Itself."
The neuroscience experiments featured in it are conclusive - the brain can map and remap itself with remarkable efficiency, new associations can be made, and yes, IQs can be raised.
Getting better at tennis or guitar is proof that brain maps change rapidly with practice. I can't believe idiots who learned to play an instrument or another language tell me neuroplasticity "isn't real", as if the brain is some fixed machine with spinning gears.
You brain can make new gears, new connections between gears, more efficient layout of the gears, and so on.
>>7850459
>he fell for the Locke meme
I was born dumb but I identify as intelligent.
