I took an IQ test for fun.

[Buck Edwards]

The result was 87. It was a bit embarrassing at first but I have settled in. It's below average actually. No worries. I began to ponder how it correlated to success in life. I was hesitant to share my results. Test is not a certified one, it was a one hour test. 

[Davino]

Ha ha you are stupid!

Ha ha you are clever!

Ha ha I lo ve you!

I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Just forget that and keep going on with your life. This whole notion of self evaluation for intelligence can be a huge trap. Check into multiple types of intelligence theories. Those IQ tests are really narrow and unintelligent.

Just for being here in actualized.org I can tell you have a very special Mind 

[Max_V]

If you really want to know, get one administered by a licenced psychometrist and even then take the results with a grain of salt. Don't trust these stupid online tests, they might hint at some truth or something you are specifically stronger or less stronger at but they don't give a full accurate picture.

But if I were you, I wouldn't take a test at all and forget about the notion of scoring your intelligence in some way all together. What matters is chasing after what you want in life and doing all you can to get there. Having thoughts like "I only have this amount of IQ so that means I probably cannot do this or achieve this" will only limit you. Give your intelligence the opportunity to surpise you.

All the best.

[Jannes]

@Max_V thanks, I finally found that quote of Camus. 

[Max_V]

@Jannes I love that quote. Glad I was able to help you find it again

[Jannes]

16 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

The result was 87. It was a bit embarrassing at first but I have settled in. It's below average actually. No worries. I began to ponder how it correlated to success in life. I was hesitant to share my results. Test is not a certified one, it was a one hour test. 

I agree with Davino and Max.

Also iq doesnt measure consciousness. 

It doesnt measure your stage of development. 

It doesnt measure creativity.

It doesnt measure work ethic. 

Just with these things you can be so much more ahead/holistically intelligent then most people with a high iq. 

[Jannes]

Just now, Max_V said:

@Jannes I love that quote. Glad I was able to help you find it again

I love it as well. So positive. And it also connected perfectly with an idea I had on my blog. I love connecting pieces of the puzzle. 

[Chadders]

@Buck Edwards they’re based on a very narrow form of intelligence based on our scientific and rationalistic orientation. There’s a deep bias. It’s why STEM subjects are often valued more than creative or emotional roles 

I don’t think these IQ tests account for emotional or creative intelligence so I wouldn’t read too much into it

[Buck Edwards]

@Chadders I agree. 

[LSD-Rumi]

@Buck Edwards There is nothing as a stable value for IQ, it is a range. Retest multiple times in different states or variables and find your range.

Edited May 28 by LSD-Rumi

[Carl-Richard]

I'm convinced you can increase your IQ by 10 points in just a month with Dual N-Back training (with a coach maybe even faster). High-intensity cardio training, heavy weight training, proper diet and meditation are probably worth 5 points each in isolation, maybe less in total because of the overlap between them; let's say ~ 10 points. Then things like journaling, social interactions, general life satisfaction and meaning also add up.

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm convinced you can increase your IQ by 10 points in just a month with Dual N-Back training

Im still skeptical of this, but I guess it is a controversial area. Is it the case that your IQ increases by 10 points or the explanation is that you get better at highly specific exercises that are usually measured when it comes to IQ tests?

So for example you might get better at recognizing certain patterns in a specific context or area, but that doesn't necessarily generalize to other areas where different pattern recognition is needed.

Btw I have no idea about the empirics on this, so I can easily be moved if you have anything.

Edited May 29 by zurew

[integral]

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

Btw I have no idea about the empirics on this, so I can easily be moved if you have anything.

This is your signature move my man, Your to good just be arrogant like the rest of us.

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im still skeptical of this, but I guess it is a controversial area. Is it the case that your IQ increases by 10 points or the explanation is that you get better at highly specific exercises that are usually measured when it comes to IQ tests?

When I'm saying "IQ", I'm talking about the tests. The test is not equal to the thing measured. And like you say, IQ only measures a narrow form of intelligence.

 

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

Btw I have no idea about the empirics on this, so I can easily be moved if you have anything.

