# Intelligence



## Ben8

I have an obsession that ruins my life.

I'm so frustrated and suicidal at the minute that it's hard to gather my thoughts, but I'll try to keep it short.

All through my elementary school and middle school career, I was always average, or slightly below. I never got into gifted programs. I was always put in the slow reading groups. I had to go to tutoring to stay on par with the average person. I always worked twice as hard to get half the result. It must have festered in me. I was especially poor at math, but with some work, I took AP Calculus in high school, but failed miserably with a C while my friends, like they always have, succeeded easily. One in particular never went to the class, came in, aced the exams. 

Fast forward to present day college. I am an undergrad for engineering. I have a 4.0 GPA and all that; I am doing fine.

Every day I want to kill myself because I can't stand the fact that I have normal intelligence at best. I personally believe that intelligence is mostly given at birth. It's not something I can achieve. Remembering facts won't do it. Studying hard won't do it. Exercising my brain won't do much. I have a friend who never goes to class and just simply understands concepts so easily. He's lazy, but far more intelligent. I get the better grades and understand the concepts more in depth because I spend all day studying. 

That's not the point. I don't care about success. I just want to be naturally smarter than everyone else. The only conclusion I can come up with is my childhood must have festered in me and it's producing this. I don't really know what to do to fix this, but it's something I have always been fixated on.


----------



## Psychophant

Your intelligence is deterministic in a sense, and so is what you do with it. An intelligent person who doesn't use it is no better than anyone else. If you're going to envy them for being gifted, you should appreciate the determination you've been given as well, because if you understand it better, that's ultimately all that matters. Also, you have a 4.0 in undergrad engineering classes.. That's simply not something most people can achieve.


----------



## Polk3456

What do you view as intelligent ? Which type of intelligence do you think is the superior one? And jesus christ, don't kill yourself just because someone is better at school then you.


----------



## Ben8

Yomiel said:


> Your intelligence is deterministic in a sense, and so is what you do with it. An intelligent person who doesn't use it is no better than anyone else. If you're going to envy them for being gifted, you should appreciate the determination you've been given as well, because if you understand it better, that's ultimately all that matters. Also, you have a 4.0 in undergrad engineering classes.. That's simply not something most people can achieve.


Anyone can work hard if they felt like it. It's not a gift like intelligence is.


----------



## Psychophant

Ben8 said:


> Anyone can work hard if they felt like it. It's not a gift like intelligence is.


I disagree. Besides, "can" is irrelevant if they don't. It's really only the outcomes that matter, so if you get the grades and the concepts then you're fine.


----------



## Ben8

T.B.D.A said:


> What do you view as intelligent ? Which type of intelligence do you think is the superior one? And jesus christ, don't kill yourself just because someone is better at school then you.


I view intelligence is the ability to grasp abstract concepts quickly and easily. I view intelligence as not having to work hard, but get great results from a conceptual perspective. I never said they were, "better at school than me." I get higher grades. That's not the point.


----------



## Polk3456

If you're worried about not being intelligent, which I'm assuming the definition of intelligence you're referring to is wisdom. It's not like it's impossible to be intelligent. Talk to an "intelligent" person and get to know them. Understand how they work, how they think. Then learn about their opinions about things. You will see yourself start to change the more you spend time with them.


----------



## Ben8

Yomiel said:


> I disagree. Besides, "can" is irrelevant if they don't. It's really only the outcomes that matter, so if you get the grades and the concepts then you're fine.


And this is where the problem lies. People say, "oh, you don't have to be gifted to succeed in life." Most people I have talked to on this subject see it from an endpoint perspective like I am trying to achieve something. Sure, I would like to achieve certain things, but it's just filler to give my life some form of meaning. I don't care about what I obtain or achieve, but how intelligent I am. I don't care about what I do, but I care about who I am. Can isn't irrelevant from my perspective, but it is from yours.


----------



## Polk3456

Ben8 said:


> T.B.D.A said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you view as intelligent ? Which type of intelligence do you think is the superior one? And jesus christ, don't kill yourself just because someone is better at school then you.
> 
> 
> 
> I view intelligence is the ability to grasp abstract concepts quickly and easily. I view intelligence as not having to work hard, but get great results from a conceptual perspective. I never said they were, "better at school than me." I get higher grades. That's not the point.
Click to expand...

You don't want to be that good at concepts. You lose the ability to think outside the box. And life gets very, very boring. There's nothing an intellectual can't stand more then boredom.


----------



## Bassmasterzac

You're right, you're an idiot. Not because you are unintelligent, but simply because you doubted your own capabilities and potential which you have already proven by doing something that requires above average intelligence and that many people couldn't achieve. Maybe if you weren't burning your brain out from obsessing over something so trivial your mind might be unclouded. 

Honestly, intelligence doesn't seem to be your problem. To me, it sounds like you have low self-esteem and , thus, have created an inferiority complex.

You're smarter than you think, man. I consider myself above average intelligence and there's no way you'd see me getting a 4.0 GPA, unless the subject was beer funneling or professional hotdog eating. Oh, and I graduated high school with a 2.3 GPA.


----------



## Ben8

T.B.D.A said:


> If you're worried about not being intelligent, which I'm assuming the definition of intelligence you're referring to is wisdom. It's not like it's impossible to be intelligent. Talk to an "intelligent" person and get to know them. Understand how they work, how they think. Then learn about their opinions about things. You will see yourself start to change the more you spend time with them.


I agree. The more I am around intelligent individuals, the more my brain is stimulated. However, I don't think my ability to understand abstract concepts will necessarily increase. I can gain new opinions and insights by being with them. I can learn facts and concepts. I can exercise my brain. However, all of these things pose two issues. The first issue is the fact that my friends who skip grades, live unhealthy lifestyles, are ignorant about most things, etc. do not have to do these things. They do not have to work hard to be who they are. They just are smarter than me and superior to me. Working to be like them is the very problem I have. It's a genetic thing. They're smarter because they just are. The second issue is these things won't make a difference in, say, not having to study at all and then just knowing how to do all the exam questions with ease.


----------



## Ben8

T.B.D.A said:


> You don't want to be that good at concepts. You lose the ability to think outside the box. And life gets very, very boring. There's nothing an intellectual can't stand more then boredom.


I would imagine that being good at concepts doesn't correlate with thinking outside the box. I think new insights are bred from reforming old concepts. I think understand complex structures easily would invoke just as much creativity, if not more in certain instances.


----------



## Ben8

Bassmasterzac said:


> You're right, you're an idiot. Not because you are unintelligent, but simply because you doubted your own capabilities and potential which you have already proven by doing something that requires above average intelligence and that many people couldn't achieve. Maybe if you weren't burning your brain out from obsessing over something so trivial your mind might be unclouded.
> 
> Honestly, intelligence doesn't seem to be your problem. To me, it sounds like you have low self-esteem and , thus, have created an inferiority complex.
> 
> You're smarter than you think, man. I consider myself above average intelligence and there's no way you'd see me getting a 4.0 GPA, unless the subject was beer funneling or professional hotdog eating. Oh, and I graduated high school with a 2.3 GPA.


The way a lot of these engineering classes are set up is more along the lines of work ethic than intelligence. I have dealt/am dealing with weed out classes that are mainly designed to test if you are determined enough to get this degree. It's mostly work ethic just like any other educational construct society presents. I mean, I can get high grades, but there are people who get the same grades and don't have to try near as hard. I can't help but assume that I am intellectually inferior to them, you know? Knowing their lifestyle and personalities, I watch them in action. They just role out of bed, smoke some weed, and sometimes go to class. They don't study, do homework, or know when any due dates are. They just see things one time and know it. They hear things once and can elaborate on it longer than I could.


----------



## drmiller100

I have a high iq. EVERY single person smarter than I in college went on to take enough drugs or paint fumes they are dumber than me now. 

the ones dumber than I became lawyers and doctors and actuaries and professors.

so what? 
What do you think your IQ is? I'd guess high 120's at least. But you are willing to WORK. Very rare thing work is.


