BjarkeT

@Staples not really i am still talking about iq whether you will accept that or not i even tried to explain how its related to iq but looks like you skipped that "what i am trying to say is that It definitely seems a possibility(keyword) from the research of expertise that i mention that we can increase our iq if iq even is a real thing" "if it's possible to recall random numbers up to 82 after pratice I don't see why you wouldn't be able to pratice for random iq tests" and some other things as well if you just skip the things i say or skim what i write then obviously you are missing out on what i am trying to say and yes i know that age is a factor thats literally why i mention it and i said i think it's a pretty shallow way to find out how intelligent someone is and before you say this has nothing to do with intelligence then please elaborate on the wiki pedia definition of iq: if we are talking about iq and not intelligence how come intelligence be a part of iqs name: Intelligence quotient and on wikipedia: "An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence." maybe you didn't say it was fixed but there is a lot of people that think it is

@Staples "if it's possible to recall random numbers up to 82 after pratice I don't see why you wouldn't be able to pratice for random iq tests " and "even by what you mention if it's only two points or something like that it still shows that it's possible to increase some of your iq points if it wasn't possible it wouldn't be possible to increase it at all really" what i said further down obviously its not going to seem like i am talking about it if you just skip everything i say that is related to it what i am trying to say is that It definitely seems a possibility from the research of expertise that i mention that we can increase our iq if iq even is a real thing also when people say he must have a high iq when someone have done something really impressive like einsteins e=mc2 for example it turns out that it was just a matter of doing deep work to produce that kind of work which is a skill you can improve and everyone can be good at so to me at least that seems like iq is not important or likely not to be a real thing and age also seems to be a really shallow thing to determine how intelligent someone is For example there is prodigys who have done greater things than adult and the opposite when compared to average people like a young mozart or an older stephen hawking both have done great things and their age doesn't seem to play a role really rather it was how they did what they did and the thing is when average people do the things like deep work and deliberate pratice their abilitys to do what they do becomes better how does this relate to the topic? To me at least as i said above it doesn't seem like iq is actually important or real and I explained why i think that what evidence is there actually that support that iq is real or fixed? And its not just a lack of doing it "correctly" so to speak and how can we be sure it isn't just a ego defense mechanism

@Staples I literally said this afterwards: it may not be the iq in terms of scoring for testes but it's the type of work that produces things like e=mc2 if you just can use these techniques like deep work and deliberate pratice that every person can do I don't really see why iq matters at all if you just can pick any field and then use these techniques to get good at it. Richard feynman is also known to have a low iq compared to einstein for example but accomplish great things because it seems he was in a state of deep work (cal newport gives and example of richard feynman in the book how much did you actually read of what i wrote

@Staples there may be one psychologist but cal newports work are very scientific and backed up with evidence same with the others How much did you research on what i mention? "The skill I’m talking about is the ability to focus without distraction on a hard task. Having spent the past three years researching and writing my book Deep Work on this topic, I’m convinced that focus is the new I.Q.; it’s becoming one of the most useful and prized abilities in our economy. But unlike I.Q. you can significantly improve this ability through practice." "Decades of research from both psychology and neuroscience underscore that undistracted concentration is required to learn complicated information efficiently. A student who can focus intensely, for example, can master classroom lessons much faster than his or her peers working in a state of muddled attention—" it may not be the iq in terms of scoring for testes but it's the type of work that produces things like e=mc2 if you just can use these techniques like deep work and deliberate pratice that every person can do I don't really see why iq matters at all if you just can pick any field and then use these techniques to get good at it. Richard feynman is also known to have a low iq compared to einstein for example but accomplish great things because it seems he was in a state of deep work (cal newport gives and example of richard feynman in the book) http://time.com/4166333/focus-is-the-new-iq/ if we are talking about iq and not intelligence how come intelligence be a part of iqs name: Intelligence quotient and on wikipedia: An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. "Ericsson rattles off other examples of how deliberate practice helps rewire the brain. There’s the famous study of London taxi drivers, who developed larger hippocampi after memorizing the city’s bewildering grid. Or Steve Faloon, a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon who could remember seven digits at a time before training and a staggering 82 after; the Polgar sisters and their extraordinary chess feats; and a Danish psychologist who wanted to sing like Whitney Houston but can hardly carry a tune—and ends up recording an successful album." https://qz.com/915646/how-to-make-your-kid-good-at-anything-according-to-anders-ericsson-an-expert-on-peak-performance-and-originator-of-the-10000-hour-rule/ if it's possible to recall random numbers up to 82 after pratice I don't see why you wouldn't be able to pratice for random iq tests rembering information is not the only thing the brain can do you forgot to mention that we can also understand things and really complicated things like quantum mechanics or lots of other complicated things even by what you mention if it's only two points or something like that it still shows that it's possible to increase some of your iq points if it wasn't possible it wouldn't be possible to increase it at all really