There is some evidence in the literature about N-Back improving working memory. I haven't seen anything on IQ though (it's probably out there). I'm mostly talking from personal experience (based on feeling only; I haven't tested it yet) and also that InfiniteIQ guy on YouTube who said he went from 136 to 149 after a year of N-Back training. He practices at Quad 7-8-Back, the madman. I'm currently practicing at Dual 6-Back . I don't like Quad (I explained why in that other IQ thread).

Edited May 29 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When I'm saying "IQ", I'm talking about the tests. The test is not equal to the thing measured. And like you say, IQ only measures a narrow form of intelligence.

There is some evidence in the literature about N-Back improving working memory. I haven't heard anything about IQ though (it's probably out there). I'm mostly talking from personal experience 

I see.

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He practices at Quad 7-8 Back, the madman. I'm currently practicing at Dual 6-Back

You guys are freaks.

20 minutes ago, integral said:

This is your signature move my man, Your to good just be arrogant like the rest of us.

Trying my best to stay epistemically humble . I can be arrogant as well about things I shouldnt be, but Its easier to stay epistemically humble, when im not dealing with sophists or motivated reasoners and some of you are generally honest about how knowledgeable and researched you are about a given question or subject.

I haven't seen Carl ever engage in bad faith rhetoric towards me or being dishonest about his knowledge or about how much evidence he has to support a given claim or argument, so he makes the good faith interactions easy.

[integral]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm currently practicing at Dual 6-Back

Don’t think you can get away with this, i now exactly how impressive that is.

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

I haven't seen Carl ever engage in bad faith rhetoric towards me or being dishonest about his knowledge or about how much evidence he has to support a given claim or argument, so he makes the good faith interactions easy.

Yes praise Carl. Correct move.

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, integral said:

Yes praise Carl. Correct move.

Now you are motivating me to bait bad faith moves out of Carl so i can finally be justified to be bad faith towards him as well.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You guys are freaks.

Haha. This actually kinda goes back to my thread about conflating knowledge with intelligence: 

I noticed that once I had developed a strategy for how to play, I could suddenly do the higher N-Backs quite easily. I went from 3-Back to 6-Back in maybe a few months, but I think I could've done the switch much sooner if I had been aware of the power of the strategy (hence if you have a coach, you could progress much faster). Thus you have knowledge cosplaying as intelligence.

That said, the strategy still involves utilizing your working memory, so it doesn't "hack" the game, but it makes the process more structured and streamlines your progress. After developing the strategy somewhere at 3-Back, It wasn't really before 6-Back that I really noticed my brain having to enter flow in order to successfully memorize a string of trials (which is a part of my strategy), which is a sign that you're running up against a skill cap (which doesn't mean you can't progress past that, but it's a sign you're in the optimal zone for progress).

Another thing is that the difference between the higher N-Backs is smaller than the difference between the lower N-Backs. So when you hit say 6-Back, you could probably perform decently at 7-Back as well, while jumping from 2- to 3-Back is quite a jump. So that creates an additional mirage of intelligence.

I don't know what takes longer though (progressing through the lower vs. the higher N-Backs), because your skill gains slowly taper off as you progress. In other words, you could possibly progress faster through lower N-Backs because of nooby gains despite the jumps being large. Anyways, that's a lot about N-Back 😂

Edited May 29 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I haven't seen Carl ever engage in bad faith rhetoric towards me or being dishonest about his knowledge or about how much evidence he has to support a given claim or argument, so he makes the good faith interactions easy.

☺️ I don't think I've seen you do that either.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, integral said:

Don’t think you can get away with this, i now exactly how impressive that is.

Haha. Honestly, it's the strategy and also the way I sit (thanks Sadhguru) and probably also the timing (right before my gym workouts while digesting my dinner).

When I sit in a suboptimal posture, my performance drops a lot, like ridiculously a lot. The same happens when I'm low blood sugar. Your brain is like a furnace for glucose.

Another interesting possibility is that doing brain training right before weight training could actually enhance your learning, because lifting weights is highly dopaminergic, and dopamine strengthens the synapses of whatever was firing before. I want to say it's highly speculative, but I did a quick search and it seems like these effects have some empirical support.

Edited May 29 by Carl-Richard