Not sure if right forum to ask but I have a question.

[Blub]

So basiclly I did a 2 online IQ tests(did some research and did only the ones that were best and most similar to real ones)

One was iqtest.dk that is considered a pretty difficlut test and based on a real one and got an IQ of 133.

The other one was from a 160IQ+ matemacian that has various tests on his site and his whole site has  a lot of info what IQ Intelligence etc is and scored 124 on a numeral tests(basiclly numbers were displayed and you neded to find pattern)

Now i did a real life tests that was in my psychology book in school (had 30 min time) and scored ~118.

The thing was in this tests were also language kind of problems like Find a word that means the same thing etc. and i honestly didn't find one,could be because i am not a native speaker in that language and also that I am REALLY Horrible in Languages and speaking and never relly

read books and similar.So that could mean that it was also based a bit on knowlegde of words and without these tasks my iq would be even a bit higher?

The thing is eventho i pretty much score 115 -135 on these tests i still dont feel smart at all compared to my peers.Acording to these tests my IQ should be about ~120 but I still am a pretty slow thinker,and i always thought the higher your IQ the faster you think?

Also I think that in IQ tests that are based on numbers,finding patterns in geometric forms or logic(like find the word that doesnt belong there) I am pretty good but as soon it has to do something with a bit of language i fail completle.Does this sugget that I have very low verbal? IQ or

is it a lack of knowledge?

Also on pretty much all IQ I got the correct answer but in the explanation they explained it diffrently to as what i did to solve it.Does it mean i just had luck or is it okay to use multiple ways to solve a task 

Would appreciate answers ^^

[jotaro]

this is like reading my own experience. exactly i had something similar with iq tests, being slow thinker?, and language non english native.

honestly i have no idea.. because you are like the first one to complain about the same stuff i had with this. but i doubt anyone will answer in a meaningful way.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ron Williams]

"Also on pretty much all IQ I got the correct answer but in the explanation they explained it differently to as what i did to solve it.Does it mean i just had luck or is it okay to use multiple ways to solve a task"

It's my understanding of the 'norming' process that when IQ tests are normed what matters is that people who have a certain 'level' of capacity tend to answer a particular question the same way. It doesn't really matter if they're all answering that way for the 'wrong' reason or even if their answer is actually wrong, only that they do answer that way.

Then, if later you answer that question in the 'right' way (i.e. the way that the high performers did), that counts towards you being placed among that group.

Sounds crazy, but the IQ test setters really have no interest in the 'correct' answers to their puzzles (as I understand how it works, anyhow), only that the puzzles can differentiate (academic) ability at a sufficient range.

Labouring the point, if all geniuses answered 2+2=? with '5', then '5' would be the correct answer (in the universe of the test).

[whoisbambam]

well if u worked really hard at vocabulary acquisition for the language of the test i imagine you would score higher.

language-based iq tests are limited in that regard

but there tends to be a relationship between vocabulary and iq as it is 'normally' tested

trying to expand working vocabulary by 5000+ words is no easy task for many adults as iq is one of the limiting (slowing down) factors.....esp. long term/permanent

but motivation/willpower and repetition/usage could probably 'raise' your iq 'score'

but it wldnt necessarily truly raise iq

but it would still probably improve thinking skills and potentially assist with 'success' in the workplace (financial gain, socialization, etc)

[Brandon Woodson]

You might be a "visual-spatial" thinker; everything fits. I know many holistic thinkers, and I lean that way, despite having reasonably functional sequential skills. It would basically mean you're a predominately synthetic thinker, who unconsciously draws on experience, rather than analysis, to problem-solve. VS thinkers tend to get "smarter" over their lifetime - whereas strong sequential learners are often early bloomers who eventually pan out in adulthood - because of this ever growing fund of knowledge from which to "intuitively" draw.

http://www.visualspatial.org/vslasl.php

The more you use the mind in this manner, the more spanning and efficient it becomes at producing links between experiences, but there are limitations as well. For starters, there's often little strain on working memory for persons who think this way. Also, there's less need to develop timing and sequential skills because the processing is done below the threshold of consciousness in parallel. Another potential issue is the utter dependency on experience. Once the well runs dry or the synthetic mind has given a number of solutions which are inadequate, it is harder to resume problem solving and the VS thinker often perseverates. Moreover, there's a marked tendency toward minor errors in part because of the basic tendency to mentally add information and impressions (i.e., to spontaneously form a whole from parts) which aren't there. In writing and testing, this causes carelessness because the mind is anchored moreso on mentally-localized stimuli than on what is on the page and the mentally-localized stimuli just fills in the blanks rather than alarm that there is error; after all, that's its job, to see similarity, to create from nothing, not to detect error or distinction. In reasoning, this can cause latent assumptions because there's almost always an assumption (or five) embedded in a picture. One reason why we mentally picture scenes from books differently than they are in film adaptations: the import from verbal to visual must always add more content than is actually there. They say a picture is worth a 1000 words, but sometimes you only need one!