@Staples what about the research on deliberate pratice? There is over 20 years of research on that and then there is deep work there is a lot of books about these things cal newport even argues that deep work is the new iq there is also the talent code by daniel coyle peak performnce by anders erickson scott h young and cal newports top performer course And there is a lot more books out there i would say we have a pretty good understanding on how to increase out "iq" you can measure how much someone have improved there is a huge difference between someone good and someone less good and the research on what make the difference seems to be the amount of time spent on deliberate pratice/purpose ful pratice which is something everyone can do sorry if i am rude but it doesn't really make sense to say that we haven't found good ways to increase iq measureably when there is a lot of research on it that shows we have

By doing deep work and deliberate pratice(or purpose ful pratice)

@Outer why not? there is a lot of research that say you can like deep work and deliberate pratice which is research on expertise that says that you can improve backed up by evidence i am not 100% sure what the other two means but insight should mean the same or similar as an aha moment something you really get for example if you learn something new for example in math and you suddenly get it then you have an insight

Accepting the challenge and consequences that comes from facing what you find difficult and do it with responsibility don't aviod or distract your self from what you are trying to overcome if you have a goal of overcoming it as it can waste more time than necessary be aware of how much time you waste as if you are not conscious about it you could waste years or decades from avoiding something it can be useful to balance between theory and pratice to overcome it effectively but just be aware not to spend to much time in theory don't wait until external circumstances force you to take action take responsibility your self for when you should take action https://www.fs.blog/2016/06/the-four-tools-of-discipline/ I recommend checking this out "the first step to fixing a problem is to realize there is one" i think thats a great quote from a movie scene I unfortunately can't remember the name of at the moment editted: never mind i found it but its a bit unrelated to mental toughness but i think still could be an usefule quote for it https://youtu.be/-RVA3Xayr3A

Try deliberate pratice or purpose full pratice it's not about how much you do it but how you do it when you do it its also how experts pratice i may be wrong but i think what leo refers to is explained in this video just mentioned it in case anyone wanted to know more about it

I am not doing what i do as my life purpose for sex at all literally i do it mostly because of the satisfaction that comes with it there is a whole book about it called so good they can't ignore you by cal newport and drive by daniel pink that talk about life purpose and the motivation is not sex at all and not money nothing external in terms of motivation to do it This may be interesting

balance theory and practice this seems really helpfull to me because sometimes there may be periods where you are stuck in a specific area and if you aren't careful you can be stuck there for a long period of time, maybe you will die with it if you just take action/practice you may not actually get the results you want and if you just use theory you are not going to get any results but by balance the two you are likely to get really good results because you know what you are doing instead of going in blindly and maybe also what all the traps in the area is this is probably what has helped me most

@NoSelfSelf if its not depending on external circumstances, you are not waiting for something external to happen until you take action i would think so but i may be incorrect but that would be my guess i think i have read it some where @kieranperez when did he say it was a destination?

@Moreira sorry but i am not sure how thats relevant to * when you will know you are self-actualized * doesn't it implies that its either impossible or difficult? isn't that separate? @NoSelfSelf i think when you start taking control of action instead of waiting for external circumstances to force you to action

@Faceless then why do people say direct experience a lot on this forum? are you saying leo is wrong with direct experience? @Deep sorry for going off topic

@Dino D if people have only experience perception then what do people mean with direct experience that most people talk about on the forum? i hear direct experience a lot when people talk about truth in the forum never heard perception

@Rilles isn't it in the head where its located? i will try to keep it short and few posts as possible so there won't be that many posts off topic x D

@Rilles didn't really explain how you came to the conclusion that there is no mind there is people who have experience the earth is flat through direct experience and people who have experienced the earth is round(astronauts for example) so i don't see how it is a very reliable method for reality. In normal situations in everyday life people can experience the same thing at the same time, however, they can walk away with two different experiences of the same thing I haven't seen a brain in real life(but some have obviously like the guy who stole einsteins brain) however it seems very convincing through all the research on it and evidence behind it and from personal experience something called attention residue happens in the brain its a concept that if you switch your attention quickly between two things it will have a residue and you will concentrate at a lower level that I have experience if its just thoughts I don't see how it explain this its probably something you have experience too also to concentrate at a higher level you need to be bored so the brain can fire the relevant neurons in isolation and produce something called myelin that's based on brain research you simply can not have the high concentration if you switch your attention quickly due to attention residue so if the research on brain applys through experience too i don't see why it would be false as there is also evidence behind it and true for experience the research is from a book called deep work by cal newport and other different sources that he talks about if you search video of a real brain on youtube you will see one but i would go against it if you don't like to see these sort of things

what do you mean by infinite? if you mean the universe in terms of size then I don't see how it's related. Acording to science it shouldn't be infinite in terms of size as the universe expands it can't expand if its infinite and if it's in terms of possibilities then it doesn't automatically conclude that our universe is in this way in a way it does but its not enough to back it up as you could use that logic for an infinite amount of things by the same logic that would also include the possibility that the universe does exist without the need for consciousness *Was there ever a time when you didn't exist?' I personally believe this is the first time i ever was alive and will be @Rilles sorry if I am rude but if it doesn't exist because you can't see it(in case if thats what you mean) does that mean my legs don't exist too when i can't see it? or everything behind my back I can't have a direct experience of it unless I look at it but then it's no longer behind my back but obviously what I don't see is still there you can still get knocked out by something you didn't see i personally don't believe that something exists deepened on if you see it or not besides quantum mechanics i haven't seen anything in science that should say that should be true in our *level* of exsistence rather it something that happens on the smallest levels how did you came to the conclusion that there is no mind?

