Can people change?

[Luke Space]

Hi, I'm 25 and my IQ is 118. I've been told that IQ does not change by much throughout a person's lifetime, but whether this is true or not, I remain hopeful that with the right training/lifestyle I will be able to raise it to genius level.

To be blunt, I'm tired of living like a dumbass and not accomplishing anything of value. I'd like to change this. Not just simple changes here and there. That I can do. I'm talking about a full-blown transformation. Developing into a genius and becoming enlightened. Maybe then I'd be of some value to myself and others and create things I can be proud of.

So I'd like to get a discussion started on the topic: can people change? Specifically, can someone go from being "not much" to being an enlightened genius? If it's possible, how? How much work would this require and how long would it take? In any case, I'm in it for the long haul. I'll die trying if I have to.

By the way, I would think most people would want to accomplish such a goal yet most people probably aren't enlightened geniuses. Maybe most people just didn't/don't know how...

Also, are there any Internet resources that could help? I'd like to read anything which could potentially bring me closer to this goal.

Thanks!

[Tomas]

With a palty 118 IQ you better rephrase your questions to that level. At present, your writings are no higher than 107.

Hurry up. You've till the 15th to get it to Genius Forums standards.

[Matt Gregory]

Hi, I'm 25 and my IQ is 118. I've been told that IQ does not change by much throughout a person's lifetime, but whether this is true or not, I remain hopeful that with the right training/lifestyle I will be able to raise it to genius level.

To be blunt, I'm tired of living like a dumbass and not accomplishing anything of value. I'd like to change this. Not just simple changes here and there. That I can do. I'm talking about a full-blown transformation. Developing into a genius and becoming enlightened. Maybe then I'd be of some value to myself and others and create things I can be proud of.

So I'd like to get a discussion started on the topic: can people change? Specifically, can someone go from being "not much" to being an enlightened genius? If it's possible, how? How much work would this require and how long would it take? In any case, I'm in it for the long haul. I'll die trying if I have to.

By the way, I would think most people would want to accomplish such a goal yet most people probably aren't enlightened geniuses. Maybe most people just didn't/don't know how...

Also, are there any Internet resources that could help? I'd like to read anything which could potentially bring me closer to this goal.

Thanks!

Forget your IQ, dude. I'm sure you could increase it if you did puzzles for six hours a day every day for a few years, but who cares about that?

You can change. It's just a matter of stopping doing things that are stupid and begin doing things that are wise.

Reading good books is a great habit to get into. Have you read Kevin Solway's "Poison for the Heart" yet? It's good!
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Who do you believe is an enlightened genius, and why? It's kind of important to see what you mean by this.

[Luke Space]

Forget your IQ, dude. I'm sure you could increase it if you did puzzles for six hours a day every day for a few years, but who cares about that?

I think IQ is very important because it signifies how well the brain works. The better it works, the higher the IQ, and the more potential there is to accomplish great things.

Reading good books is a great habit to get into. Have you read Kevin Solway's "Poison for the Heart" yet? It's good!
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html

I'll read it. Thanks!

Who do you believe is an enlightened genius, and why? It's kind of important to see what you mean by this.

I think Richard Feynman was an enlightened genius.

I'm not quite sure what I mean by "enlightened genius". To me, it simply describes someone who is exceptionally smart. They're not just smart in one area, they're smart in many other ways/areas. Their brain seems to work more efficiently and on a different level (a higher level, if you will) from the average joe.

For instance, Richard Feynman was a great physicist, but he was good at many other things, like playing the bongo drums.

But even so, I'd like to think that the average joe can change, under the right circumstances, and transform themselves into someone of Richard Feynman's caliber.

[Matt Gregory]

Forget your IQ, dude. I'm sure you could increase it if you did puzzles for six hours a day every day for a few years, but who cares about that?

I think IQ is very important because it signifies how well the brain works. The better it works, the higher the IQ, and the more potential there is to accomplish great things.

It's a measure of a certain type of intelligence with a certain type of yardstick, but who came up with this metric? What are they trying to measure? Could their definition of intelligence be colored by their background? Human intelligence is incredibly complex and very little understood. How much can you really find out about a person from a paper test?

Reading good books is a great habit to get into. Have you read Kevin Solway's "Poison for the Heart" yet? It's good!
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html

I'll read it. Thanks!

No problem. This is Kevin's website that we're on, actually. You can discuss whatever you like here (as long as you're civil, of course), but this site was set up to discuss philosophical topics like those found in that book, for the most part. Just an FYI.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I think Richard Feynman was an enlightened genius.

