/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11647545
88/5000
Whoever shows me a retarded becoming a genius (and with contributions) I give him a prize.

>>11647545
yes, technically the storage capacity for long term memory or crystallized memory is infinite. In theory you should be able to store as much knowledge and wisdom as possible in your long term memory, therefore you become a big brain with supreme intelligence

>>11647545
Is this your friend anon?

>>11647545
You genes control everything about how your body develops including your brain. If you have 2 houses with different blueprints they will be different, even though they are both houses. You can redecorate the house all you want, but unless you knock one down and rebuild, it will not become the other house.

If that were true the sciences would be dominated by 85-115 IQs with high conscientiousness

Determination can probably power through most areas of expertise regardless of baseline cognition, the problem is that such determination is also probably controlled mostly by genetics, and is also probably just as rare if not rarer than high iq.

>>11647545
retarded. according to current science intelligence is 80% gene expression 20% unknown

there is NO currently known environmental influence to permanently increase intelligence. the only thing you can do is take nootropics like caffeine or creatine to temporarily raise performance in very limited and minor ways.

>>11647872
>there is NO currently known environmental influence to permanently increase intelligence.
>80% gene expression

Choose one

>>11647872
You're not very clever, are you?

>>11647545
>you could reach genius levels if you worked hard enough
he's just coping

>>11647545
Sorry OP
Genius are born, not created.

>>11647991
>>11648004
He's right. 80% is a high end guess, but it's well within possibility, no lower than 60. Crazy stuff.

>>11648224
80% isn't a high end guess

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3y2SDpIEhE

>>11647565
Intelligence isnt memory
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
first result on google

>>11647545
I cannot fell this tree, said the man.
So he forged the axe, with wood and pain.
I cannot fell this forest, said the man.
So he sharpened it again.
I cannot fell these forests, laughed the man.
So he made a saw of steel and chain.

"I cannot cut it in these tests. My intellect's too low in brain."

"Have you ever tried to forge an axe?" Laughed the laughing man, insane.

>>11647545
Tell your friend that what he refers to intelligence is actually achievement.
Intelligence is a complex interaction between genetics, epigenetics, upbringing, emotional response, hormones, interests, motivation, relationships, cultural and social environment, chance and even historical context.

Now from the tone of your post, I guess that your friend coats his opinion with a thick grease of disdained morality.
You can then also tell him that there's nothing wrong with being anything, smart, dumb or plain average, as nobody chose one's condition in life.
The same goes with becoming any kind of achiever: a dumb achiever, a smart achiever, an industrious achiever, a lucky achiever, an underachiever, because, in the end, nobody should give you a fucking lesson about what to do with your own life.

>>11647545
Maybe that's just his motivational placebo, it's mine.

>>11647872

>according to current science intelligence is 80% gene expression 20% unknown

No, gene expression for intelligence ranges between 40-60% depending on the circumstances. It has been proven that diet and basic literacy can affect intelligence.

>there is NO currently known environmental influence to permanently increase intelligence.

False

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15734706/

>The level of iodine nutrition plays a crucial role in the intellectual development of children. The intelligence damage of children exposed to severe ID was profound, demonstrated by 12.45 IQ points loss and they recovered 8.7 IQ points with iodine supplementation or IS before and during pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354297/#!po=0.724638

>In a longitudinal analysis of cognitive development in monozygotic twins, assessed in five waves from ages 7 to 16, we found support for this hypothesis. Twins with better earlier reading ability compared to their identical cotwin tended not only to have better reading at subsequent measurements but also higher scores on general intelligence tests. No associations of reading exposure with intelligence were found beyond those of reading ability. We also found that the associations are not restricted to possible effects of reading on the verbal domain—mainly affecting vocabulary and general knowledge—but extend to associations of reading with nonverbal intelligence.

There is also evidence that specific trade-offs within intelligence can be done during adulthood. Particularly increasing spatial navigation but reducing visual memory.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/

>>11648737
This kind of stupidity is why I hate intelligence discussions. People will always pull retarded claims out of their ass.

>gene expression for intelligence ranges between 40-60% depending on the circumstances
Wrong. Intelligence is heritable to over 80%. Gene expression is even larger than that because gene expression is broader than heritability.
https://s
ci-hub.tw
/10.1017/th
g.2013.54

But of course you can pull off any number you want. Say, if you shoot someone in the head, intelligence becomes 0% genetic and 100% environmental. When you put everyone in a large prison so everyone has the same environment, suddenly intelligence is 100% heritable. All these relative terms make these discussions annoying because dumbfucks will always come up with stupid exceptions.

When I talk about how much intelligence depends on genes, I refer to a modern environment. The point is, you can lower intelligence but you can't really raise it. If you find a method to raise intelligence significantly, you will become a billionaire.

>>The level of iodine nutrition plays a crucial role in the intellectual development of children.
Exactly. Intelligence is like height. If you have malnutrition, your height is stunted. If you get to a good diet before your development ends, you may recover some of the lost height. But you can't eat more to get taller, you will just get fat.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354297/#!po=0.724638
Again, if you miss the period of language development, you will be permanently damaged. Children who grew up in the wild and miss that period will never be able to properly learn languages later in life.

>evidence that specific trade-offs within intelligence can be done during adulthood
First of all, I wouldn't call memory intelligence. I'd consider them skills that you train. Like chess masters who can visualize multiple boards in their head, yet don't become better in any other task, even visualizing other stuff.

>>11649113
>>11648737
CONT
Forgive me for the bad sci hub link, it didn't allow me to post the proper link for some reason even though it's just a scientific paper.

Second, you link a badly written story, not a scientific document. It lacks all the crucial information and these kinds of stories are very prone to exaggerated claims and misinterpretation. That doesn't mean you're wrong but please link stuff where I can actually check the numbers and methodology.


I will use some analogies here. Analogies are bad for persuasion, I use them to explain to you how I see intelligence based on everything I have heard about it. Sure, you can train skills. Guess what, you become better at math by doing lots of math. You can train pretty much every cognitive skill to some extent, just like you can train your muscles. But I have yet to see any method to increase general intelligence. General intelligence is like how big your muscles are before you train them, how fast they grow and how big they can grow. But just because you train one muscle doesn't mean all your other muscles grow too. And cognitive skills are much more specific than muscles. Like the chess board example I used earlier, where chess masters have such great visualization skill but only for one very limited application and nothing else. The problem is, training your cognitive skills often has close to zero carry over. You may train broadly so you get benefit in more applications but you can't train the underlying intelligence. And the very definition of intelligence is your ability to learn and apply skills. Intelligence isn't how good you are at solving basic integrals, intelligence is how quickly you learn what they are and can apply what you learned.

Opening or bumping an IQ/intelligence thread: Bigwits
Responding to an IQ/intelligence thread: Midwits
Posting blocks of text in an IQ/intelligence thread: Brainlets