Is it possible to make brain gains/increase intelligence?

File: 1489718448151.png (187KB, 758x631px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 758x631px

>>40830566
no no its not possible sorry bud better luck time just do your best beyoursoulf

>>40830566
yes. the general consensus among cognitive scientists is that genetics is .3 and environment is .7 in relation to contributing to overall intelligence.

it is ideal if you started learning as a child, but it's never too late.

>>40830566
reroll

Intelligence is just a social construct.

File: zW6CrZ2.jpg (115KB, 608x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 608x800px

>>40830566

>>40830566
no

>tfw no retarded son

>>40830586
This. You can do it OP, don't listen to these other anons

>>40830586
That's some bullshit. g is ~.8 heritable. Same as height.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8

>>40830566

As in fluid intelligence? No, not really.

You can decrease bodyfat.
I've got a much better focus since i dropped 40kg.

>>40830879

fluid intelligence can be improved.

>>40830900

a component of fluid intelligence is 'size' of 'stage' for concurrent thoughts

one can increase the size of the stage by exercising it

ergo fluid intelligence can be increased

not hard concept

>>40830566
hard to tell. maybe pattern recognition and so on can be trained. you wouldn't need much more than that to decently go through uni for exampe.

http://brainscale.net/dual-n-back/training

>>40830566
yes

>>40830834
We're an entire standard deviation above where we were a century ago across whole populations. Have we all changed our genetics?

>>40831191
What? Quite the opposite people are getting dumber.

>>40831222
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

It's two standard deviations, actually misremembered. So the smartest retarded people today were what the average was like 100 years ago.

>>40831222
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>>40830566
Depends on where you work out.

For me, it's the library.

>>40830566
AUDIOBOOKS IN THE GYM

DOUBLE GAINS

>>40831222
factually, objectively wrong

>>40831253
>>40831254
Wrong. They measured peoples IQs and compared them to 19th century ones the 19th century people had higher IQs

>>40831266
Audiobooks are okay for sure. I downloaded a bunch of In Our Time and Teaching Company Courses a while back and used to go for a little run with them.

>>40831274
>they
who?

>>40831274
>this guy would have been above average intelligence in the 19th C
Crazy times.

File: z16hW1S.jpg (36KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x422px

There was studies done on school children, they were split into two groups, those who think intelligence is something that can be worked on and those who think intelligence is set in stone like your eye color or height, the students who believed it was like a muscle that can be trained and made stronger performed significantly better than the other group over the next several years.

Imagine if Arnold had looked at his biceps when he was 10 and said "oh well, guess I'll never be a bodybuilder, I just don't have big muscles"

Understanding an intelligence paradox

Now, Woodley and his colleagues think they may have solved that paradox, and the news is not good.

To look back at historical intelligence, the researchers turned not to IQ tests, but to reaction time. Simple reaction time (the amount of time it takes to respond to a stimulus) is correlated with IQ, Woodley said, and not nearly as sensitive to cultural influences as IQ tests.

"The idea is that reaction times represent your ability to engage in very basic and elementary cognitive processing," he said. [The 10 Best Ways to Keep Your Mind Sharp]

In the 1880s, English scientist Sir Francis Galton measured reaction times in 2,522 young men and 888 young women from a wide variety of socioeconomic statuses. He found that men's average reaction time to a stimulus was 183 milliseconds, and women's was 187 ms. (Galton's reaction time studies were part of his work as the founder of the field of eugenics, the idea that only the "best" should reproduce. Eugenics was embraced by a variety of high-profile people in the early 1900s, most notably Adolf Hitler, who wanted to establish a "master race" of Aryans.)

Twelve similar studies to Galton's conducted after 1941, on the other hand, found an average reaction time for men of 250 ms and for women of 277 ms — markedly slower. A review study detailing those findings was published in The American Journal of Psychology in 2010.

Woodley and his colleagues expanded on the 2010 work, including additional data and matching the old and new studies to be sure they were measuring the same things. Despite the fact that timers have improved quite a bit since the 1880s, Woodley is confident that Galton's measurements are accurate. Galton used a pendulum-based machine to time reactions, and such machines are generally accurate within 10 ms, Woodley said.

>>40831309
Galton's data also behaves as you might expect it to behave if it were correct, Woodley said. For example, groups with more inbreeding performed worse on the reaction time test.

The new analysis was "crystal clear," Woodley said.

"We found a very, very robust trend with time, toward slowing speeds of reaction," he said, "which is consistent with the idea that the more stable, the more culturally neutral, the more genetically influenced components of intelligence have been declining rather than increasing."

What that suggests is that even as IQ scores rise with education and health, humanity's capacity to get smarter is shrinking. In essence, the Flynn effect might be hiding an underlying decline, a "psychometric dark matter" not visible on pen-and-paper intelligence tests, Woodley said.

"An analogy to use would be lower-quality seeds, but higher-quality fertilizers," he said, referring to this idea that a high-quality environment may be masking the decline in "smart" genes.

>>40831299
This is also true. Perseverance is probably the most important aspect of training yourself.

Vincit qui se vincit.