I'm not quite sure what I mean by "enlightened genius". To me, it simply describes someone who is exceptionally smart. They're not just smart in one area, they're smart in many other ways/areas.

So you want to be a polymath. Tell me, off-hand, do you think those who achieve enlightenment, in say the Buddhist tradition, are polymaths?

[Luke Space]

So you want to be a polymath. Tell me, off-hand, do you think those who achieve enlightenment, in say the Buddhist tradition, are polymaths?

I think they would have an easier time becoming polymaths if they chose to do so. Doesn't the brain work better once it's enlightened?

By the way, I'm half way through reading Poison for the Heart. Is there anything else I should read?

[Blair]

http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128

[Dan Rowden]

By the way, I'm half way through reading Poison for the Heart. Is there anything else I should read?

You might want to focus on understanding and genuinely accommodating the content before moving on to anything else. Simple reading - without real comprehension - is meaningless. And there's no point in having anything as a goal if the nature of the goal is not reasonably understood. You should first get an idea what enlightenment really means.

The whole IQ thing is nonsense and irrelevant.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, Luke, it seems like you're reading that awfully fast. Try the following technique and see how it works out for you.

When you read and you come across an idea that you find interesting, don't just push it out of your mind and continue reading. Put the book down and meditate on that idea for awhile. You don't really have to do much but hold it in your mind. This will make its imprint deeper on your memory, but it will also bring up other ideas that are triggered by it. These ideas could be just about anything: abstract imaginings, dreams, fantasies, past wounds, etc. It might sometimes be painful to do this, but stick with it.

A lot of people get bored very easily with ideas, and take that boredom as a sign that they won't gain anything by thinking anymore about it. This is a big mistake.

See, the mind judges and makes connections to things naturally and effortlessly, but if you don't train your mind and direct it at truthful things, it's going to give you garbage. And if you don't feed your mind with new ideas (which are preferably truthful and wise), it's not going to grow. Your mind will be strong when you have thought deeply about a lot of ideas, and you can direct your mind on whatever you wish whenever you wish.

[Luke Space]

You might want to focus on understanding and genuinely accommodating the content before moving on to anything else. Simple reading - without real comprehension - is meaningless. And there's no point in having anything as a goal if the nature of the goal is not reasonably understood. You should first get an idea what enlightenment really means.

Yesterday I finished reading Poison for the Heart. It took me 2 full days because I'm not a fast reader. I believe I understood most of it. You can ask me follow up questions to see if I truly have a good grasp of the material.

By the way, sorry for any grammatical mistakes. It has been 2 years since I've written or read anything. I spent that time being medicated and in front of a TV.

So what is enlightenment to me? In my own words I would say it's correct thinking combined with clarity of thought and control of that thought. The brain, in other words, is working at it's best when it has become enlightened.

I know I'm not enlightened for this very reason: I still get thoughts and impressions which aren't correct and my mind sometimes has a difficult time being still and quiet. I wish to correct this by reading and spending time on here.

The whole IQ thing is nonsense and irrelevant.

Well, let's take 2 people as an example. One has an IQ of 100 and the other has an IQ of 150. Now, give them a demanding task to do. Who do you think will complete the task better? I think you'll find that the person with the highest IQ will.

They just have more potential, in my opinion. This is why I wish to raise my IQ. I suspect that becoming enlightened would naturally raise it. I'm not sure of that, though.

When you read and you come across an idea that you find interesting, don't just push it out of your mind and continue reading. Put the book down and meditate on that idea for awhile. You don't really have to do much but hold it in your mind. This will make its imprint deeper on your memory, but it will also bring up other ideas that are triggered by it. These ideas could be just about anything: abstract imaginings, dreams, fantasies, past wounds, etc. It might sometimes be painful to do this, but stick with it.

That's a good idea, Matt. I'll definitely do that! When I read I usually understand what I'm reading but it's like a thought after another after another and so forth. Makes it hard to concentrate on one thing.

See, the mind judges and makes connections to things naturally and effortlessly, but if you don't train your mind and direct it at truthful things, it's going to give you garbage. And if you don't feed your mind with new ideas (which are preferably truthful and wise), it's not going to grow. Your mind will be strong when you have thought deeply about a lot of ideas, and you can direct your mind on whatever you wish whenever you wish.

Sometimes I like to let me mind run wild and naturally without much effect on my part. Thoughts come and go. Some are wrong and some are right. Other times I try to control it but this seems unnatural and it can be difficult.