----------



## Ben8

drmiller100 said:


> I have a high iq. EVERY single person smarter than I in college went on to take enough drugs or paint fumes they are dumber than me now.
> 
> the ones dumber than I became lawyers and doctors and actuaries and professors.
> 
> so what?
> What do you think your IQ is? I'd guess high 120's at least. But you are willing to WORK. Very rare thing work is.


104.


----------



## Bassmasterzac

Ben8 said:


> The way a lot of these engineering classes are set up is more along the lines of work ethic than intelligence. I have dealt/am dealing with weed out classes that are mainly designed to test if you are determined enough to get this degree. It's mostly work ethic just like any other educational construct society presents. I mean, I can get high grades, but there are people who get the same grades and don't have to try near as hard. I can't help but assume that I am intellectually inferior to them, you know? Knowing their lifestyle and personalities, I watch them in action. They just role out of bed, smoke some weed, and sometimes go to class. They don't study, do homework, or know when any due dates are. They just see things one time and know it. They hear things once and can elaborate on it longer than I could.


Dude, most people aren't like that. Trust me. Do you REALLY need to be Einstein? Like I said before, you sound like you have low self-esteem. You most likely chronically doubt your own capabilities and even BEAT YOURSELF UP when you don't get things right. Does that sound familiar? Correct me if this is a false accusation. I'm not trying to come off as rude by any means.

Let me ask you something. Why is it SO important that you need to be a walking genius?


----------



## Polk3456

Ben8 said:


> Bassmasterzac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, you're an idiot. Not because you are unintelligent, but simply because you doubted your own capabilities and potential which you have already proven by doing something that requires above average intelligence and that many people couldn't achieve. Maybe if you weren't burning your brain out from obsessing over something so trivial your mind might be unclouded.
> 
> Honestly, intelligence doesn't seem to be your problem. To me, it sounds like you have low self-esteem and , thus, have created an inferiority complex.
> 
> You're smarter than you think, man. I consider myself above average intelligence and there's no way you'd see me getting a 4.0 GPA, unless the subject was beer funneling or professional hotdog eating. Oh, and I graduated high school with a 2.3 GPA.
> 
> 
> 
> The way a lot of these engineering classes are set up is more along the lines of work ethic than intelligence. I have dealt/am dealing with weed out classes that are mainly designed to test if you are determined enough to get this degree. It's mostly work ethic just like any other educational construct society presents. I mean, I can get high grades, but there are people who get the same grades and don't have to try near as hard. I can't help but assume that I am intellectually inferior to them, you know? Knowing their lifestyle and personalities, I watch them in action. They just role out of bed, smoke some weed, and sometimes go to class. They don't study, do homework, or know when any due dates are. They just see things one time and know it. They hear things once and can elaborate on it longer than I could.
Click to expand...

Actually, having the "flaw" to not understand a concept easily shows that you're a defined person. You don't want the ability to take a concept and understand it fast. I think you value education much higher then it actually is. The people who understand the theory quickly never had any questions about it. Therefore they can't think outside the box. There is no point in being jealous of these fools. The gift they are given is more of curse then anything else.


----------



## Ben8

Bassmasterzac said:


> Dude, most people aren't like that. Trust me. Do you REALLY need to be Einstein? Like I said before, you sound like you have low self-esteem. You most likely chronically doubt your own capabilities and even BEAT YOURSELF UP when you don't get things right. Does that sound familiar? Correct me if this is a false accusation. I'm not trying to come off as rude by any means.
> 
> Let me ask you something. Why is it SO important that you need to be a walking genius?


You are correct. I will physically hurt myself over this. 
You know, that's the most important question, isn't it? The only way to fix this is to start from where it originated. To be honest, the only lead I have is how I perceived myself as a kid. I watched my friends go to the "fast reading group" and I was stuck with the slow kids. I saw peers get pulled out of class so they could take special classes that were more advanced. I watched myself fail and they just succeeded I guess. I think it could be a matter of jealously from the past, it could be that I was always so hurt that I wasn't equal to them, or something like that. They made me feel inadequate at an early age with their success. Why intelligence specifically? I'm not sure. I really have no idea on how to find an answer because of how complex it is. I've tried counseling and it didn't help.


----------



## Ben8

T.B.D.A said:


> Actually, having the "flaw" to not understand a concept easily shows that you're a defined person. You don't want the ability to take a concept and understand it fast. I think you value education much higher then it actually is. The people who understand the theory quickly never had any questions about it. Therefore they can't think outside the box. There is no point in being jealous of these fools. The gift they are given is more of curse then anything else.


To me, education itself isn't really my focal point. It's more of ability to memorize, process, understand, relate, conceptualize, etc. You know, anyone can study hard and get a good grade. That's not the point. Education isn't really my interest in this. I think you may be saying that not understanding things well easily is good because it allows me to dig deeper into the subjects. I can agree with you there. Sure. The problem, again, isn't what a gain from education. The real issue is how I am constantly out performed by people who just....are genetically better. I mean, knowledge and application I don't care about. It's more of seeing people simply smarter than me because that's the reality.


----------



## Bassmasterzac

Ben8 said:


> You are correct. I will physically hurt myself over this.
> You know, that's the most important question, isn't it? The only way to fix this is to start from where it originated. To be honest, the only lead I have is how I perceived myself as a kid. I watched my friends go to the "fast reading group" and I was stuck with the slow kids. I saw peers get pulled out of class so they could take special classes that were more advanced. I watched myself fail and they just succeeded I guess. I think it could be a matter of jealously from the past, it could be that I was always so hurt that I wasn't equal to them, or something like that. They made me feel inadequate at an early age with their success. Why intelligence specifically? I'm not sure. I really have no idea on how to find an answer because of how complex it is. I've tried counseling and it didn't help.


There you go, man. It all stems from the childhood. Go see a psychologist, not a counselor. You need someone that can understand your psych and work into those deep crevices you have hidden in your mind. 

You're not stupid and you're not inferior. You've had multiple members here tell you that. I don't know about others, but I don't ever lie to people to make them feel better. If I didn't think you were intelligent, I would have never mentioned it.


----------



## Polk3456

Ben8 said:


> T.B.D.A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, having the "flaw" to not understand a concept easily shows that you're a defined person. You don't want the ability to take a concept and understand it fast. I think you value education much higher then it actually is. The people who understand the theory quickly never had any questions about it. Therefore they can't think outside the box. There is no point in being jealous of these fools. The gift they are given is more of curse then anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, education itself isn't really my focal point. It's more of ability to memorize, process, understand, relate, conceptualize, etc. You know, anyone can study hard and get a good grade. That's not the point. Education isn't really my interest in this. I think you may be saying that not understanding things well easily is good because it allows me to dig deeper into the subjects. I can agree with you there. Sure. The problem, again, isn't what a gain from education. The real issue is how I am constantly out performed by people who just....are genetically better. I mean, knowledge and application I don't care about. It's more of seeing people simply smarter than me because that's the reality.
Click to expand...

Distance yourself from them. It seems like you get a lot of your pride from your intelligence. And seeing someone smarter then you seems to hurt you. Find ways to boost your ego. Working out is one of them. Counseling can be really helpful, as long as it's with the right person, and if you open up.


----------



## drmiller100

Ben8 said:


> 104.


bullshit.


----------



## Ben8

drmiller100 said:


> bullshit.


Granted, it was one of those free online IQ tests that are unofficial. However, I don't see how you can correlate my IQ on the basis of the way I type or the emotional issues I have.


----------



## drmiller100

Ben8 said:


> Granted, it was one of those free online IQ tests that are unofficial. However, I don't see how you can correlate my IQ on the basis of the way I type or the emotional issues I have.