>>40831191
>>40831253
Not g-loaded, not an actual increase in intelligence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226

>>40831284
You are a typical stupid ignorant person when confronted with new infomation rejects it out of hand and projects his idiocy and ignorance on to the more informed person.
Kys
>>40831268
And you

>>40830566
to an extent

>>40830586
patently false, it's mostly genetics barring some sort of heinous mistreatment/neglect during early childhood

it's very easy to break a human being and make them a potato (look up feral children), but making your shithead kid watch 20 little einstein videos will not turn them into a genius

>>40831191
we have a lot more exposure to information now

this will naturally translate to higher scores on an IQ test, and does not mean human capacity for learning has gone up - it just means the population as a whole was not exposed to enough to fill that capacity before

if you are in the middle of the bell curve, no amount of studying your multiplication tables will take you to the right tail

>>40831366
>we have a lot more exposure to information now
That's meant to help IQ how?
>this will naturally translate to higher scores on an IQ test
You're pretty much saying you think IQ and G and so on are bullshit.

People only appear smarter today because they have easy access to information.
But the easy use of technology is affecting peoples intelligence since they don't need to use their brains anymore.
People in the past were much brighter. They had to use their brains to get tasks done.

>>40830566
No, but it's possible to augment your cognitive performance by reducing the factors that are tying you down, such as bad sleep, nutrition, lack of exercise, low self-discipline, subdepressive mood.

Once you do that it might put you ahead of the curve and ignite a positive feedback loop of positive emotion due to success and heightened motivation that you will no longer think about increasing your intelligence.

>>40831366
The idea that IQ isn't flexible is also false. IQ tests ask questions that have biases.
For instance asking a boy what his favourite female orientated classical romance novel is.

>>40831355
>posts a link that returns a 503 error
So what is your vested interest in this?

>>40830566
Yes

Look into trace minerals and cognitive function

>>40831396
Looks like they're doing maintenance on https, try
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226

>>40831375
we do a lot more pattern matching now than we did in 1900, we go to school and take tests and develop skills specific to solving certain types of problems

this is what drives the Flynn effect

this doesn't mean actual intelligence has gone up, it just means people got better at taking an IQ test

if you were 3 standard deviations away from the mean then, you are 3 standard deviations away from the mean now

>>40831410
It doesn't matter, you're copy pasting dumbass links from a stormchan pastebin.

>>40831412
>we go to school and take tests and develop skills specific to solving certain types of problems
This is nothing to do with better access to information. It also doesn't debase the claim of IQ increasing.

>>40831393
have you ever taken an actual IQ test? because they certainly don't ask you anything like that

you get some basic pattern matching, and when I got it (I got tested in elementary school so this may have been part of some other testing package) some verbal stuff as well

>>40831429
Hello SJWtard

Yes. You become Vegan.

>>40831436
It does because if you asked a human two centuries ago what is the relation between wolves and sheep. They would say wolves eat sheep.
Modern educated humans would say wolves and sheep are mammals.

>>40830566

>visiting the fitness board to ask this retarded shit

I'm going to go to /lit/ and ask what are the heaviest books I can lift and read simultaneously

>>40831441
Ive seen many iq tests and yes they do ask stupid questions.
They ask word problems, general knowledge, abstract puzzles, visual puzzles things like that.
Thats why they say IQs are culturally biased. If you have never heard of X you can't answer a questin about X.

>>40831436
IQ is measurably increasing, there is no way to debase something that is a fact

the issue is this: is IQ increasing because humans are more intelligent, or is IQ increasing because humans got better at taking IQ tests?

and sure it does, the more information you have been exposed to the better your chances are in the verbal comprehension part (includes general knowledge, vocabulary, etc)

unless you thought an IQ test was just pattern matching like the shitty ones you find on the internet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale#Verbal_IQ_.28VIQ.29

If you want to ace an IQ test simply practice with IQ tests till you are good at doing them.
Proponents of them will deny this but its the secret flaw in the things. You can study and practice for them.
>you won't hear this anywhere else
T. Someone who has seen every IQ test imaginable even proof read them.

>>40831466
M8 if IQ isn't measuring intelligence your whole framework is in the shitter. If we cannot comfortably measure G it doesn't exist as a rl concept.

>>40830566
Look up "Nootropics", thank me later.
https://examine.com/supplements/nootropic/

are you asking if it is possible to learn?

>>40831609
Stealth manlet thread.

File: CvS_r8KWEAEYSzo.jpg (109KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 900x1200px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUhES_3-LE

You can only increase your intelligence to a certain point, every human being is born with a unique limit. you can't go past this point but you can be under your maximum potential by being under educated.

>>40830792

It's not too late, you just need to pass on your genes

>>40831819
I don't really believe that. I think the average human can expand their intelligence to geniis levels with training.
People with actual congenital brain abnormalities that lower their intelligence cannot sadly.

>>40831274

Wrong

>>40831850
There's some amazing education stuff being done with people with cognitive disabilities, it's often now not so much of a barrier to being a functioning human being as it was even a decade a go.

File: f3424dbffd124cf97596759f922f3723.png (170KB, 268x268px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 268x268px

>>40831850
I mean, look at the words you're using. "I don't really believe that" "I think".

Intelligence isn't a matter of what you think is right, there have been numerous studies on this subject that all point opposite to your belief (that has no basis and no evidence supporting it)

Also, did you even read the title of the video "People don't like the idea of IQ" you have to come to terms of whats actually real, you can't live in your safe space fantasy.

>>40831556
> memetropics
That shit doesn't work.

>>40830566
Learning is the only way to increase IQ. Learning and critical thinking are extremely similar processes and by doing either or you're improving both skills.
To do this though you have to have mental energy. I'd consider taking PQQ (with Co-Q10 if you're over 30) so that you can start mitochondrial biogenesis.