I'm sure it just takes practice. I believe I can be whatever I want to be in life. It just takes patience and practice.

Thanks for your input, everyone!

[Luke Space]

By the way, there are several mistakes with the wording on Poison for the Heart. I'm not sure if you're aware of it. I can point them out if you like.

"Alertness" and "The Computer" and "Me, Scholar" and a few more. I have it written down but I didn't do a good job of it because I was too busy reading.

[Luke Space]

I just finished reading the Introduction of The Wisdom of the Infinite and I'm a little puzzled about something.

How can I perfect my understanding of Reality? What is this Reality? Isn't Reality whatever is within me and before me and all around me? That is to say, aren't there an infinite amount of "realities" everywhere we look and don't look? For instance, I'm on my computer typing right now - that is my Reality. But at the same time there are an infinite amount of realities co-existing. Like the sound of rustling of the leaves outside my window, now that I choose to hear/experience it, and the condition of mars at the same time. Many, many things, all happening at once.

The woman at the casino trying to win her money back as she is being offered an alcoholic beverage and the camera above zooming-in as the security behind it looking making sure she isn't cheating and then once satisfied moving onto another suspicious person. And that's only just a small insignificant speck to what is actually happening at any given time.

So is Reality or Ultimate Reality whatever I am or you are experiencing at this instance through our senses? What about our inner and outer life (or world)? By inner life I mean our vast world of thought and by our outer life I mean whatever is outside our minds and around us where ever we look/go.

I think it has been written in Poison for the Heart, if I remember correctly, that there is no inner and external (outer) world. But how can this be? - I have experience with both these so-called worlds!

Would our inner world - our inner life - be considered an illusion? Man, I'm a little confused right now.

Also, what is dualistic thinking? Please provide examples. Thanks!

[Blair]

It has been 2 years since I've written or read anything. I spent that time being medicated and in front of a TV.

Meaning..you were confined to a hospital bed, institutionalized, an unemployed pothead..?

Well, let's take 2 people as an example. One has an IQ of 100 and the other has an IQ of 150. Now, give them a demanding task to do. Who do you think will complete the task better? I think you'll find that the person with the highest IQ will.

It really depends on the task. If it was moving a stack of bricks by hand from one place to another, the 100 IQ would go about it and win, the 150 IQ one would be bored within minutes and start fanta-cising about how to make it easier.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

What is this Reality? Isn't Reality whatever is within me and before me and all around me? That is to say, aren't there an infinite amount of "realities" everywhere we look and don't look?

Reality is a proper noun; there's just one. It's everywhere, and includes everything that exists. Notice how you shifted to lower-case r reality, and even put it into quotations, to suggest that there are many "realities"? This is a pretty clear sign that you are equivocating; you are dealing with two different definitions of the word. Lower-case "reality" is a different concept altogether. If you find this especially confusing, just use different words for different concepts.

I think it has been written in Poison for the Heart, if I remember correctly, that there is no inner and external (outer) world. But how can this be? - I have experience with both these so-called worlds!

Would our inner world - our inner life - be considered an illusion? Man, I'm a little confused right now.

Both inner and outer are equally part of Reality. They exist in the exact same way.

Also, what is dualistic thinking? Please provide examples. Thanks!

Dualistic thinking is what you do when you make distinctions. Mind/body, inside/outside, up/down, left/right. You cannot appreciate the unity of Reality without understanding how these distinctions arise together (there is no "high" if there is no "low"), and learning how to see beyond them.

[Matt Gregory]

I believe I can be whatever I want to be in life. It just takes patience and practice.

To become enlightened the most important thing, BY FAR the most important, is a burning desire to know the truth about the nature of reality. With this obstacles will roll off you like water off a duck's back. Without it you'll probably become demoralized by failure and give up or settle for a false enlightenment.

How can I perfect my understanding of Reality? What is this Reality?

That's the whole crux of the matter. You have to figure this out for yourself. Just realize that if the word "Reality" points to some words or some ideas in your head or some experience you've had, then that's not it.

I think it has been written in Poison for the Heart, if I remember correctly, that there is no inner and external (outer) world. But how can this be? - I have experience with both these so-called worlds!

The things you experience in the "outer world" are really just ideas in your head. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Let's say you're watching TV. When your mind is totally absorbed in a TV show, do you notice the buttons on your TV? You're looking at them the whole time, physically speaking, but you can't SEE them when you're watching something on TV. Your consciousness blocks them out so it can focus on what's important to you in that moment.