No, but I can get within 10 points based upon how you write, vocabulary, and the concepts you are contemplating. 

Average is 108 or something. You are well above average.


----------



## Ben8

drmiller100 said:


> No, but I can get within 10 points based upon how you write, vocabulary, and the concepts you are contemplating.
> 
> Average is 108 or something. You are well above average.


I would love for you to be correct.


----------



## drmiller100

IQ is one form of intelligence. IQ was invented by INTJ's, and measures things INTJ's think are important. It turns out INTP's do better on IQ tests than INTJ's. 

So, picking on INTJ's, they are good at INTJ things. THey REALLY suck at feelings. THey suck at social interactions with "normal" people. If an ESFP made a test, it would be about acting on stage. ISFP would test colors and art. 

Etc. 

You can converse with others, extroverted, and can still do engineering. That is rare. 
Ever kissed a girl? Most INTJ's and INTP's your age have not. 

It is the combo which makes it cool. 

Use both hands, and find your ass. Figure out you are a great guy. Smarter than some in a few ways, dumber than others in other ways. 

What are you going to do with your life? Something meaningful?


----------



## Ben8

drmiller100 said:


> IQ is one form of intelligence. IQ was invented by INTJ's, and measures things INTJ's think are important. It turns out INTP's do better on IQ tests than INTJ's.
> 
> So, picking on INTJ's, they are good at INTJ things. THey REALLY suck at feelings. THey suck at social interactions with "normal" people. If an ESFP made a test, it would be about acting on stage. ISFP would test colors and art.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> You can converse with others, extroverted, and can still do engineering. That is rare.
> Ever kissed a girl? Most INTJ's and INTP's your age have not.
> 
> It is the combo which makes it cool.
> 
> Use both hands, and find your ass. Figure out you are a great guy. Smarter than some in a few ways, dumber than others in other ways.
> 
> What are you going to do with your life? Something meaningful?


Interesting post. You grabbed my attention. 

Ironically, I suppose, I _think _I am INTJ. I do suck at emotions. I solve problems. I do suck at social situations. I mumble and shy away from social involvement. Female attraction has never been a particular issue for me, but the desire for a partner is usually never there. 

Anyway...

I'm _supposed _to be good at STEM fields. I am, I guess, but not to the level of geniuses. I know my calculus and programming. I understand chemical bonding and how to design circuits. Quantum Physics is bae. Those are all fine, but that's not the point. Being good at something isn't the point. Finding what I want isn't important because end results do not matter much at all to me. If I can empirically measure and know I am intellectually superior to most, then my life is complete. 

The reason I am pursuing engineering? Job outlook is okay, but the intellectual pursuit is nice, but more importantly, it is to show myself I can do something right. I hope to work to go to a prestigious university for my post grad degree in biomedical engineering. Ironically (not so much), the university I aspire to go to is where most of my friends from school went. You know, the superior ones.

Finally, I look to improve on medical imaging CT scans for cancer patients because I need something larger than my petty difficulties to aspire towards even though I couldn't care less about people.


----------



## drmiller100

Tensors? An intj who can do quantum mechanics is a smart son of a bitch. Usually they are INTP's. THe occasional ENTP. 

if you want to be smarter than most, go take an iq test. You are probably smart enough to test into mensa. go do it.

your crowd is pretty smart if you think you are on the lower end.

a secret. don't tell anyone. EVERYONE thinks they are not as smart as they really are. If you are smart enough, you can have some idea of how much you don't know, and it is fucking scary.

another secret. EVERYONE is faking it. not just you. not just me. 
EVERYONE.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

It honestly sounds like you are confusing your desire to have superior intelligence as the main psychological goal here, but it's not. The desire to be better than others is - i.e., you want to feel superior to others by any means necessary. [This is a form of over compensation.]

You want to be superior, and you think that being more intelligent than everyone else will be objective proof of your superiority.

Your goal and your obsession is a futile one though, considering that a) there will always be someone who is more intelligent than you out there and b) [as someone rightly pointed out before] having a high IQ means NOTHING if you don't use it for anything.

It seems you only want to have a high IQ to prove your superiority, which seems pretty shallow.

I don't really understand the male psyche well in this regard because I'm not a man, but I do understand that during adolescence and young adulthood men desperately seek out things that will make them stand out, and prove their worth amongst all other men. It's a fierce competitive drive that some have, and this drive is intensified in people who already feel like they either have to prove their worth, or they're just worthless to begin with.

If you already felt worthy enough, you wouldn't need all this external validation in order to prove it.

The guy with the fish avatar was right - you need a psychologist because you are dealing with an inferiority complex, and it probably stems from the thing you mentioned about your school experiences as a child.

I would book that appointment right away!
Suicidal ideation is no joke!

Best of luck
<3


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Ben8 said:


> I have an obsession that ruins my life.
> 
> I'm so frustrated and suicidal at the minute that it's hard to gather my thoughts, but I'll try to keep it short.
> 
> All through my elementary school and middle school career, I was always average, or slightly below. I never got into gifted programs. I was always put in the slow reading groups. I had to go to tutoring to stay on par with the average person. I always worked twice as hard to get half the result. It must have festered in me. I was especially poor at math, but with some work, I took AP Calculus in high school, but failed miserably with a C while my friends, like they always have, succeeded easily. One in particular never went to the class, came in, aced the exams.
> 
> Fast forward to present day college. I am an undergrad for engineering. I have a 4.0 GPA and all that; I am doing fine.
> 
> Every day I want to kill myself because I can't stand the fact that I have normal intelligence at best. I personally believe that intelligence is mostly given at birth. It's not something I can achieve. Remembering facts won't do it. Studying hard won't do it. Exercising my brain won't do much. I have a friend who never goes to class and just simply understands concepts so easily. He's lazy, but far more intelligent. I get the better grades and understand the concepts more in depth because I spend all day studying.
> 
> That's not the point. I don't care about success. I just want to be naturally smarter than everyone else. The only conclusion I can come up with is my childhood must have festered in me and it's producing this. I don't really know what to do to fix this, but it's something I have always been fixated on.


I am "gifted" and I don't care. This is all matter of perspective, but I assure you that receiving a prefabricated letter in the mail about good grades and hard work is a big joke. I also treat college brochures as advertisements. The thing about intelligence is it varies in each person. I may know something about the iPhone but I don't know the first thing about what's happening in the world of politics or economics or how electricity works. So when that happens to overlap with a topic I like, I can think I'm the dumb one. Say someone is well versed on the study of political systems and I had an interest in that. I would feel stupid, but I also must remember that I have my own specialties. Learning is at will, I cannot force learning. But it's really what you want to know that matters. I could attempt to reach a book on physics right now and get nothing out of it if I don't really care to learn it. Find something you want to know, you desire to know and then you will become an expert. Even the people who are stereotypically considered dumb seem to know about and be passionate about some topic.


----------



## Deejaz

I know people who are musically gifted, while I've always struggled with the subject all my life. My concentration is off, my motivation is off, nothing registers in my head.. for the 4 years of Music, even at times that I tried, I could say that I have learned next to none. 
It's quite opposite in philosophy and advance maths however. People are specifically more intelligent in some areas than others. You know that of course.

You said something about memorize, process, understand.. be grateful that your capable of all of that. People work best at their own pace. I myself, see no worth in others intelligence as well as mine if I don't use it. You mentioned 'feelings', the ability to give something of worth. That's the problem right? A gift is nothing if it isn't used. 

Working hard is what really matters, the battle of will, control, determination, belief.. that's what makes successful people.
IQ is just a number. Someone intelligent who do not know anything, might as well be dumb.


----------



## Word Dispenser

@Ben8: You need to get it out of your head that intelligence is something you're born with. It simply isn't.

Your capability to understand and master concepts quickly and easily comes from how interested you are in it, how much time you're willing to put into it, and how much effort you are willing to put into it. That's it.

