Mega genius lectures

[Bill]

Hello,

Has anyone listened to these lectures? http://www.megagenius.com/lectures
What do you all think? Thank you.

Bill

[shuriken]

why don't you?
sounds like a scam and, well, it is a scam.
read the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_34#Mega_Genius
follow the link to the self-proclaimed iq-league site (mega genius, hall of the ancients - who comes up with such ridiculous names?) and be surprised to notice that it's hosted at weebly - a dyi wysiwyg serivce
in the future, please, don't fall for such rubbish.
there is no way a stupid cd compilation could dismantle your bodily(genetic) limitations.
there may be ways to raise your iq, but this is not one of it.

[☉]

I would advise that anyone save their money, especially from what I
have heard of the "lectures". But be my guest, if anyone prefers....

As for HOTA, if you wish to discredit anyone for being a member of it
- whatever purpose for which it was founded, however mistaken or
correct - just because the founder uses Weebly, I suppose that says
more about your method of argument than about the members themselves.

There are other details about Jim Diamond, better mentioned in other
webspaces other than in the dark reaches of Wikipedia, such as the
following:

http://7sigma.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/misconceptions-about-genius-and-iq/
http://7sigma.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/who-is-the-greatest-genius-of-them-all/

argumzio

On Jun 11, 6:36 pm, shuriken <m.velimi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> why don't you?
> sounds like a scam and, well, it is a scam.

> read the discussion athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archiv...

> follow the link to the self-proclaimed iq-league site (mega genius, hall of
> the ancients - who comes up with such ridiculous names?) and be surprised
> to notice that it's hosted at weebly - a dyi wysiwyg serivce
> in the future, please, don't fall for such rubbish.
> there is no way a stupid cd compilation could dismantle your
> bodily(genetic) limitations.
> there may be ways to raise your iq, but this is not one of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 11:29:13 PM UTC+2, Bill wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>

> > Has anyone listened to these lectures?http://www.megagenius.com/lectures

[hallu]

Hall of the Ancients

Brotherhood Of Outrageous Brilliance
City Of Light Alliance
Council Of Celestial Ka
Society (∞) Extreme Intelligence
Kingdom Of Outstanding Knowledge
Universal Genius Guild

Who launches ~7 iq "guilds" within one month? He is obviously playing Warcraft here.

[shuriken]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:41:17 AM UTC+2, ☉ wrote:

I would advise that anyone save their money, especially from what I
have heard of the "lectures". But be my guest, if anyone prefers....

As for HOTA, if you wish to discredit anyone for being a member of it
- whatever purpose for which it was founded, however mistaken or
correct - just because the founder uses Weebly, I suppose that says
more about your method of argument than about the members themselves.

all I could interpret was "blah blah?".

not arguizmo 

[☉]

Yes, your reading comprehension must be as low as your ability for logical analysis and reasoned debate. Apologies for expecting anything greater.

argumzio

[shuriken]

some more blah blah ...
to me you're just an insulting narcistic hybris, nothing more.
you couldn't possibly know how I reason, since I didn't state it in detail.

Mr. Brennan Martin, New Zealand's "smartest person", the founder and member #1 of Hall of the Ancients, didn't pass the needed mark at RPM to qualify for Mensa.
yet he claims to have an IQ of at least 160.

[☉]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:58:06 PM UTC-5, shuriken wrote:

some more blah blah ...
to me you're just an insulting narcistic hybris, nothing more.
you couldn't possibly know how I reason, since I didn't state it in detail.

I will admit I've certainly wasted more electrons on your overwhelming attention than the noxious gasses emitted therewith would warrant. But really, how can you make such indefensible claims? E.g.: "Insulting"? Perhaps to who cannot comprehend the truth of what I say. "Narcistic" [sic]? If that were true, I'd be using my non-pseudonymous identity here and elsewhere on the web, trying to garner popular appeal and make a living off of it; try again, bub. "Hybris" [sic]? Uh, do you even know what the heck you're talking about at all?

Yes, I do know how you "reason", because you haven't done so well at all.

And if you blame members for being associated with such a society simply because you questioned the legitimacy of the founder based on one publicized test result (which was conducted in extraordinarily non-standard circumstances in an untimed setting), then your capacity for logic is so poor and inadequate that I fear you couldn't even defend yourself at all within a real-life setting outside of this little forum.

By all means, elaborate and demonstrate your "reasons". I think, however, that I must make you cognizant of the fact that you're dangerously veering off course into areas so distant from the original topic of this (barely forum-relevant) thread, since I apparently lack the superior faculties to comprehend why you would even take such a track up in the first place.

