There is, of course, one surefire way to raise your own IQ to about 150.
Find 740 people who are dumber than you. Kill everyone on the planet except for them (also, do not kill self). You now have an IQ of approximately 150.
OK
OK, but with the caveat that when you measure from a full stop to some measure of movement, there is an instantaneous burst of acceleration, at some point you could say the acceleration in that infinitesimal amount of time is infinite. so probably you mean not that people can’t run 50mph, but rather that they can’t sustain the large acceleration that they are capable of long enough to get to that rate.
So, we might not really know if humans could run that speed if they could get to it. Its simply never been done yet.
I am open to biomechanical or other persuasions , but merely on the face of it, well, people probably said the same thing about a 4 minute mile at some point. Until someone did it, it was impossible to imagine for most.
I agree the running ability is a read herring for the purposes of this thread, despite the previous paragraph. Because the nature of the statistic of MPH is not the same as the nature of the statistic of IQ. One is the mean of a distribution, and the other is one’s location on a population normed distribution, sort of an address on a map.
The issue really, is can a person, once identified with an address, affect how they might be addressed in the future. It is a fair question to ask.
Let’s ask a slightly different question. Can you do anything to LESSON your intelligence?Anything active? Or what about simply doing nothing? Will your brain rot away, as it were?
OK, fine. Can people increase (or decrease) their IQ at all? If so, how, and where are the scientific tests of that hypothesis?
Is it unfair for me to ask?
Actually, not quite. But good catch! It is because they are relative to the population that was used to create the norm, not the current population. Once it is observed that scores in the current population have drifted such that the distribution does not meet the prior norm distribution, a new norm distribution will be created, again with the same mean and the same standard deviation.
That is one way to think about it, but it is erroneous. That is why I am trying to see if the people who are making claims of increasing intelligence, regardless of how much, on this thread, really understand the nature of the measurement they are using as their standard-bearer.
Quiz for the class: What would be the mean IQ of the new population? The std dev? Why?
No, I mean that people can’t run at 50 mph, pedantics aside.
But not necessarily in the same order. Hence, movement is statistically possible. And when one person goes up, another would go down. Plain as day.
As to whether people can lower their IQ - of course they can. All it requires is some posion or a crowbar or whatever esle. And the effect would be to increase the IQ of others.
The way that you are thinking about it is erroneous. I am trying to speak in language that explains rather than obfuscates.
Actually no. Once the population norm is set, the empirical distribution may or may not match that. The point of setting the norm via careful statistical techniques is so that you have a statistical confidence level of how the norm distribution matches the current empirical one.
The assertion by some here in this thread is that they can change the empirical distribution. That one raises a score does not mean that another must drop per se. If someone could find a techniques to raise the population mean from 100 at the time of the setting of the norm to 110 today, so be it.
I just want to see what these alleged techniques are. 
No on the second part, for the same reason as above.
You are correct before renormalization. Most ‘rankings’ done using sigma and mu are constantly renormalized - most of my work here is related to business / finance. After renormalization, which should be continuous IMHO, my assertations stand. I have no idea who is in charge of renormalizing IQs, and I can’t say that I particularly care. I believe that any theoretical discussion is more constructive considering continuous renormalization, but that is just opinion.
You don’t see the difference in the near continuous data of a financial market and the collection of data from psychological assessments such as IQ tests?
Do you advocate that all companies have their books open continuously rather than providing standard reports every quarter?
How would you propose this “continuous” re-normalization be done?
Seriously.
Let me know when you are about to begin.
The same way that you suggested that they be done, when it was convenient for you to assume that they would be re-normed.
Every 10 or twenty or even longer years, however often it is done? What’s this about continuous re-norming then?
How about if, instead of simply batting stuff like it is a ping-pong ball, you simply lay out all of your thoughts ina one coherent piece, covering what your measurement is, why you think it is a good one for your purposes, and propose a whay tohave individuals raise the score in statistically significant way, and then point us to any experiments that have been done, or are under way, to test the hypothesis you propose.