Time + Interest + Effort = Mastery.

I became good at drawing/painting, _not _because I had a natural affinity for it. I had to work damn hard, and spend a lot of time on it, putting in my interest, time, and effort.

I was _not _someone who was good at drawing/painting when I was a kid. I was one of the kids who was jealous of the ones who could do that. Now, I'm probably better than them, and I started in highschool.

You want a tangible example of my work, as proof that I'm not just boasting?

Some studies:

















This level of achievement is possible in _any _endeavour. You just need time + interest + effort.

The more interested you are in the subject, the less time and effort it takes.


----------



## yet another intj

Ben8 said:


> All through my elementary school and middle school career, I was always average, or slightly below.


Career? Come on you were just busy struggling with collective mediocracy. There was nothing you have chosen to blame yourself. Those structures are designed for blunt indoctrination, not deciding who's going to be a talented artist or a genius. Your one and only responsibility was surviving while preserving your most important capability as a human being: Questioning shit from your own perspective. Apparently you made it right even if it's not enough to make others superficially happy.



Ben8 said:


> I never got into gifted programs. I was always put in the slow reading groups.


Nothing is that simple... What if you were reading slower than others because you were gifted beyond their practical expectations?



Ben8 said:


> I had to go to tutoring to stay on par with the average person. I always worked twice as hard to get half the result. It must have festered in me. I was especially poor at math, but with some work, I took AP Calculus in high school, but failed miserably with a C while my friends, like they always have, succeeded easily. One in particular never went to the class, came in, aced the exams.


Everybody have a different way to grasp the very essence of those things. You probably didn't fail, you just never understood and it's not your mistake. They are the ones who have to teach the basics of those things properly. If you honestly worked hard enough, they are the ones who wasted your ambition. It's ridiculously easy to shove a particular approach down your throat and call you stupid just because you can't digest it.



Ben8 said:


> Fast forward to present day college. I am an undergrad for engineering. I have a 4.0 GPA and all that; I am doing fine.


In my honest opinion, that sounds good.



Ben8 said:


> Every day I want to kill myself because I can't stand the fact that I have normal intelligence at best. I personally believe that intelligence is mostly given at birth. It's not something I can achieve. Remembering facts won't do it. Studying hard won't do it. Exercising my brain won't do much. I have a friend who never goes to class and just simply understands concepts so easily. He's lazy, but far more intelligent. I get the better grades and understand the concepts more in depth because I spend all day studying.


They are not intelligent... They are just smart and far more motivated by prize-punishment cycles. It's not making them superior by any means about their capability of creating genuine ideas or solving original problems. First, you have to learn how to learn things. Some people are naturally compatible with traditional representations and some others simply need to learn the very same things by following a longer way with complicated methods. Your true performance will be surfaced when you feel secure and familiar.



Ben8 said:


> That's not the point. I don't care about success. I just want to be naturally smarter than everyone else.


You can't... Just like they can't be intelligent by their own blunt desire.



Ben8 said:


> The only conclusion I can come up with is my childhood must have festered in me and it's producing this. I don't really know what to do to fix this, but it's something I have always been fixated on.


Well... You are aware of your problem and that's already a huge step. The solution will be a mixture of acceptance, discovering and also participating the universe beyond this or that professor and his/her rhetoric.


----------



## bmwoodson

Ben8 said:


> I have an obsession that ruins my life.
> 
> I'm so frustrated and suicidal at the minute that it's hard to gather my thoughts, but I'll try to keep it short.
> 
> All through my elementary school and middle school career, I was always average, or slightly below. I never got into gifted programs. I was always put in the slow reading groups. I had to go to tutoring to stay on par with the average person. I always worked twice as hard to get half the result. It must have festered in me. I was especially poor at math, but with some work, I took AP Calculus in high school, but failed miserably with a C while my friends, like they always have, succeeded easily. One in particular never went to the class, came in, aced the exams.
> 
> Fast forward to present day college. I am an undergrad for engineering. I have a 4.0 GPA and all that; I am doing fine.
> 
> Every day I want to kill myself because I can't stand the fact that I have normal intelligence at best. I personally believe that intelligence is mostly given at birth. It's not something I can achieve. Remembering facts won't do it. Studying hard won't do it. Exercising my brain won't do much. I have a friend who never goes to class and just simply understands concepts so easily. He's lazy, but far more intelligent. I get the better grades and understand the concepts more in depth because I spend all day studying.
> 
> That's not the point. I don't care about success. I just want to be naturally smarter than everyone else. The only conclusion I can come up with is my childhood must have festered in me and it's producing this. I don't really know what to do to fix this, but it's something I have always been fixated on.


I agree with previous posters in this thread that yours seems to be more of an emotional problem than one of personal intellectual deficiency.

Regardless, I have been thoroughly studying the subject of psychometrics and intelligence for years, and can assure you that much of what you've learned about I.Q. is dead wrong. Modern authorities will tell you that general intelligence is an immutable trait inherited through genetics because they know so little about the fundamental nature of intelligence. They are severely mistaken in their assertion; intelligence can be increased.

I have devised experimental training that has potential to skyrocket general intelligence by measure previously unimaginable, based on principles of a radical new paradigm that I am confident will soon replace current theory. 

I am willing to further explain the theory and show you how this training is done if you're interested.


----------



## Ben8

Word Dispenser said:


> @_Ben8_: You need to get it out of your head that intelligence is something you're born with. It simply isn't.
> 
> Your capability to understand and master concepts quickly and easily comes from how interested you are in it, how much time you're willing to put into it, and how much effort you are willing to put into it. That's it.
> 
> Time + Interest + Effort = Mastery.
> 
> I became good at drawing/painting, _not _because I had a natural affinity for it. I had to work damn hard, and spend a lot of time on it, putting in my interest, time, and effort.
> 
> I was _not _someone who was good at drawing/painting when I was a kid. I was one of the kids who was jealous of the ones who could do that. Now, I'm probably better than them, and I started in highschool.
> 
> You want a tangible example of my work, as proof that I'm not just boasting?
> 
> Some studies:
> 
> View attachment 260370
> 
> 
> View attachment 260378
> 
> 
> This level of achievement is possible in _any _endeavour. You just need time + interest + effort.
> 
> The more interested you are in the subject, the less time and effort it takes.


My own personal experiences contradict your argument. A friend I have at this university doesn't study or work hard. He's only doing engineering because he doesn't know what he wants to do. His life consists of movies, drugs, energy drinks, fast food, sleep, and comes to class on occasion. However, when he is in class, he understands concepts faster. In math class, we are both taught a new mathematical principle and then told to do practice problem x during class. Everyone works on practice problem x to test their understanding on what the professor just taught the class. I usually always struggle and he understands it right away. After class, he doesn't give school a second thought while I go to my room and study. He commends me on how hard I work. I work hard and understand the concept that night, the next day, or whenever. I sometimes understand things better than him because I went that extra mile. Knowledge isn't the priority here, however. It is the ability to quickly and easily understand an abstract concept easily with little to no effort.


----------



## Ben8

bmwoodson said:


> I agree with previous posters in this thread that yours seems to be more of an emotional problem than one of personal intellectual deficiency.
> 
> Regardless, I have been thoroughly studying the subject of psychometrics and intelligence for years, and can assure you that much of what you've learned about I.Q. is dead wrong. Modern authorities will tell you that general intelligence is an immutable trait inherited through genetics because they know so little about the fundamental nature of intelligence. They are severely mistaken in their assertion; intelligence can be increased.
> 
> I have devised experimental training that has potential to skyrocket general intelligence by measure previously unimaginable, based on principles of a radical new paradigm that I am confident will soon replace current theory.
> 
> I am willing to further explain the theory and show you how this training is done if you're interested.


I am more than interested to understand your ideas.