It will probably be ignored like most of the advice i try to give on this forum but it may help to figure out why you do it for example if there is a physiological reason for what you do and then try to solve the problem there leo have a great video on it called the art of solving problems permanently otherwise maybe you could try to only write the main points or see how much you can reduce of what your wrote and still be able to say what you want to say or really try to understand like an aha moment what it is you write some times i have found that help to write something shorter because it became much clear what i was trying to say if you don't know much about it it can be easy to write all over the place in away alternative maybe be very specific

Is there a spoon? This is a reference btw

I don't think thats truth it's probably more based on what resources you have available but with the internet which almost anyone have you probably have what you need for the most part when it comes to information

make productivity a habit same with breaks same time every time and create a schedule this will help minimize willpower also see if you can cut out as many unnecessary things out that isn't related to your productivity, for example, checking email other websites while trying to be productive basically do what you need to be productive on with zero distractions at all. *Be intensely on and intensely off brian johnsson from optimize.me* with breaks don't check emails or other things spend the time to completely relax with no thinking of work cal newport call it shutdown complete it gives you more energy to work later. Alternative look up deep work and deliberate practice on how to improve your skills. if you can also embrace single tasking it helps to be more focused and get more done there is a lot of research that shows multitasking isn't effective to get things done if possible to optimize willpower for work only check unrelated things outside of work after you are 100% done for the day this is because your will power should get lower and lower the more you use it and if your willpower gets lower if you check something afterwork but then go back to work again it may be much lower than if you didn't and you are likely to get less done

isn't there better tools than direct experience for truth? for example, some people have direct experience that the earth is flat (if you don't know it just search flat earth on youtube) they even try to say things in science is wrong just to make it *work* like saying gravity doesn't exist they say that you just have to look at the earth when you are standing on it to see it is flat and that you can't see any curve and that what they experience etc. however if you ask an astronaut he or she would say that the earth is a sphere as that what they had a direct experience from space they both had a direct experience but got a different result but there are actually tools I think in geometry that you can test out here on earth to see that is a sphere and not flat doesn't that mean that you need more complicated tools than direct experience as you could miss out on a lot of details and maybe even be entirely wrong?

I don't think it matters that much as long as you feel inspired to do it and think it something meaning full but I think the key is not to switch passion but rather always try to become better once you have found something meaning full I am sure there is a lot of people who have been inspired by someone and had a great career(i think franz liszt and richard feynman was influenced by their dads and they was one of the best at what they did) both in terms of success and in personal satisfaction if you haven't already then i recommend reading so good they can't ignore you by cal Newport there is a lot of good interviews about the book with the author on youtube so you can get a lot of the information for free

@d0ornokey where did I say they didn't follow their passion? i said that it looked like they have achived a meaning full career and likely had passion for what they did i did say life could still be hard on them even if they did have passion but thats because they are seperate things(passion and emotional difficult things in life) cal newport does say you should follow your passion but not in the way most people think about it if you listen to the audio interview he says that he does want people to end up passion about what they do but he thinks the equantion is backwards the way he talks about it is that most or some people think that passion come first but he says that it comes after getting good at something and then you get passion as a side effect (brian johnson also agress with this in the video) not before if you think you get passion first you are likely to end up less happy than if you did from getting good at something there is a lot of reasons behind it for example if you just do what you do you may like what you do but without getting good at anything what do you have to offer the world with what you do? + its easy to be replaced by someone better than you and you may not be valuable to the economy but if you are so good they can't ignore you nobody can replace you (in theory) and there is things like control, impact creativity in your field which if i understood correctly helps increase your passion for what you do if you want those things you need something to offer in return which is where getting good at what you do also comes in without having anything to offer its likely you won't get these things in your working life there was also a lot of people who had anexity or worried about finding their passion but it was not until they first got really really good at what they did that it became clear for them cal also says that the research shows that we get satisfaction from being good at something if you just follow your passion and don't get good at it then you will end up less happy than those who does get good at what they do because you don't have anything to be satisfied over or that much in a way where would the satisfaction come from? how many can replace john williams, elon musk, bill gates etc? and how would you be able to replace them without getting really really good? I have listened a lot to cal newports arguments to see if they hold up to reality and so far I haven't found anything that seems to goes against them besides those he mention himself in the book where the craft man mindset doesn't always work things like if you work with people you don't like or doing something you think is meaningless or it has a negative impact on the world but that doesn't disprove what he says it just says that if you have those things you may want to switch to an other job you like more and then get good at that instead most if the things that goes against what he says seems to be ego defense mechanisms and not actual evidence also the study isn't the only example he list basicly every chapter in the book have some examples daniel pinks book drive which cal newport reference too in the book also goes in detail about this but more from a motivation perspective https://slooowdown.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/summary-of-drive-by-dan-pink-summarised-by-paul-arnold-trainer-facilitator-paul_arnoldme-com/