This might take more than a sentence or even more than a few paragraphs in my experience.
Oh boy…
not_alice, I appreciate your intellectual rigour but I think it’s overdone in this particular thread.
If I can try an analogy… when someone says, “the brakes of the car can bring it to stop in 100 feet”, we could (correctly) say that’s not possible to “stop” the car because the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, and it’s rotating around the sun at 67,000 mph etc.
In your case, your backdrop of Earth-axis-spinning is “renormalization” which makes IQ change of 100 to 150 impossible.
(I’m using a little artistic license with the analogy to exaggerate your position but hopefully you get the idea.)
If I look back through the thread to try and unravel this, I think the line of ultra-precision of mathematical statistics began with the cites from the book. You originally were questioning their methods and expected the neuroscientist of that book to have a staggering array of statistical evidence. You (or we) tried to weave that into this conversation. Unfortunately, we did it in a haphazard way because some of us (me at least) are using “IQ” in a more casual way (not renormalized.)
When I say “boost IQ by 50 points”, I’m thinking of it as “getting more questions correct on the test.” It’s like talking about “stopping the car” in a local frame of reference without taking into account the entire universe.
For example, John gets 40 questions correct out of 60 which might map to a “IQ” of 100.
We then debate about what training would give John the intellectual tools to get 59 out of 60 questions correct. This would “boost the IQ to 150+”
Instead of thinking of renormalization, think of it as “alternate history outcome” of getting more questions correct.
Does that clear things up?
I don’t think individuals can raise their IQ in a significant way - I’ve told you that several times now.
If any confusion arises, simply define your coordinate system and make sure the other is on board with it. Not difficult at all.
I don’t care if it is re-normed or not for these purposes. Just show me the techniques and then we can discuss if they show what they purport to show.
What they purport is a hypothesis, and it can be tested.
If people are willing to put it to the test.
Are there right or wrong answers on the test? It is not like the SAT as I understand it.
I understand perfectly well that is the claim.
I want to see the techniques, and see what has been done to test it.
Note I haven’t said anything about any particular techniques in advance - I am not anticipating what they will propose. I am only asking them to flesh out their claims with something other than woo.
I get it.
Now help me extract some data from them. I need the help - someone doesn’t think MPH is a statistic after all, so I don’t get how they are so certain of whatever science it is they seem to think backs them up.
But I am open to finding out what that is. Please help
My theory:
Person X (with IQ 100) takes 2 doses of unobtainium and can now answer any question in record time. Does the fact that only so many people can have an IQ of over 150 prevent him from boosting his IQ to above that point?
Answer: no.
Would every other person on the planet’s comparative intelligence go down as a result? Yes.
Would someone go back and actually change their score on a sheet of paper somewhere? No. (ETA: by ‘their’ I mean everyone else’s)
Would the fact that no one played with the piece of paper mean their IQ didn’t actually change? For you to decide.
So, back to what I said a while ago (regarding raising IQ):
You are so amusing. I thought I must have missed something in post 31 where there would be a precise definition of the information requested by the OP. But it was just my post! You must be claiming psychic powers to know the mind of the OP. It is no doubt tied to your superior knowledge of statistics, which apparently all things are. I’m through discussing this with you, but please have an nice statistic statistic statistic.
Oh, and statistic, that statistic. To statistic, I didn’t statistic, but I statistic, and statistic. You’re right, this has become much clearer to me. Statistic.
My method is simple to raise an IQ by 50 points. Act stupid in one test, then take it again. Ruminator seemed to be on to this concept, but even qualified professional psychologists can be fooled. This doesn’t have any bearing on the topic, nor do any Kobayashi Maru type methods. I just got tired of the quibbling. It’s near impossible to qualify every statement to a degree that can’t be quibbled with.
Yeah, I hear ya man - not that fun, but I do like this video clip:
Walter’s cool. Pain in the butt too, but so am I. And Jeff Bridges played me in a movie once.