----------



## Ben8

Deejaz said:


> I know people who are musically gifted, while I've always struggled with the subject all my life. My concentration is off, my motivation is off, nothing registers in my head.. for the 4 years of Music, even at times that I tried, I could say that I have learned next to none.
> It's quite opposite in philosophy and advance maths however. People are specifically more intelligent in some areas than others. You know that of course.
> 
> You said something about memorize, process, understand.. be grateful that your capable of all of that. People work best at their own pace. I myself, see no worth in others intelligence as well as mine if I don't use it. You mentioned 'feelings', the ability to give something of worth. That's the problem right? A gift is nothing if it isn't used.
> 
> Working hard is what really matters, the battle of will, control, determination, belief.. that's what makes successful people.
> IQ is just a number. Someone intelligent who do not know anything, might as well be dumb.


Results matter like everyone says. However, in this particular situation, it isn't about application for me. It isn't whether or not I am useful, what I do is useful, etc. Achievements are not part of the equation. I don't want the products of geniuses, but the gift of intelligence.


----------



## Ben8

yet another intj said:


> Career? Come on you were just busy struggling with collective mediocracy. There was nothing you have chosen to blame yourself. Those structures are designed for blunt indoctrination, not deciding who's going to be a talented artist or a genius. Your one and only responsibility was surviving while preserving your most important capability as a human being: Questioning shit from your own perspective. Apparently you made it right even if it's not enough to make others superficially happy.
> 
> 
> Nothing is that simple... What if you were reading slower than others because you were gifted beyond their practical expectations?
> 
> 
> Everybody have a different way to grasp the very essence of those things. You probably didn't fail, you just never understood and it's not your mistake. They are the ones who have to teach the basics of those things properly. If you honestly worked hard enough, they are the ones who wasted your ambition. It's ridiculously easy to shove a particular approach down your throat and call you stupid just because you can't digest it.
> 
> 
> In my honest opinion, that sounds good.
> 
> 
> They are not intelligent... They are just smart and far more motivated by prize-punishment cycles. It's not making them superior by any means about their capability of creating genuine ideas or solving original problems. First, you have to learn how to learn things. Some people are naturally compatible with traditional representations and some others simply need to learn the very same things by following a longer way with complicated methods. Your true performance will be surfaced when you feel secure and familiar.
> 
> 
> You can't... Just like they can't be intelligent by their own blunt desire.
> 
> 
> Well... You are aware of your problem and that's already a huge step. The solution will be a mixture of acceptance, discovering and also participating the universe beyond this or that professor and his/her rhetoric.


How do you explain classmates of mine at this third tier university that understand concepts quicker and easier than me without putting forth the same amount of effort? How is this not superiority on their part?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Ben8 said:


> My own personal experiences contradict your argument. A friend I have at this university doesn't study or work hard. He's only doing engineering because he doesn't know what he wants to do. His life consists of movies, drugs, energy drinks, fast food, sleep, and comes to class on occasion. However, when he is in class, he understands concepts faster. In math class, we are both taught a new mathematical principle and then told to do practice problem x during class. Everyone works on practice problem x to test their understanding on what the professor just taught the class. I usually always struggle and he understands it right away. After class, he doesn't give school a second thought while I go to my room and study. He commends me on how hard I work. I work hard and understand the concept that night, the next day, or whenever. I sometimes understand things better than him because I went that extra mile. Knowledge isn't the priority here, however. It is the ability to quickly and easily understand an abstract concept easily with little to no effort.


What you fail to realize, I think, is that your friend is looking at a new mathematical principle with more interest than he is telling you. The more interest we have, the faster we pick up on something, and the less effort it takes.

There are other variables, of course.

There's his age, or experience, for one. He may have more experience with certain things that give him an edge over this material. 

I have noticed that with my experience, I think much quicker and grasp concepts much easier/quicker than those younger than me. 

I may seem like a venerable genius, in comparison. Particularly when I was going to school.

He may not know what to do with his life, but he knew what he was good at. He can look at a new mathematical principle with a certain element of excitement/interest-- and a definite foundation of experience.

I get the feeling you weren't there with these other friends/students who pick up on this stuff quicker than you, before they got there. How they were taught and how much they were taught. No one is on the same level in terms of knowledge and experience. I know for a _fact _that someone can be slow at any subject because there are a lot of gaps in their education.


----------



## Deejaz

the question is why? is that why you're depressed? It's a gift, that is all it is. 
What do you wish to do with the gift of intelligence? Learn things faster and easier? even the smartest in my grade who gets 100%'s work hard.

so what is it??


----------



## perpetuallyreticent

Bassmasterzac said:


> Honestly, intelligence doesn't seem to be your problem. To me, it sounds like you have low self-esteem and , thus, have created an inferiority complex.


Um, this. Seriously, though? You're doubting your intelligence and you have a 4.0 GPA? And you say "I'm doing fine."?????? I have a friend with a 3.0 GPA and I consider her beyond intelligent. So, uh, yeah... you're doing more than fine. You are one of those people you're envious of, you've just created this inferiority complex and it's taken you over, dude. 

a GPA doesn't really measure intelligence imo, by the way. But if you can have a 4.0 GPA and be as casual as you are about it, I'm sure you're far from average intelligence.


----------



## Ben8

Word Dispenser said:


> What you fail to realize, I think, is that your friend is looking at a new mathematical principle with more interest than he is telling you. The more interest we have, the faster we pick up on something, and the less effort it takes.
> 
> There are other variables, of course.
> 
> There's his age, or experience, for one. He may have more experience with certain things that give him an edge over this material.
> 
> I have noticed that with my experience, I think much quicker and grasp concepts much easier/quicker than those younger than me.
> 
> I may seem like a venerable genius, in comparison. Particularly when I was going to school.
> 
> He may not know what to do with his life, but he knew what he was good at. He can look at a new mathematical principle with a certain element of excitement/interest-- and a definite foundation of experience.


I can't quantify his level of enthusiasm for math, but I find it difficult to imagine him liking it more than me. I do math for fun. He just comes to class and understands it easily. Math is one of my favorite subjects, and yet, I'm not naturally good at it. I don't understand concepts easily, but with practice, I learn it, love it, and all that. He was explaining to me that, when he was in high school, he always got A's throughout middle school because his parents pushed him to. In high school, he said he got decent grades, but he never tried. He would make A's on all his tests, but never study. The reason he didn't have a 4.0 or whatever was because he never bothered to do his homework. He ended up getting zeros for the homework portion of his classes, but he didn't care; he was lazy. 

This is exactly what I am talking about. I had another friend in high school that was similar. He was placed in some kind of special reading classes in elementary school because he was so ahead of everyone else. He is very successful right now and I always remember him never studying or doing any work at all. Did he enjoy math? Of course, but so did I. Did he do it for fun? Rarely, if ever. He also is an extremely good writer. He is actually a writer for his university's newsletter. He is a stats major with a minor in computer science. 

It's people like this who simply understand things better. This is what I am spending so much time talking about. I devote more time to studying and learning these topics than a lot of these people, but they somehow understand things easier than me. I have to put in so much more work. I'm not opposed to working, but I am opposed to the idea that genetically they are superior. I really do not see any way to understand brand new concepts easier/better. I can _learn _concepts and things like that, but I can't just become more intelligent.


----------



## yet another intj

Ben8 said:


> How do you explain classmates of mine at this third tier university that understand concepts quicker and easier than me without putting forth the same amount of effort? How is this not superiority on their part?


If you are limiting your self worth by grades... Indeed, you are a living statue of failure. Your classmates have longer legs and bigger feet. So, they are simply running faster. In the other hand, Evaluation methods don't care about education. It's nothing but elimination. Scientific disciplines are bigger than traditionally enforced practices of competition. It's not the only school, professor, culture, etc to follow if you want to truly enjoy a profession. Nothing is discovered or invented by them. Most of the geniuses, including the relatively intelligent people who participated to the evolution of our civilization hated school. You already said that you don't care about success. So, the rest should be your honest ambition.


