How does to increase IQ? Kc browsing increase IQ?
Unironic KC browsing turns you into an iq89 sissy who loves penis and watching gore videos.
no it decrease IQ.
Depends on the race.
>Fug increase IQ?
i don't know but it is definitely better than this shithole.
By doing high math, i think
Im right about blocking gaycee in my fritzbox and letting my father change the password without ever gibing it to me.
Instead im gonna read books, this site destroyed my life
kc increases knowledge but decreases iq
Says me. There is no known way to increase your g factor, if you find one Nature would probably like to hear about it.
You mean doing math while smoking weed? Or doing math on top of building?
Fritz, it was about time you realized the state your "country" is.
lold, every time XD
Back to your igloo, snownigger.
>create theoretical measure to assess how good a person performs a specific test to measure the specific measurement you created
>tells everybody you can't change the thing you created
IQ can not be increased, it is innate.
All attempts at improving personal IQ have failed.
Population level IQ can be improved by better nutrition to pregnant mothers and children but once it is set you can not improve it.
>one cannot increase his cognitive abilities
start fasting and get into khetosis.
then ur brains use ketones as energy source and works better
You can improve cognitive abilities but you cannot improve intelligence. All studies show that so far no one has figured out a way to improve personal intelligence.
You are being naively superficial. IQ depends on what test is being used. Depending on the test, a great amount of attention is needed. Personally, I have ADD and my IQ before Ritalin (measured with WAIS 3 was 138 (overall, some areas higher and others less). My IQ after Ritalin on WAIS 4 was 145.
I have an extensive research on cognition and psychostimylants using myself as test subject, I can't publish but it gives me a lot of insight to start an actual research project.
do you also have insights about the long-term damage you might be incurring by using said psychostimulants?
Well it's "Further Math" in english
Yes, but they are mainly on the cardiovascular system. Higher blood pressure, for example and my glomerular filtration rate has reduced from 115 to 96 in 5yrs but that is likely physiologic.
I am thinking about having an echocardio performed once a year to see if I get any hypertrophy or signs of cardiac/valvular dysfunction.
It depends on what the test is and of course you have to run through a highly controlled test that has been run through a good enough sample size.
However there are no proofs that you can increase general intelligence on a personal level.
This is where you need be very careful since IQ = SCORE on intelligence test and what you are actually probably trying to affect is the general intelligence, "g factor". The IQ score is just a surrogate for it.
Le internet daddy has also spoken about it in some lectures
Recently. Study has been published on biorXiv using fMRI to study how fast learners have particular neuronal pathways that make it easier to form conceptual associations and a better use of long-term memory. If we can find an anatomical rather than purely genetical/microstructural way thst intelligence manifests itself, we can pave the way for new interventions (pharmacological and surgical) to improve one's intelligence.
Of course it wouldn't beforrecreational uses. It would be reserved for people dementing from dementia, for example.
Do you have any evidence that ketosis increases brain function?
The point still stands that no one has been able to do it. Probably in the future someone can when we know more about the brain and medicine advances.
He meant that brain hs a higher share of glucose intermediates when lactic fermentation metabolism is in place due to high metabolic demands (or low energy supply from diet).
Different fag and going off on a tangent. It has shown some promise in dementic patients who have problems with their brain energy metabolism, like Alzheimer because ketones use different pathways than glucose.
Otherwise I don't think there would really be a difference other than not crashing and feeling like going to sleep after filling you stomach with mashed potato or pasta.
Actually, the real point is the lack of methodological rigour in said studies. We have not had a single meta-analysis in the last 10 years to test this hypothesis.
A meta analysis wouldn't even be needed. Just RCT with a two split group. One is administered a treatment, the other not and then both are given IQ tests.
It's a pretty simple test to do.
Drink a litre of bleach and try being white.
Isolated RCT's are in a lower evidence tier than properly conducted meta-analyses using multiple, multicentered, properly performed RCTs.
I made an RCT myself when in residence and I recognized it is extremely poor due to low sample size and selection bias.
xDDD so funny
That's why the sample size just has to be big enough. In any case to my knowledge no such study has been made where it has been proven that IQ was raised.
and if you cannot even do an RCT then there is no point in a meta study
It is not only a matter of sample size. It is a metter of proper blinding, diminishing publishing and selection bias, diminishing number of variables being tested for... You can't expect that a single RCt, with an arbitrarily large sample size, to be able to provide better evidence than a single meta-analysis using an arbitrary number of studies with total sample size equal to that of the first RCT.
But again, there isn't any concrete research that supports the "unchangeness of IQ", at least nothing that validates that perpetual repetition of this "dogma".
Proper blinding, selection bias et.c. are the reason you use RCTs.
You cannot change the rules for IQ studies, the same statistical analysis process has to follow. Doesn't matter if you are testing some new drug for migraines or for improving IQ. Crunching the numbers is the same.
>But again, there isn't any concrete research that supports the "unchangeness of IQ", at least nothing that validates that perpetual repetition of this "dogma".
That argument is retarded. "You can't prove there is no God!".
I read somewhere that it's actually possible to raise iq. If my brain isn't fucking with me and if I will be able to remember where I've read that I'll post a link here.
But if you want to think better and cheat iq tests then just learn logic and geometry. Literally buy a school-level textbook on geometry and go through it proving everything and doing every problem by yourself. Try to do as much as you can in your head and only go to the paper if you can't do it otherwise. At first it will be painful but you'll see an improvement pretty fast.
You'd be amazed at how many low quality RCTs exist that have been given a lot of attention both in the general media and in the scientific field (any RCT linking proton-pump inhibitors with higher incidence of cancer as a 'secondary outcome', for example).
And I am not saying that we can't prove the inexistence of God. I am saying we can't be so sure as to disencourage any Bernd to try to increase his IQ because of outdated and poorly performed research.
It is one thing to say that Omeprazole decreases the incidence of oesophageal cancer and may be associated with encephalopathy on long term use. It is another thing to say that Omeprazole leads to Alzheimer.
It's possible to practice IQ tests and get better at them.
Do you know how to increase attention and concentration?
It gives, at least, more "time" to do the test.
Reading books increase your pseudo IQ, is better than nothing
Of course there are bad RCTs. That's why you have meta studies(e.g. meta study on saturated fat and cardiovascular disease by Souza et. al).
However you first have to have the RCTs. For IQ increase, they do not exist.
What are you going to perform the meta study on if there are no single studies to draw upon?
What I object is the whole "one RCT is good enough". It may be temporarily good, but it is not "good enough".