--Brandon

--

[αrgvmziΩ]

A document for some to consider. As a VS learner and thinker, this is my experience with mathematics in an academic setting to a T. To this day, I am slowest and most error-prone at basic arithmetic, despite understanding advanced mathematical concepts. If you asked me what x * y was, I could immediately visualise x number of y's, but I may need some time to translate that into symbolic values; whereas using traditional steps as taught in the US (not Asia, which teaches, say, multiplication in a perfectly visual method), I could do it mentally, but some errors might result.

http://journals.cec.sped.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1510&context=tecplus

Thankfully, mindlessly following step by step instructions (assuming they're finite, of course) is feasible for any machine. If I had to pick one cybernetic upgrade to my wetware, it would be to do such things without effort. Until then, the use of computers and scripts of my own devising fits the bill.

argumzio

[jotaro]

brandon i am your fan

i have a question:

how does one goes about reasonably functional sequential skills?

i feel like i have non. even when i play puzzle and "logic" games i feel
as all i do is intuitive(idea jumps), if i try to think of logical combinations for example

step by step it becomes very hard. i feel like a retard then lol.
if i get stuck i am forced to wait untill i have an idea? this basically sums it for me. its like i am at a complete mercy of ideas that jump.

i wish to do it balanced, sequntial analysis and then intuitive.

so how i got about squential functional skills.?

[jotaro]

ehhh i also catch my self make assumptions but often after i "debugged" it by accident it becomes clear, never it is made clear in before thinking, lol its like i am blind to it only untill i see something else by accident

when i think i might made a wrong assumption? i have trouble in making different ones as i am not aware to what assumptions i make and they only become clear after i see something else by accident.

[jotaro]

an example of a game that i consider very hard for me after middle levels is this :
http://coolmath-games.com/0-max-connect/index.html

what are your thoughts on this one brandon? mind that it got hard for me in level 15.

[Brandon Woodson]

Jotaro, if you keep calling yourself a fan, I might actually start to believe it. :) But thank you anyway for the gesture.

I'm travelling, and the computer I brought along is embarrassingly slow; so I didn't play past the first few levels or far enough to yet find any cognitive bottleneck(s). I'll try to play it again later.

I can't say for sure what will work for you as an individual, so this might be a good opportunity to personally experiment. I would hate to waste your time. I can, however, offer a few suggestions which I believe might work.

Many VS learners and thinkers, myself included sometimes, fumble through everyday tasks in an entirely unmolested associative and slipshod way, having a hazy final objective in mind but taking few pains to methodically think through upcoming sequences. Basically, this person allows memory to conduct his or her almost every action around the clock. Overriding (and overwriting) these habits, of course, means doing something which is fundamentally different. Namely, we might do exactly the opposite; we might analyze as thoroughly and meticulously as possible, or as the situation calls, as thoroughly and meticulously as needed.

I stopped and considered the other day just how many steps there are involved in even the simplest of tasks when I had been thought streaming and decided to apply the same procedure to fueling a vehicle - which I happened to be doing at the time. Even with such an easy task, one that I would readily entrust to a child, there are surprisingly many steps if one cares to think about it in detail, enough to quickly overwhelm the working memory.

In the same spirit, I would try, as an exercise in building sequential processing skills, mapping out all steps of all actions I plan to take completely and ahead of time in thorough detail, then executing the task using mostly content of your short-term memory. This doesn't have to be as rigorous as the thought streaming process, though I earnestly believe that to be the best solution. Just a few steps ahead in much more detail than accustomed for any of the simplest everyday tasks will do, but I'd start slowly. I would be constantly working to extend the scope and depth of this process as I habituated. This effort requires analysis and forward thinking, critical skills that are sorely wanting in many persons with this style of thinking. It helps to break the spell of automatic thinking.