----------



## Ben8

Deejaz said:


> the question is why? is that why you're depressed? It's a gift, that is all it is.
> What do you wish to do with the gift of intelligence? Learn things faster and easier? even the smartest in my grade who gets 100%'s work hard.
> 
> so what is it??


This is where the problem stems to, I believe, possibly my past. This is where the emotional side kicks in. I often contemplate if I had the choice between actually being a genius, but not being recognized or seen as one, or if I were not a genius, but people thought I was. Ultimately, I think the issue here is I feel inferior to people intellectually and I want, "revenge." I often see myself talking down to people with less education. This does not necessarily imply less intelligence, but it's all I have. It's almost a feeling of revenge from feeling like an idiot all through school. Teachers would separate students based on how smart they are. Awards would be given to the smart kids. The smart kids were better. I was average. 

I think it's just this idea of wanting to be seen as intellectually superior to most people. I don't believe I feel I need to be the smartest person in the world; I would be ok with some people being smarter. It's just the fact that I have an average intelligence at best and I work hard like everyone else to get decent results.


----------



## Ben8

yet another intj said:


> If you are limiting your self worth by grades... Indeed, you are a living statue of failure. Your classmates have longer legs and bigger feet. So, they are simply running faster. In the other hand, Evaluation methods can't care about education. It's nothing but elimination. Scientific disciplines are bigger than traditionally enforced practices of competition. It's not the only school, professor, culture, etc to follow if you want to truly enjoy a profession. Nothing is discovered or invented by them. Most of the geniuses, including the relatively intelligent people who participated to the evolution of our civilization hated school. You already said that you don't care about success. So, the rest should be your honest ambition.


But grades aren't necessarily what I am completely referring to. It's more of....I'm not sure how legit this could be seen as, but I think as kids (you know, in 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc.) we don't really have "ambition." I don't see any 1st graders who simply work hard and get A's and are focused on excellence. It seems these philosophies come with maturation. It appears that grades in early childhood reflect the amount of genetic advantage you have because, at that point, work ethic is a secondary effect at that age. Henceforth, you know, they succeeded at having that intellectual advantage because of how well they did as children. If you fast forward to my current situation, a 4.0 GPA is a product of work ethic alone. This is why grades, to me, don't matter now like they did as a kid. As a kid, it seemed everyone worked just as hard as everyone else. Everyone was on an even playing field. In that even playing field, I was below average. People assume I am above average now because of grades, but that's just a product of being average intelligence and working a little harder.


----------



## drmiller100

Ben8 said:


> " I often see myself talking down to people with less education. This does not necessarily imply less intelligence, but it's all I have..



now is your chance to be a better person than those who put you down.

time to grow up, and be a great human being.


----------



## Ben8

perpetuallyreticent said:


> Um, this. Seriously, though? You're doubting your intelligence and you have a 4.0 GPA? And you say "I'm doing fine."?????? I have a friend with a 3.0 GPA and I consider her beyond intelligent. So, uh, yeah... you're doing more than fine. You are one of those people you're envious of, you've just created this inferiority complex and it's taken you over, dude.
> 
> a GPA doesn't really measure intelligence imo, by the way. But if you can have a 4.0 GPA and be as casual as you are about it, I'm sure you're far from average intelligence.


The last sentence you stated is very interesting to me. "But if you can have a 4.0 GPA and be as casual as you are about it, I'm sure you're far from average intelligence." Now, why is being casual an element to intelligence? Oh, it goes along with what I have been saying. The 4.0 GPA could mean anything. It could mean I was lazy and just knew everything, thus being smart. It could mean I needed to spend an exorbitant amount of time, energy, and money on tutors, extra help, etc. and with proper work ethic and study materials, I mustered a 4.0 GPA. The GPA only says so much. If I never went to class and aced all my exams just because I heard the teacher explain it once, you may have a point in saying I am above average intelligence. This has been my position since the start and you supported that.


----------



## Ben8

drmiller100 said:


> now is your chance to be a better person than those who put you down.
> 
> time to grow up, and be a great human being.


I flip-flop between dishing it back out, or making sure no one feels the way I feel/felt. 

Being a great human, to me, is more along the basis of intelligence than anything else. I am, I guess, simply not enthusiastic about being kind to people. If my goals are met, I will indirectly help people through my future career.


----------



## Deejaz

Ben8 said:


> This is where the problem stems to, I believe, possibly my past. This is where the emotional side kicks in. I often contemplate if I had the choice between actually being a genius, but not being recognized or seen as one, or if I were not a genius, but people thought I was. Ultimately, I think the issue here is I feel inferior to people intellectually and I want, "revenge." I often see myself talking down to people with less education. This does not necessarily imply less intelligence, but it's all I have. It's almost a feeling of revenge from feeling like an idiot all through school. Teachers would separate students based on how smart they are. Awards would be given to the smart kids. The smart kids were better. I was average.
> 
> I think it's just this idea of wanting to be seen as intellectually superior to most people. I don't believe I feel I need to be the smartest person in the world; I would be ok with some people being smarter. It's just the fact that I have an average intelligence at best and I work hard like everyone else to get decent results.


I'm in the same situation. I work hard, I even top my exams at times. And it always seems like the subjects I'm good at doesn't give out awards eg. Philosophy or given to the person with 'consistent effort' or 'most improved' eg. English. I have always found awards to be unfair. I even got MVP in basketball trophy in which I know there are other people who are more deserving. I work hard, and I rest satisfied with my results~ you should be too. I don't think it's impossible for you to beat the intelligent ones if you work even more harder, I know I did. That is if that's your goal.

I'm kinda average too.. jack of all trades, master of none. Atleast not yet.

I see myself as intellectually inclined towards meaning, purpose, human behavior, human experience, truths, inner drive, etc. I theorize in my head all the time about all these things. And I don't think I have time to mind what others see me as, as long as it's not so bad. Maybe some solitude and self-reflection will help you understand your situation and perspective more. You're not so happy, hows other areas of life?


----------



## perpetuallyreticent

Ben8 said:


> The last sentence you stated is very interesting to me. "But if you can have a 4.0 GPA and be as casual as you are about it, I'm sure you're far from average intelligence." Now, why is being casual an element to intelligence? Oh, it goes along with what I have been saying. The 4.0 GPA could mean anything. It could mean I was lazy and just knew everything, thus being smart. It could mean I needed to spend an exorbitant amount of time, energy, and money on tutors, extra help, etc. and with proper work ethic and study materials, I mustered a 4.0 GPA. The GPA only says so much. If I never went to class and aced all my exams just because I heard the teacher explain it once, you may have a point in saying I am above average intelligence. This has been my position since the start and you supported that.


I'm just giving you my opinion in what I've gathered from your original post. You seem very casual in stating you have a 4.0 GPA, which leads me to the assumption that you didn't work very hard for it. Usually if someone goes around telling people they have a 4.0 GPA, it's a pretty big deal for most people because _most people_ have to work really hard for a steady 4.0. Then there's the people that it comes naturally to and disregard the importance of it because in hindsight for them, What's so amazing about something that came so naturally to them? That's just the impression I got, but hey, I don't know you, so..

But with that, academic intelligence at the very least, seemingly comes natural to you and there's no need for you to doubt your intelligence in that aspect. I think what you're striving for is a natural grasp of all things, whether they be concepts/theories or the like, without having to struggle in the least to acquire or retain that knowledge. Listen, if it doesn't come naturally to you, it just doesn't. That doesn't mean that you can't achieve the same things that the people you're envious of can achieve. It may be harder, but it's far from impossible.

Honestly, imo, it's very impressive seeing someone push themselves past their supposed limits in order to achieve a level of intellectuality just for the sake of it. But that's just me.