Perception involves more than just the senses. The imagination is used to construct interpretations of the data that comes in through the senses. The "outer world" and "inner world" are two such interpretations.

Also, what is dualistic thinking? Please provide examples. Thanks!

Consciousness is dualistic in the sense that at any given moment it focuses on a particular thing at the expense of other things. It creates these contrasts so that we can act in the world. Consciousness is primarily action-oriented rather than truth-oriented. That's why we humans are such lunkheads when it comes to logic and reasoning.

A basic example is "self" and "other". If you couldn't distinguish yourself from others, you wouldn't be able to survive. If you got hungry, you wouldn't know who is hungry! But it's also deceptive because, although it works for survival, it's not ultimately true that you are separate from others. It's an illusion.

Thanks for your input, everyone!

You're welcome! Good luck!

[ForbidenRea]

Hey Matt,

I'm being enlightened by the 100th-of-a-millicoh-second. [Will you change-out my outer pebbles???]

Sure, kid..!]Genius requirements are a lot of work and ability to practice knowledge; per-sa. Like, the mammoth of your horizon is the cookie sheet and you are being enlightened!

But, then, who can crack-a-bottle on-a-bomb-sickle? Otto Weinenger?

[Luke Space]

Meaning..you were confined to a hospital bed, institutionalized, an unemployed pothead..?

I was being medicated with high doses of antipsychotics. Still am, unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on how you care to look at it), but the doses aren't as high and I'm on a different type of medication now.

Hopefully, with enough practice at controlling my thoughts/brain, I'll be able to live med-free.

It really depends on the task. If it was moving a stack of bricks by hand from one place to another, the 100 IQ would go about it and win, the 150 IQ one would be bored within minutes and start fanta-cising about how to make it easier.

I don't think so.

The 150 IQ guy probably wouldn't get bored easily and he'd probably finish faster (at moving a stack of bricks) than the 100 IQ guy. But keep in mind, we're talking about a task which is new to both. If, let's say, the 100 IQ guy was a professional brick stacker and the 150 IQ guy was a newbie, then we can guess what would happen. But at the same time, the 150 IQ guy would probably learn faster and eventually be able to stack bricks better than the 100 IQ guy. That's just my take on it.

This is precisely why I want to raise my IQ. Why take 10 years to learn something when you can take 2?

Reality is a proper noun; there's just one. It's everywhere, and includes everything that exists. Notice how you shifted to lower-case r reality, and even put it into quotations, to suggest that there are many "realities"? This is a pretty clear sign that you are equivocating; you are dealing with two different definitions of the word. Lower-case "reality" is a different concept altogether. If you find this especially confusing, just use different words for different concepts.

Would you agree that there's many diverse "realities" in Reality? For example, the floor may look clean, but if examined under a microscope, it may harbor a wide range of microorganisms. Both are true realities in one grand Reality. That is to say: in a sense the floor is clean (rid of dust), but in another sense, it isn't.

Both inner and outer are equally part of Reality. They exist in the exact same way.

What do you mean by "they exist in the exact same way"? To me, one seems to be generated by us and the other seems to be generated by outside influences.

Dualistic thinking is what you do when you make distinctions. Mind/body, inside/outside, up/down, left/right. You cannot appreciate the unity of Reality without understanding how these distinctions arise together (there is no "high" if there is no "low"), and learning how to see beyond them.

How does one see beyond them? Isn't there still a high and low, for example, even if we're not aware of it?

I believe things are still there even without an observer. Earth, if nothing happens to it in the process, will still be there after we're gone.

That's the whole crux of the matter. You have to figure this out for yourself. Just realize that if the word "Reality" points to some words or some ideas in your head or some experience you've had, then that's not it.

Well, it's all part of Reality, right?

The things you experience in the "outer world" are really just ideas in your head. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

I'm still having trouble with this. There's still a clear distinction between the outside world and the inner world. For instance, close your eyes - just for a moment - and picture a river flowing and a park on each side with people playing and going about their business. This type of imagining is the inner world. Now, open your eyes and look around you - no thinking, just looking - this is what I call the outer world. The two seem to mesh together nicely.

Let's say you're watching TV. When your mind is totally absorbed in a TV show, do you notice the buttons on your TV? You're looking at them the whole time, physically speaking, but you can't SEE them when you're watching something on TV. Your consciousness blocks them out so it can focus on what's important to you in that moment.

I've noticed that, too.