Also, IIRC, in one of his last few posts before the recently disturbed hiatus from regular posting, argumzio recommended in a thread on LSAT reasoning prep not to be afraid to posit a solution, to guess, and to be able to push forward when an idea doesn't work out; I'd echo that recommendation. It's especially pertinent given that the issue of perserveration is only due to a consistent and ungainful repetition in problem-solving efforts. Awareness of this inclination toward repetition would likely help a great deal. I would take each instance of perseveration as an opportunity to reinforce the decision to think consciously. Each time anyone makes an error of any sort, in my opinion, is a golden opportunity to learn something about his/her thinking processes - where s/he erred, what could have prevent this particular error, and so on. With enough vigilance, and practice consciously analyzing, the problem will probably sort out itself.

While I think interventions based on short-term storage and the predictable manipulation of random stimuli (e.g., n-back tasks) are useful for fixing symptoms characteristic of atypical processing styles and disorders with common working memory deficiency (ADHD, dyslexia, etc.) in their own right, this has, perhaps, more utility still because of the focus on decision-making procedure and the modest practice in logical deconstruction. And the assumed reduction in day-to-day careless errors would be nothing to dismiss either.


--Brandon

[jotaro]

with all the image streaming distinction theme, you have a real talent to convert all those things to daily life things.

should i write that i am your fan again? or does it tire out already?

mostly i am lazy person and adapts to the situations as they arise and require
not more. umm when i just go to analyze out of nowhere without particular need it seems like a ton of work without a justification.

on the other hand when i do something new completely its unavoidable.

maybe i should start programming? as what you propose is good but i see

two potential problems

1) motivational as what i said earlier about myself

2) as you do this with daily things , and your daily repeats you will eventually run out of things to do this with? and to do it again and again with things you already did seems to lose its purpose.

umm i wonder how that going to go.

[Blub]

Do you mean that only at 15 it got hard for you or even before? IMO lvl 12 and 13 were much more difficult than 15.I got 15 in 2 tries but for lvl 12 i needed solid 10 min

[jotaro]

truth is there is sequel number two. and after i played it and i have 2 levels left. those levels became easier. lol well lets just say i did put more energy then you to solving those levels. if i get stuck i dont know how to keep going.

it seems there is way too many "connectors" sometimes. it feels like i trial and error more times thn not. yea level 12 was seemed like its too much but after i played sequel it became easier. and solved like in 5 min but before the sequel i was overwhelmed.

[Brandon Woodson]

Jotaro, if you're looking for a less labor-intensive route which might reap the same rewards and you find one, please... return the favor and let me know!

If I'm not mistaken, you are the second person to recently mention programming as a possible I.Q.-boosting reasoning exercise; I believe Pontus was the first. My programming skills are abysmal, so I couldn't give any informed opinions on how to even begin to implement programming in a way which might generally transfer. I can only imagine, however, that if programming were a plausible stand-in, it would only be under highly limited circumstances - otherwise, we'd notice meteoric (but possibly hollow) spikes in I.Q., like those in the frame relational studies, among studying programmers. Though I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of a similar exercise working under very restricted conditions unlike those usually encountered by your run-of-the-mill coder.

Maybe someone here who's more tech-savvy and has a decent understanding of thought streaming could lend suggestions on how to replicate the conditions of either frame relational experiments and/or thought streaming in a computer programming setting, or at least offer some lucid explanation why, conditionally or unconditionally, such an endeavor (in theory) should work or fall flat.


--Brandon

[jotaro]

we talked about sequential skills right? in programming you are sequencing

naturally, command after command, i didnt mean improving iq in any way,

just the environment in programming experience demands it and so you dont do it without justification though i think it will become intuitive eventually as well. and it shouldnt just be limited to steps right?? the break down could be anything, it reminds me you talking about differentiating and image streaming.  forward thinking sounds cool and very unnatural for me ,

and the load is probably large.

i dont really have programming experience beyond in a certain classroom that i already forgot.

[Brandon Woodson]

A lot of points bouncing around. 

>"we talked about sequential skills right? in programming you are sequencing

naturally, command after command"

Right - the operative word there being "skills". There's a difference between sequentially formatted output and sequential procedures to arrive at said output. I don't think the former contributes a whole lot to processing style, as normal communicable languages (such as the one we're communicating in now) would have long corrected non-sequential processing and learning styles as a natural consequence of everyday functioning, and people with non-sequential processing styles already use language. Problems arising from non-sequential processing styles would be practically self-correcting.

>" i didnt mean improving iq in any way,"

I see; I misunderstood and erroneously assumed that was meant as part of the context.

