Is there a literature-related way to actually increase intelligence?

>>9169682
Critical reading
reading poetry specifically will make you smarter (and a better programmer if you like programming)

>>9169689
Source to the paper you got it from?

books to boost IQ ?
Non-existent, books merely give you a different insight on life, every persons ability to distinguish and comprehend a certain text differs and you won't get "magically smarter" reading books.

They are for pleasure only, just like sex and masturbation .

File: 7432894723.jpg (14KB, 220x294px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x294px

stop masturbating

>>9169695
my paper (its a secret paper)
but forreal critical reading and understanding patterns in literature (which is more formalized in poetry) will make you smarter, and looking at the mechanic of poetry is not dissimilar than looking at code.

>>9169703
I do believe that you aren't talking fully out of your ass. I've recently finished a book on intelligence by SB Kaufman.

Nothing much on reading and intelligence, but he does say a stimulating environment matters. This is why poor children tend to have fewer IQ, he claims.

>>9169722
> mfw smartest kids in the world were born to poor families

>>9169722
I was born poor (for first world), but the bit of money my parents spent on my entertainment all had educational qualities (text books with pictures about Egyptian and Celtic Mythology and a scientific encyclopedia with illustrations showing how different tech works) biggest thing is something like leapfrog if you can't be assed to constantly tutor your kid

>>9169728
What do you mean? Remember I am not claiming this, I only repeated the claim of SB Kaufman. He might turn out to be wrong.

File: Correlations.png (41KB, 651x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 651x437px

Here is a gift for those interested.

File: ss+(2017-02-28+at+07.01.54).jpg (13KB, 234x224px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 234x224px

The Book "Endless Fun" by Spanish author Davide Fostér Valles

>>9169728
wrong lmfao

>>9169773
>tfw master race physics major

Intelligence is not a thing in itself, it's not something you acquire or hold. It's something that only exists when you spend it. How can you know if you are strong if you don't lift or perhaps fight? How can you know you are fast if you don't run? The only way to be intelligent is to act intelligently when facing a situation. Forget about IQ entirely, forget about measuring it or increasing it, focus on putting it to real use, on spending it.

You'll notice that anything that one can say to make you more intelligent is actually something that gives you the opportunity to act intelligently: books that make you think outside of your comfort zone, puzzles that challenge you and so on.

Why would you want to increase your intelligence? Either it is just for show, and that would be a fantasy, an imaginary connection that implies you'd be more loved for being more intelligent, a more valuable person in some sense. Or it is because you actually want to act intelligent to whatever may appear to you later on, which makes more sense. But in that case, just develop your attention to what you are doing, seek to spend your intelligence. The runner's training is not to measure his legs and imagine how far he can go with them, but to actually go on running again and again.

>>9169834
>Empty rhetoric
Not all of it, but a lot.

>>9169834
this is pragmatical

File: 1487277065315.png (123KB, 186x320px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 186x320px

>>9169834
>t. king brainlet

>>9169860
If the background is a little more empty, the figures more easily pop up.

File: 19284=5994.png (61KB, 1038x178px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1038x178px

>>9169899
I do like this part:
>The runner's training is not to measure his legs and imagine how far he can go with them, but to actually go on running again and again.

Picture related to the topic.

>>9169834

This doesn't make a lick of sense

>>9169682
Post more of her feet, or tits

All other parts of our bodies are different, they display a huge variation of shapes and sizes, yet everyone assumes that our brains are, if not equal, then at least roughly so. We have learned to gauge quickly the efficiency and strength of all other body parts, but the brain continues to elude us (as is only natural, considering it is by far the most complex). And our science of intelligence measurement is still in an embryonic state. The problem is that the people who devise the tests are not very intelligent themselves, and so their tests catch only the lower part of the scale. A Kant or a Russell would perhaps have aced them, and yet they both proved themselves idiots in real life. To say nothing of the scientists, for whom the word "idiot" in any area outside their field of expertise would be an understatement (the word "retard" would be more appropriate). The individuals with the highest IQs today, for example, are all essentially autistic, and hence utterly useless in real life for anything other than obscure math operations.

Nor does reading a genius's writings help in any significant way, shape or form, if you are not already a genius, as all the inferior intellects are pleased to think. "Maybe I wasn't born as smart as him, but all his smartness must be contained inside his books, so all I have to do to become like him is read them!" A gross overestimation of the power of words, that amounts to believing that reading books can change your genes! The reality is that, at most, and if you are sensible, the genius's books will give you an inferiority complex. If you aren't, they'll turn you into a stark raving retard for whom there is no cure. — And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

>>9169682
>>9170008

>>9170016
>>9170008
>yet everyone assumes that our brains are, if not equal, then at least roughly so.
But that is not true. There are several psychiatrists and psychologists who write how different wiring in the brain makes us better at certain things.

Extreme versions are autism, schizotypy and ADHD.

>>9169979
Why not, anon? Maybe I can help you understand it if I put it differently.

>>9169682
No, real life doesn't work like an RPG.

>>9170078
So, you're saying that smart people are simply born that way and nothing they did made them more intelligent and knowledgeable because they already were? How then do you explain the correlation between economical prosperity and IQ if it's all predetermined?

>>9170078
Nice to see another person with his feet on the ground.

>>9170078
>>9170138
Read "the secret to our success" you cucks

>>9170144
Can't take advice from some idiot that uses the word "cuck", sorry.

>>9170108

>smart people are successful
>smart people reproduce with other smart people
>kids are born smart because intelligence is hereditary
>kid has affluence from birth

8/10 made me reply

File: 51sdHZvYfTL._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (43KB, 336x499px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 336x499px

>>9170147
Your loss. And it doesn't necessary disapprove the point. This book simply states that collective knowledge matters more as individual knowledge.

As for intelligence, the brain is not hardware nor software but firmware.

>>9170164
Just kidding, but please abstain from using that foul word. It'll make this site a better place.

>>9170160
How did this address my question:
>How then do you explain the correlation between economical prosperity and IQ if it's all predetermined?

1/10. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>9170182

I implied that prosperity was cumulative over the course of several generations. How does that not answer your question?

>>9169697
i'm toeing the line now...

>>9170144
is that the breast you can do?

>>9169834
>Why would you want to increase your >intelligence?

Seems you assume that everyone is trying to win when in fact many people are trying to not lose.

>>9170164
We're getting smarter as a collective society, but individualized education is worse than it was during the Enlightenment era for example. Public education is an absolute disaster that wastes our time and teaches us all the wrong ways to learn and to find out one's calling in life, or to at least find something to study for the rest of one's life.

>>9169682

Just read anything. Reading improves concentration, adds perspective and reference points, and prevents cognitive atrophy. It may be true that we have inborn aptitude that can't ever be changed. But without some sort of effort none of us really ever hits the ceiling of our natural capability anyway. In other words, you probably haven't maxed out what you were born with.

>>9171071

Not everyone has a calling, breh. In fact, most people don't.

So I started reading books. When do I start to understand them?

pls halp

>>9171229
And the solution to that is to make everyone think that collective education (e.g. in the form of university) is desirable?

All it inevitably leads to is disenchantedness and disappointment.