Perception involves more than just the senses. The imagination is used to construct interpretations of the data that comes in through the senses. The "outer world" and "inner world" are two such interpretations.

I agree with that. Interpretations based on something that's there, of course.

Consciousness is dualistic in the sense that at any given moment it focuses on a particular thing at the expense of other things. It creates these contrasts so that we can act in the world. Consciousness is primarily action-oriented rather than truth-oriented. That's why we humans are such lunkheads when it comes to logic and reasoning.

A basic example is "self" and "other". If you couldn't distinguish yourself from others, you wouldn't be able to survive. If you got hungry, you wouldn't know who is hungry! But it's also deceptive because, although it works for survival, it's not ultimately true that you are separate from others. It's an illusion.

But at the same time I'm not the other person. How can I go around looking at things and thinking "Hey, that's me!"? That doesn't make sense.

[Luke Space]

I just finished reading Entering the Logical Realm (The Wisdom of the Infinite). It's interesting but it doesn't seem to be making me into a better thinker. Not yet, anyway.

I've been reading almost everyday for the past few days. It hasn't really changed me in any noticeable way. Maybe I'm not reading and thinking through things enough? Maybe it just takes more time and patience? I like to think that I'm sowing seeds (mentally) now from which I'll reap the benefits in the future. Hopefully I won't just forget it all.

I wrote something down...

Our senses are limited just like an x-ray machine is limited. It sees through skin, muscle, and other organs, and looks at the bone. But does this mean that the skin, muscle, and other organs, don't exist? I think the same can be true for boundaries. Their existence depends on our perspective. It appears to us. How can we go beyond this? My answer is: we can't. Mentally we can imagine whatever we like but reality or Reality may prove otherwise.

I don't understand why it's said that change is the same everywhere. Every one thing is so different from other things. Like a sunflower plant, rock and panda bear, to name a few, all seem so different. So how can causation really be understood? Okay, everything is caused... Now what? Where do we go from here? How can I use this to further my own understanding and come up with brilliant ideas/philosophy? Assuming I have it in me.

One more thing: how is it that there's ultimately no time? I never understood this concept. Time seems to be one of the few things we can most depend on.

[Blair]

I don't think so.

The 150 IQ guy probably wouldn't get bored easily and he'd probably finish faster (at moving a stack of bricks) than the 100 IQ guy. But keep in mind, we're talking about a task which is new to both. If, let's say, the 100 IQ guy was a professional brick stacker and the 150 IQ guy was a newbie, then we can guess what would happen. But at the same time, the 150 IQ guy would probably learn faster and eventually be able to stack bricks better than the 100 IQ guy. That's just my take on it.

How many scenarios would you need to run to prove, or disprove me?

My point was of a holistic and abstract nature, in that Mr 150 IQ would find the task exceedingly 'boring' (read; unsatisfactory for the intellect) and would devote far more energy into devising ways to lessen the task of toil and monotony for oneself, or if philanthropically inclined, everyone.

[Luke Space]

Let's say we have an intellectually demanding task which is new to both Mr 100 IQ and Mr 150 IQ. Who would win? I'd bet on the higher IQ.

I don't think he'd get bored simply because it would be a new experience for him (it needs to be a new experience for this to work). Anyway, if we're talking about physical labor - physical labor feels good! I know because I've worked summers at my uncle's construction company. When digging ditches, for example, I always had my thoughts to accompany me, so boredom didn't enter the picture. Moreover, the endorphin rush felt really good.

I don't think you can setup scenarios in which Mr 100 IQ wins. It's not realistic.

Blair, do you think athletes can be geniuses? There's various forms of intelligence.

[Blair]

Let's say we have an intellectually demanding task which is new to both Mr 100 IQ and Mr 150 IQ. Who would win? I'd bet on the higher IQ.

I wouldn't. And I'm a betting man. 100 IQ is a perfect equilibrium for a human to achieve anything so desired and programmed via evolutionary drives, 150 is not (desirable or bankable)

Blair, do you think athletes can be geniuses? There's various forms of intelligence.

It's possible for an athlete to be a genius. High performance athletes (Tiger Woods for instance) are possessing a larger number of specific motor-nerves that enable them to perform better than another, by virtue of their genes, ie, causality.

That they may also be a genius is also a result of causality.

[Luke Space]

What does IQ mean to you?

[Luke Space]

Is it possible to become a better thinker/speaker? How?

Sometimes I'll turn on the TV or radio and listen to a smart, well-educated person speaking, and I'll think to myself: "I want to be able to think and speak in this way!".