----------



## bmwoodson

Well, for starters, we need suitable definition of intelligence. Only through accurate perception of intelligence can a person detect quantity thereof, or changes to it. Detecting quantity is crucial for deliberately effecting value.

Wikipedia describes "intelligence" in the following way:

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so."

Merriam-Webster defines intelligence as:

"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" ; or

"the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"

The above definitions and description are hopelessly flawed, offer little useful information outside of the usual intuitive understanding of intelligence most possess, and woefully contribute to the general inability of experts to produce meaningful improvements in intelligence. There is still no consensus definition among researchers for the word, "intelligence".

In my wide research on the subject, I have found that intelligence is most accurately defined as "_the ability to differentiate_". 

That's it. There is no instance of intelligence anywhere, at any time, and in any form, which that definition doesn't totally encapsulate.

Please feel free to dispute or comment before I go any further. I would rather address any reservations about what has written before moving on. Also, if necessary, I can provide new scientific evidence which supports this view and/or demonstrate this concept for you using practical examples.


----------



## brajenful

I would be the happiest person on the planet if I could be as determined as you are. I never had to study at all to maintain higher than average grades, and there are two subjects that I'm the best at in my class at the moment, but the fact that I never had to study means that I never had to work hard to be better than most people, and I never really earned any of it. This is what intelligence does for me. It destroyed my will to work hard, because I simply didn't need to. And do you know what that means? That means that one day when intelligence is not going to be enough, I'm going to fail, while people who are average or below average but worked hard will succeed, and I will only be able to blame myself, because it will be my fault.
With all that being said, being more intelligent sure is more comfortable, but it's not everything.


----------



## Ben8

perpetuallyreticent said:


> I'm just giving you my opinion in what I've gathered from your original post. You seem very casual in stating you have a 4.0 GPA, which leads me to the assumption that you didn't work very hard for it. Usually if someone goes around telling people they have a 4.0 GPA, it's a pretty big deal for most people because _most people_ have to work really hard for a steady 4.0. Then there's the people that it comes naturally to and disregard the importance of it because in hindsight for them, What's so amazing about something that came so naturally to them? That's just the impression I got, but hey, I don't know you, so..
> 
> But with that, academic intelligence at the very least, seemingly comes natural to you and there's no need for you to doubt your intelligence in that aspect. I think what you're striving for is a natural grasp of all things, whether they be concepts/theories or the like, without having to struggle in the least to acquire or retain that knowledge. Listen, if it doesn't come naturally to you, it just doesn't. That doesn't mean that you can't achieve the same things that the people you're envious of can achieve. It may be harder, but it's far from impossible.
> 
> Honestly, imo, it's very impressive seeing someone push themselves past their supposed limits in order to achieve a level of intellectuality just for the sake of it. But that's just me.


Spot on. You nailed it. I don't want achievement I have to work for. I want the natural abilities of a genius. I worked extremely hard for this 4.0 to this point. I was ecstatic over it initially. The feelings of success are fleeting to say the least. Now, the 4.0 doesn't matter because I had to work for it too much. This really is a crippling thing for me.


----------



## Ben8

brajenful said:


> I would be the happiest person on the planet if I could be as determined as you are. I never had to study at all to maintain higher than average grades, and there are two subjects that I'm the best at in my class at the moment, but the fact that I never had to study means that I never had to work hard to be better than most people, and I never really earned any of it. This is what intelligence does for me. It destroyed my will to work hard, because I simply didn't need to. And do you know what that means? That means that one day when intelligence is not going to be enough, I'm going to fail, while people who are average or below average but worked hard will succeed, and I will only be able to blame myself, because it will be my fault.
> With all that being said, being more intelligent sure is more comfortable, but it's not everything.


I can logically understand what you are saying. It is what I have heard all my life. It makes sense. However, for me, since I am apathetic toward end results, for the most part, the process is most important to me. The ideal process for me is to naturally understand things because it shows you are different--above average.


----------



## Ben8

bmwoodson said:


> Well, for starters, we need suitable definition of intelligence. Only through accurate perception of intelligence can a person detect quantity thereof, or changes to it. Detecting quantity is crucial for deliberately effecting value.
> 
> Wikipedia describes "intelligence" in the following way:
> 
> "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so."
> 
> Merriam-Webster defines intelligence as:
> 
> "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" ; or
> 
> "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"
> 
> The above definitions and description are hopelessly flawed, offer little useful information outside of the usual intuitive understanding of intelligence most possess, and woefully contribute to the general inability of experts to produce meaningful improvements in intelligence. There is still no consensus definition among researchers for the word, "intelligence".
> 
> In my wide research on the subject, I have found that intelligence is most accurately defined as "_the ability to differentiate_".
> 
> That's it. There is no instance of intelligence anywhere, at any time, and in any form, which that definition doesn't totally encapsulate.
> 
> Please feel free to dispute or comment before I go any further. I would rather address any reservations about what has written before moving on. Also, if necessary, I can provide new scientific evidence which supports this view and/or demonstrate this concept for you using practical examples.


That definition is probably the most stable I have heard on the subject of intelligence. However, it's a sweeping generalization. That's like saying a suitable definition for intelligence is "thought." Let's keep intelligence and genius within the framework of abstraction and conceptual achievements and not "geniuses" like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. I think intelligence needs to be defined more along the lines of discrete units of measure such as memory, identifying and connecting patterns, creativity, and/or logic. I understand the only way to "correctly" identify intelligence is through a generalized definition to cover all grounds, but what scientific evidence do you have?


----------



## drmiller100

bmwoodson said:


> W
> 
> In my wide research on the subject, I have found that intelligence is most accurately defined as "_the ability to differentiate_".
> 
> .


that is certainly one level. 

Empathy, Integration, synthesis, building, inventiveness, creativity are all other great and valid definitions.


----------



## drmiller100

Ben8 said:


> I flip-flop between dishing it back out, or making sure no one feels the way I feel/felt.
> 
> Being a great human, to me, is more along the basis of intelligence than anything else. I am, I guess, simply not enthusiastic about being kind to people. If my goals are met, I will indirectly help people through my future career.



everyone wants what they don't have. I'm brilliant by anyone's standards. I have the kind of intelligence you wish you had.

But I don't have follow through, I don't have the ability to grind through great grades in a shitty class, and I don't have any understanding of people. 

We all want what we don't have.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Ben8 said:


> I can't quantify his level of enthusiasm for math, but I find it difficult to imagine him liking it more than me. I do math for fun. He just comes to class and understands it easily. Math is one of my favorite subjects, and yet, I'm not naturally good at it. I don't understand concepts easily, but with practice, I learn it, love it, and all that. He was explaining to me that, when he was in high school, he always got A's throughout middle school because his parents pushed him to. In high school, he said he got decent grades, but he never tried. He would make A's on all his tests, but never study. The reason he didn't have a 4.0 or whatever was because he never bothered to do his homework. He ended up getting zeros for the homework portion of his classes, but he didn't care; he was lazy.
> 
> This is exactly what I am talking about. I had another friend in high school that was similar. He was placed in some kind of special reading classes in elementary school because he was so ahead of everyone else. He is very successful right now and I always remember him never studying or doing any work at all. Did he enjoy math? Of course, but so did I. Did he do it for fun? Rarely, if ever. He also is an extremely good writer. He is actually a writer for his university's newsletter. He is a stats major with a minor in computer science.
> 
> It's people like this who simply understand things better. This is what I am spending so much time talking about. I devote more time to studying and learning these topics than a lot of these people, but they somehow understand things easier than me. I have to put in so much more work. I'm not opposed to working, but I am opposed to the idea that genetically they are superior. I really do not see any way to understand brand new concepts easier/better. I can _learn _concepts and things like that, but I can't just become more intelligent.


Well, you're defining intelligence by the speed and effort of information retention, basically. That's what it sounds like to me, anyway.

