quote:
Originally posted by Kristoff Olafsson:
My position is complicated indeed. I never stated any faith in IQ tests. My point is that they are the only form of quantifiable data available indicating an aspect of mental functioning...I never said it was the absolute indicator of intelligence. However, because of their quantifiable nature they are the only data we have to go on. Many techniques referenced in this forum and the web-site you alude to claim to raise IQ, and that does mean something. For all their limitations IQ tests can show how well one can quickly solve problems involving logico-mathematical intelligence, a skill which is indeed useful. Furthermore, analogies can show a good grasp of relativistic thinking linguistically. My point is that nobody has yet to become a genius with any of these techniques-- and that means genius in the revolutionary sense of the word. Furthermore, the claims to increase IQ beyond 8 points have not been verified. That is my point. If they really did go much beyond that than the technique should have spread like wildfire.
Furthermore, I have not created any ceiling for myself except the fact that I acknowledge my critical thinking abilities to be usefull. If you would like to take me up on at least some points I think that the discussion would be fruitful.
Regards,
K.Olafsson
Interesting. Essentially, the reason you've created a ceiling is because your thinking isn't helping you. You don't expect to increase your IQ above 8 "points", and you don't expect to become a "genius". You don't believe this technology works because it hasn't spread like wildfire...
Take these opinions off of you and place them on a society-- how quickly would that society latch onto such a strategy? The number of individuals that think like you far outstrips the # that don't.
And so this is why revolutions seldom succeed, but when they do, it’s rarely because of the sheer genius behind the new wave of thought. Revolutions sweep through nations and topple regimes because of the intelligent leadership backing them… in the past, it’s been charismatic and captivating leadership that’s driven revolutionary change. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution triumphed not because communism was a powerful ideology, but because it was ushered in by the popular Marxist party and the leadership of Lenin, capitalizing on the Czar’s incompetence in managing World War 1. Similarly, it was the compelling leadership of Adolf Hitler that led to the rise of the Third Reich, not because of any power for positive change that Nazism held. It was the Shah of Iran’s corruption that allowed a 1979 Iranian Revolution to succeed, and not a popular enthusiasm for a government of clerics.
Incumbents grasp so tightly to habit, and have such an emotional attachment to that which is customary to them on both a conscious and subconscious level, that it takes a carefully carried out campaign of persuasion to alter popular opinion—the real content of the campaign is never objectively considered, causing the ideas that hold real promise for positive change to be so often passed by. The survival of the fittest has been replaced by a dangerous penchant for the survival of the cunning… dangerous because our societal evolution has been compromised as a result.
I think its clear to see where I'm going here Kristoff. To label certain levels of intelligence as "genius" attaches a certain feeling of unattainability-- I've noticed the way you've referred to this term and how transcendant it is. To be a genius is to think of great ideas and perhaps to even be a pandoras box of answers. Perhaps even the link to the next major discovery. You should revere this term and state of mind less, and begin to think of genius as something inborn that you simply must unlock and harvest... because genius is much more a "state of mind" then a special alignment of your DNA.
I agree with your last post in IQ tests, but your forgetting the subjectivity of them. They induce stress, they rely on ones test taking abilities, and they are apt to be taken in an environment not conducive to full brain and mind thinking. IQ tests elicit a pressure to perform no matter who you are, and while some flourish in such forms of testing others don't. Obviously I can go on how different intelligences have been pinpointed, but so many go on undiscovered. What if these technologies had the greatest effect on these more sublte areas of intellect, the ones that support the more obvious ones but are more difficult to identify.
My point can be stated and concluded with one question: If we are headed for a revolution do you want to support it or hold it up?
