For all,
I have not stated anything to the effect that I have not increased nor expect to increase my IQ beyond 8 points. I believe that my total approach to retraining my mind will reward me far more than that. My question is about the efficacy of ISing. Remeber, this technique has been around for some 15-20 years. The initial Reinert studies were conducted more than 10 years ago. Why didn't they do a follow-up which went beyond 8 points IQ? Certainly they have had the time. You seem to ingnore this question entirely...this is the most critical question one can ask at this point. As you stated, revolutions occur at the guidance of great leaders and intelligence, then why haven't, in ten years, with ample time and money and opportunity, hasn't Reinert, Wenger, or LSC done any follow-up studies?
You can debate me on the relative merit of the IQ test ad nauseam. But I still maintain that until you come up with a better quantifiable measure of neurological functioning, and it is relatively reliable, to stop that line of circumlocution. For an interesting comparison of correlations in the WAIS-R test and physiological EEG data read this study: http://cercor.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/9/829?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Gevins%2C+A&author2=Smith%2C+M&titleabstract=memory&fulltext=spatial&search id=1043711700300_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=cercor
I grant that ISing, IQ aside, has many benefits. I have uncovered very powerful mythological archetypes using this technique. I also think that it helps to improve intuitive awareness and mindfullness of thoughts, as well as concrete-sensory evaluative abilities.
The point is extravagant claims have been made by Wenger and others about the efficacy of ISing on IQ scores. Evaluation of their data revealed to me the fact that the claim to increase IQ by 20 pts. was an outright, misleading assertion on behalf of Dr. Wenger. the studies go up to 8 pts. Your inference that my thinking critically is what's holding me back is a classic example of conditioned thinking by the power of subconscious persuasion. Wenger LSC et.al. have indoctrinated you into the belief that it is unimportant to evaluate their claims...they have made themselves, using this optimism-makes-you-better argument, beyond doubt. Their massive assumptions are taken for granted, because if one believes in something fervently enough, so their argument might as well go, than it will come true. I understand how the subconscious can be manipulated, and about the placebo effect, I am not denying their effect nor their usefullness. i am saying that suggesstopedia is not enough to become a 'genius'.
As to the matter of genius: you seem to infer with your sentence, "to label certain levels of intelligence as 'genius' attaches a certain feeling of unattainability-- I've noticed the way you've referred to the term and how transcendent it is" that I myself suffer from some lack of esteem, barring myself from genius. This interpretation is supported by you remark elsewhere that I am limiting my IQ ceiling by asking the question, why have no follow-up studies been conducted? When I use the word genius I have a rather satiisfactory semantic definition in mind. A genius must create something so new and profound, that it forces those involved in his/her field to reconsider their basic theories, and operating assumptions. I reference to something capable of contributing theoretically to a paradigm shift-- specifically, Thomas Kuhn's conception of such. This is a very serious analysis of genius. Nowhere in here does one have to believe in IQ tests. My point: look at all the revolutions in thought-- science, philosophy, art, music-- and ask, are any of them attributable to ISing or PRing or whatever that site you orignally posted is all about? Remember, the two key techniques here have been around for over a decade. Their inventors have done nothing but that related to this very forum. They, of all people, should be able to apply these abilities and create new revolutions...
If we are heading for a revolution do you want to support it or hold it up?
By all means I support all revolutions which help us to understand more, and to live better. Questions which need to be asked, I have asked. Nobody has come up with a good rebuttal yet. If this is a revolution somebody here should be able to address my two basic questions without circumlocution, without beating around the bush. I support everyone in their efforts to embetter themselves, and feel that in order to do that effectively my questions ought to be considered and satisfactorily resolved. These techniques can be usefull, but as far as my questions remain valid, everyone here has been lied to. Revolutions, as you noted, are for better or worse. If lies back-up this revolution I will not support it. I will leave this forum, and stop assisting all its participants in helping to realize what they are dealing with. I will take what's good and leave the rest. My fear is that what's good may be less than anticipated...let my questions be the judge.
Sincerely,
K.Olafsson