Because your friend had a foundation of doing very well, even though they coasted through highschool, they have the experience of knowing how to pull it off. And since their parents made them, I can bet you that it took them a lot of effort to do it, too, at that time. No matter what anyone tells you, brags or boasts about, that's what it comes down to.

I always felt very slow in school-- I've _never _had good grades up to the end of highschool and into the early years of college, and never really put in a lot of effort at school. I coasted by until I mid-college, where I suddenly flourished.  

A lot of this is because of my ADD, but that's another button altogether. 

I managed to coast through college as well, but with very good grades. Something just ended up clicking, from my experiences, and I became enthused in the material, like a sponge.

I can spend a couple of days learning Chinese and being fairly adequate at the pronunciation and understanding of it, simply because I might have the interest and time to take to learn it.

Honestly, I think that you just have to learn how to better retain information. That's really all you're complaining about. You might forget/miss something in what you're reading, and thus the big picture eludes you.

Ultimately: Intelligence doesn't really have to do with how quickly you 'get' something; it's the effect of having gotten it. Just my thoughts.


----------



## bmwoodson

Ben8 said:


> That definition is probably the most stable I have heard on the subject of intelligence. However, it's a sweeping generalization. That's like saying a suitable definition for intelligence is "thought."


Not quite. It is a pivotal concept which needs statement before more specificity can be introduced. It's kind of difficult to seriously discuss the best pepperoni pizza in town if the persons involved have no idea what pizza is.



Ben8 said:


> Let's keep intelligence and genius within the framework of abstraction and conceptual achievements and not "geniuses" like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods.


I understood from the get-go that your aim was specifically _psychometric_ intelligence, not just intelligence. I am, however, attempting to proceed methodically to reduce miscommunication and inefficiency.



Ben8 said:


> I think intelligence needs to be defined more along the lines of discrete units of measure such as memory, identifying and connecting patterns, creativity, and/or logic.


You probably mean that psychometric or conceptual intelligence needs to be defined more along those lines, and I agree that it does need to be rigorously explored in a more conceptualization-relevant way, which I intend to do. 

I strenuously reject the notion that creativity is a emergent property of intelligence. What is normally regarded as creativity can better be described as "associative horizon", and that is antithetical to intelligence.

There are many a creative poet, world-class musician, and errant humorist that aren't particularly bright.



Ben8 said:


> I understand the only way to "correctly" identify intelligence is through a generalized definition to cover all grounds, but what scientific evidence do you have?


If you don't mind, I'll attack this two ways: rationally and empirically.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a study from an unsophisticated version of my idea, which I discovered after I adopted my current theory on intelligence and developed its concomitant training. It's from a slowly growing body of research still in its infancy on "relational frame theory".

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/154643/cassidy-et-al-1105.pdf

Above is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the practical implementation of therefrom inspiring principles, which I will describe in full detail in a later post.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next is the definition of intelligence, "the ability to differentiate", whose existence the authors of the above study erroneously reject as insignificant. 

Here we have the last person permitted by MIT to triple major, Harvard Institute fellow and former child prodigy Alex Wissner Gross, who marvelously demonstrates a reverse implication of the above definition using A.I. that considers the greatest number of possibilities to maximize intelligence. By reversing the reasoning that the most intelligent machine is one which "thinks" the most options, we can arrive at the conclusion that maximum differentiation is necessary to see the most options; hence, to be most intelligent.

Alex Wissner-Gross: A new equation for intelligence | Talk Video | TED.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a presentation given by a researcher from many of the published relational frame theory studies. 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a post I wrote some time ago on the subject on a mailing list, in which I proposed a new way for the motivated person of at least normal intelligence to sharply increase "fluid" intelligence (Gf) and learn to think in the way native to persons with highly advanced reasoning skills.

I demonstrated this by using a breakdown of the logic behind the ceiling (hardest) problem from the Denmark Mensa matrix test as an illustration. That question w.r.t. to level of challenge is supposed to be right around the 3 sigma mark - on a SD15 test, as most commonly administered in the U.S., that corresponds to an I.Q. of 145. That's about where the I.Q. scale breaks down; after which point, your I.Q. is widely considered immeasurable by conventional methods.

[/BEGIN POST EXCERPT]

Let's take a look at some of the concepts of the Mensa Denmark online test (http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf, for example) to illustrate our point. Since the test is designed in order of proceeding difficulty (i.e., each subsequent question is harder than the last), it would be helpful not only to examine the last problem or so from the test, but a few of the simple ones as well to compare. Perhaps, a greater order will emerge. 

The first (and debatable) hardest problem is #39 (see attached image). The correct solution would be (B). Why? The problem employs at least two manipulations which we'll refer to as functions for the discussion: a.) movement and b.) substitution.

We'll first look at two earlier (and easier) problems that use either substitution or movement, like #8 and #19 (respectively). (I know that there are multiple ways to solve these problems (or almost any problem for that matter) and that what is "substitution" to one person could be just "completing the set" to another. Problem #8 is one such example. Just bear with me for explanatory purposes.)

Problem #8 (see attached image) is straight-forward enough. If we move from top to bottom, row by row, triangles are substituted with circles; circles with squares; squares with triangles. Plugging in this pattern, algorithm, rule, or whatever else we wish to call it, we find that the answer is (E), that is, a triangle substituted with a circle.

Similar in its simplicity, Problem #19 (sees attached image) uses movement (i.e., the blackened squares move from left to right, row by row, with the last square moving back to the position of the first square in every instance in this and most other tests.).

Now with those two functions in mind, let's move back to Problem #39 and apply them. 

The first three matrices of Problem #39 look like:

X A O A O A X X O (where X's are X's; O's are O's; and triangles are A's) 

A O X A X A X O O

A X A O X O X O A

Now to highlight some salient segments to observe the pattern better [highlights *bolded* instead of highlighted due to unavailability of a font color option]:

X* A O A O A *X X O

A O *X A X A X* O O

A X A *O X O X O* A

We can see that the entire pattern seems to be in motion (from left to right along each matrix), or that there is _movement_, and that the pattern seems to be replacing shapes in an orderly fashion, or that there is _substitution_.

Apply the same logic (or two basic principles of _movement_ and _substitution_) to the last row, and voila! Our inscrutable problem is solved. 

This type of "order" is applied throughout the puzzle, and is apparent throughout reality for that matter. moreoever, every fluid intelligence test I've ever encountered was built in the same manner: introduce a few rudimentary operations, or functions, early enough in the test that they stand nearly in isolation, then apply them more vigorously later in combination with each other. While it's not necessary that all of the functions will be used early, most are, and are readily identified.

[/END POST EXCERPT]


By analyzing this problem, one gets a feel for what I mean by "ontological categories" (called relational frames in the cited study and there-related body of literature), which I can later introduce and are instrumental to the proposed system of training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could cite more evidence such as the related works of the late Israel Prize winning cognitive psychologist Reuven Feuerstein, who brought developmentally delayed childrens' I.Q.'s up to normal (and sometimes beyond) in a matter of less than two years. Or similar ideas elsewhere that have a more incredible and ancient history! But it would be overkill, and germane to my objective in this thread.

The point is one should discard age-old notions of intelligence as an immutable property; such assertions are scientific *inductions* based on fundamental misunderstanding, and which will soon lose their credence as mainstream experts in the field piece together what intelligence is and how to elevate it. 

In the meanwhile, I have isolated a very precise exercise for potentially improving psychometric intelligence, and hope to share it soon.


----------



## bmwoodson

drmiller100 said:


> that is certainly one level.
> 
> Empathy, Integration, synthesis, building, inventiveness, creativity are all other great and valid definitions.


I have a theory about where that fits into the scheme of things which would be too lengthy to share. But the most glaring problem with defining "intelligence" in any of those ways is that they are too specific. A single cell microorganism, for example, probably isn't the most empathic being in the world.

The definition suggested works because it is neither too specific nor too general to apply to everything.


----------