>"just the environment in programming experience demands it and so you dont do it without justification"

Like beauty, justification is in the eye(?) of the beholder. If it worked, those who were desperately set on learning to process sequentially, or even how to analyze. might find utility in such an exercise; they would have justification. And some are set on analyzing in this manner for curiosity's sake. In fact, most of history's more lionized intellectuals were cut from this cloth, constantly searching where others found no justification. Though I can fully relate, as I find many of these exercises dreadfully boring, I think a question worth considering for anyone who aims to improve their I.Q. is "why attempt to improve intellectual functioning besides to venture into uncharted territory?" Most people can learn rotely given enough effort.

Incidentally, though I have some trouble imagining a reasonable way of measuring intelligence much higher than 4σ, I  recently happened upon this account which I found interesting from one Kerry Watson in the link below who claims to have been married to a man with an I.Q. of 170, which might exceed the ceiling of conventional standardized tests depending on SD and/or reporting test (e.g., ratio or deviation).

http://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-have-a-150-IQ-Is-life-really-super-easy

> "i think it will become intuitive eventually as well"

I agree fully here, except that might too depend on effort of the individual. In persons who already tend to mindlessly executing tasks, the persons in question, this would almost certainly happen. 


>"and it shouldnt just be limited to steps right??"

I might need elaboration. If you mean "does it matter in what way could one differentiate in order to ameliorate difficulties with sequential processing?", I would argue yes for many reasons, only one of which (regarding format vs. procedure) is stated above.


>"forward thinking sounds cool and very unnatural for me ,

and the load is probably large."

That's sort of the point. Though such a task would repel me as well if I have any reservations about doing anything that was too unnatural.


>"i dont really have programming experience beyond in a certain classroom that i already forgot."

Then we're in the same boat. I was once a computer science major for all of an entire semester, not exactly what one would consider an eternity.


--Brandon

[jotaro]

the original breakdown was analysis(sequential)  vs intuitive(vs)

but why is it restricted to step by step? since i remember an occasion i actually analyzed something i dont think i could call it sequential.

umm maybe justification is not a good word actually.

but lets get back to what i said about being an individual that adapts to situation.

there are things i dont do. i feel natural resistance however when environment and circumstances demand it i dont think twice and if it would be possible to structure this activity that demands step by step to succed then it will be optimal for me.

i wanted to ask you long ago . you did HEG right? is it good? by now you should know its effects. did it help you wil image streaming and awareness?

[jotaro]

oh and about the exploration of new territory that leads to great minds.

maybe it didnt lead to great minds maybe great minds went to it instead.

and seriously i doubt i will be einstein , maybe for some it will be great but for me hell i am a simple man.

[Brandon Woodson]

>"the original breakdown was analysis(sequential)  vs intuitive(vs)

but why is it restricted to step by step? since i remember an occasion i actually analyzed something i dont think i could call it sequential."

Step by step is what sequence is, by definition. Intelligence, while the "ability to differentiate", isn't necessarily sequential at all times. The terms, "sequential thinking" and "intelligence" and "analysis" shouldn't be conflated. High WM is needed the most a person's thinking is skewed toward sequential processing. The emphasis on WM in research is probably due to the preponderance of high WM, sequential processing individuals within the high I.Q. population.

>"umm maybe justification is not a good word actually.

but lets get back to what i said about being an individual that adapts to situation.

there are things i dont do. i feel natural resistance however when environment and circumstances demand it i dont think twice and if it would be possible to structure this activity that demands step by step to succed then it will be optimal for me"

I would look at many ways to make sequential processing as productive as possible. Be creative. Even if you decide that you don't want to learn to process sequentially using any exercise whatsoever and want to process as it comes naturally, it's not the end of the world. Few do only one type exclusively anyway, and many VSL go on to be quite successful, provided they can problem solve well.

>"i wanted to ask you long ago . you did HEG right? is it good? by now you should know its effects. did it help you wil image streaming and awareness?"

HEG is a fantastic exercise. I thought about mentioning it sooner, but didn't want to write so much. HEG neurofeedback would help cut down on unwanted distraction, thus a way to attack the problem from a different angle. Think learning concentration meditation but on the super-fast track.

I didn't stick to it beyond the conclusion of my recorded experimentation; I wanted to resume image streaming without dividing my energies. But while I did, my attentional control was rapidly improving - though that might have been mostly because I carried what I learned about how controlling my attention feels into daily life in the sort of monomaniacal way that I fixate on most things that fully interest me.

>"oh and about the exploration of new territory that leads to great minds.

maybe it didnt lead to great minds maybe great minds went to it instead."

Or maybe a door #3: both.


--Brandon

[Brandon Woodson]

"High WM is needed the most a [...]" should say "High WM is needed the more a"

Old habits die hard, I suppose. :)

--Brandon