@28 cm unbuffed Mhh, that's my thought too. Existence seems way too intelligent to have brains that are limited in their capacity for intelligence. 
About braingames though, I've heard Jordan Peterson talk about that there was research with brain training that revealed that your brain gets better at that certain type of game, and the process that that game requires, but in the end does not affect fluid intelligence.

@Max_V Based on personal experience I think we have innate limits to our intelligence based on our genes. Guys like Albert Einstein, Nikolas Telsa, these guys are a different breed. To make the argument that genes don't limit our intelligence would be to say that anyone could be Einstein or Telsa which I think is foolish.

Excuse me for my edgy emo comment, but god another example for how awful this world is we live in. Imagine someone wanting something so badly but being limited by genetic factors. I genuinely cannot comprehend why it is like this. 

I am refering to pure Intelligence. Intelligence is God's capacity for self-understanding.
Imagine for a moment being so intelligent that you can create the entire universe from nothing. That's what intelligence is at its highest level. Then there are sub-degrees of it which are less than omnipotent.
Omnipotence is simply a function of intelligence. When your intelligence reaches infinity you become omnipotent.
God is pure Intelligence. Intelligence cannot be defined because it is infinite.

It's a combination. There were strong innate capacities which tend required years of cultivation.
I just know that my core intelligence is not something anyone taught me. It's also effortless, like breathing. It's not something I trained per se. It's something I applied in my self-education.
I've also always felt more intelligent/wiser than everyone around me. I didn't understand why until I realized that I'm just more conscious as a baseline than most people. This is not something I trained. I was born with it.
Innate intelligence is like height. It is what it is and you won't change it. However you can do a lot to cultivate and make whatever intelligence you got shine. You can also practice good health in order to maintain and maximize it. For example, if you consume metal metals your intelligence will drop.

Yes, but I also just have innately high holistic intelligence. It's just not measurable by IQ.
There is definitely a big genetic factor to intelligence. Like I said, if you had the genetics of a mule, you'd be stupid.

The "worth" of a tool is entirely based on it's utilization. IQ is at the bottom an immoral measure that, while not working, can put people (and, worse, groups) in boxes for the rest of their lives. However, that doesnt mean its completely stupid all the time.

IQ measures your ability to manage a predefined set of patterns in a finite amount of time. Those patterns obviously correlate, at least to a certain degree in certain fields, with real life problem solving capacities. So sure, if you are looking to hire someone for a Job which requires this sort of processing (i.e theoretical physics for example), then IQ might be one metric to look at. On the other side, I can almost guarantee you that some of the brightest geniuses in our history books did not have a super high IQ. If you actually look at the data, you will find a lot of black-swan cases in almost any correlative category, meaning that there is much more to intelligence in ANY field than just this ambiguous number. 

The best metric you can use is the one which is required for the specific job. No automation process to date will be able to deal with this kind of complexity. If I had to hire someone I would base my decision on first impression, intuition and a well defined period of observing the learning curve.
 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202010/more-proof-vigorous-workouts-boost-fluid-intelligence
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/weight-training-may-boost-brain-power
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617693/

Most nihilistacally coated IQ-arguments are based on a basic misunderstanding of what "it" actually is. 
An IQ-test definitely measures some-"thing" which is seemingly correlated with all sorts of outcomes we deem preferable from a societal standpoint - but if you actually look at the data with some statistical knowledge, you will recognize that its not at all that black & white.

There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists. As you can see in the graph below, there is little information about IQ/Net-worth if you get rid of the noise and fat tails (probability distributions with relatively high probability of extreme outcomes). There is absolutely no visibible effect over 40k. 

If IQ-distribution is Gaussian by construction (well, almost) and if real world performance were fat tailed (which they are), then either the covariance between IQ and performance doesn’t exist or it is uninformational. It will show a finite number in sample but doesn’t exist statistically. Intelligence in IQ is determined by academic psychologists via statistical constructs s.a. correlation that they patently don’t understand. It does correlate to very negative performance (as it was initially designed to detect learning special needs) but then any measure would work there. 
It is a false comparison to claim that IQ “measures the hardware” rather than the software. It can measure some arbitrarily selected mental abilities (in a testing environment) believed to be useful. To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently. And one has to be a lunatic to believe that a standardized test will reveal independent thinking.
IQ & Jobs
There is this argument that if you fall into a certain subgroup of IQ-distrubution - certain jobs will be off the table. This is again, stupidity at work.

Notice the noise: The top 25% of janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college professors, even counting the circularity. The circularity bias shows most strikingly with MDs as medical schools require a higher SAT score.  Realize that the concept has huge variance, enough to be deemed uninformative. Unlike measurements of height or wealth, which carry a tiny relative error, many people get yuugely different results for the same IQ test (I mean the same person!), up to 2 standard deviations as measured across people, higher than the sampling error in the population itself! This additional source of sampling error weakens the effect by propagation of uncertainty way beyond its predictability when applied to the evaluation of a single individual. It also tells you that you as an individual are vastly more diverse than the crowd, at least with respect to that measure!

If, as psychologists show MDs and academics tend to have a higher “IQ” that is slightly informative (higher, but on a noisy average), it is largely because to get into schools you need to score on a test similar to “IQ”. The mere presence of such a filter increases the visible mean and lower the visible variance. Probability and statistics confuse fools.

Most of this was inspired/taken over by Nassim Talebs work about IQ!
 
 

High IQ is like a big dick, having it bigger is cool, but not so necessary

My IQ is probably not too special if I was tested.
But my actual intelligence is shockingly high. And I would not trade it for a higher IQ.
I would not trust any human with testing my intelligence accurately.
The true measure of intelligence is holistic comprehension.

The learning I teach isn't some dense academic stuff. You don't need high IQ to do it.
Even a dog learns when you hit him over the head enough times.
Yes, learning is essential. But academia is not.

Is it Andy Cutler Chelation? Heavy metal detox protocol?

If heavy learning doesn't suit you, no problem. Work on all the other parts of your life. Heavy learning is overrated and not necessary to live a great life.

If you were born a mule, indeed your intelligence would be crippled and there would be nothing you could do about it.
However, much can be done to increase a healthy human's intelligence.
A lot of high IQ people are pretty dumb in terms of how they live life.

So i've started intensive learning a few weeks ago. It's going pretty well, but questions arised. 
I use videocourses with suggested reading lists. I watch courses, take notes and (if possible) practically apply learned information. If i have some questions, i ask for a help on forums (preferably specialized on given topic). 
Can you give any advice on how to better obtain and process information? 
For people who have mentors: is there something, that can't improve or figure out without them? If no, what are reasons to have one? 
 

No, since I created the entire Universe and all the suffering in it for good reason.
I have done things which you cannot imagine, but how will you know since it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence?
When your intelligence reaches mine, you'll realize you invented the entire Universe