Maybe it will amuse or bemuse the readers... who can say? All is permitted, I suppose.

argumzio

[shuriken]

I did what? blame members? of what? of intentionally claiming the posession of a IQ as high as the top of the scale?
for quoting an editor of the wall street journal without any findable reference on the internet?
how did he get accustomed with Mr. Martin? why did he mention this list as list of reference?
trademark registration has been applied for in 2000.
no notable beneficial mentions since then - this is more than a decade ago.
visiting
http://www.mega-genius.com/interview_10.htm
yields a warning, informing me of malicious content.
maybe you want to read up on
http://marilynvossavant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15754
your naivity (or maybe ignorance) astounds me in every way. was this enough reason for you to stamp it as a scam?

what about the test? tell me, how do you come up with that claim that the test has been conducted under unstandardized settings?
as far as I remember the test was supervised by a Mensa official.
now, come again? my reasoning was flawed?

and no, I won't elaborate on why I'm in believe that you're narcistic and a hybris.
maybe it's not the first time you caught my eye?

[Michael]

Please, termites suck and with no moderator we have no exterminator to get rid of them. Just something to consider before either of you decide whether or not to add to the growing instability of our only home that has one too many mortgages already, to boot.

Argumzio has demonstrated that, over time, he has been a very helpful person, for lack of any strong history unfortunately you are limited in this respect, therefore I just ask that you not undermine this contribution & rather instead, just focus on how you can contribute in your own way. And we all do it, "in our own way".

Quit flamin, learn to pass around the water instead!

[☉]

Since your reading comprehension is so low, where you apparently believe I've been defending Mega Genius, and your half-comprehended prejudice so great, I'll spell it out clearly for you: I do not find the "Mega Genius" even partly genuine as a person selling legitimate wares to anyone, even less from the "lectures" I've heard, which it may nevertheless be said contains a lot of information for those who know absolutely nothing of the specific contents disclosed by them. (I.e., I knew a lot of the material in it already, so it would have been a huge waste of money to listen to all of them.) I further added two links to a public blog which disclosed some damaging findings indirectly implicating Jim Diamond.

So, you're wrong on four counts: I'm neither naive, narcistic [sic], hybris [sic], nor insulting. You have thoroughly been the latter, however, and I wouldn't find it beyond me to file a complaint of slander to be made against you, but I'll let it pass seeing you're utterly incompetent and likely barely able to parse a coherent idea out of the perfect sentences I write.

argumzio

[☉]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:21:38 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:

Please, termites suck and with no moderator we have no exterminator to get rid of them. Just something to consider before either of you decide whether or not to add to the growing instability of our only home that has one too many mortgages already, to boot.

Argumzio has demonstrated that, over time, he has been a very helpful person, for lack of any strong history unfortunately you are limited in this respect, therefore I just ask that you not undermine this contribution & rather instead, just focus on how you can contribute in your own way. And we all do it, "in our own way".

Quit flamin, learn to pass around the water instead!

Michael, as much as I appreciate the even-handed tone here, I find it increasingly odd we have such an exchange on display here. It is not that I've proved helpful to this forum; in this particular case I have made no errors in discussion and instead have been the punching bag of a semi-literate ingrate. Not to protest (too much), because it is amusing to me, but I no doubt detect a slight bemusement in your intention.

I do not disagree with your perspective outright, but the fact of the matter is this: shuriken is hopelessly wrong in how he has engaged this discussion towards me. And if this is the best we can expect of persons hoping to improve their intelligence, then we are in a trying phase of the forum indeed.... (Note: I know very well other members would be as good as any example of sane and rational conduct, with the exception of a few to which is added a growing list, no doubt.)

argumzio
 

[☉]

Apologies to the other forum members, but I have to spell some things out to shuriken, whose hubris, arrogance, and incompetence are so great, that I fear others might actually start believing the incoherent junk he writes.

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:02:28 PM UTC-5, shuriken wrote:

I did what? blame members? of what? of intentionally claiming the posession of a IQ as high as the top of the scale?

The "blame" bit was a hypothetical based on the (not unreasonable) possibility that you regard members of HOTA as being fake or illegitimate themselves because of what you believe regarding the founder, BHM.
 

for quoting an editor of the wall street journal without any findable reference on the internet?

What the heck are you talking about?
 

how did he get accustomed with Mr. Martin?

As far as I know, BHM approached Jim Diamond. Not like it matters.
 

why did he mention this list as list of reference?

Who? What list? Do you even know what you're talking about?
 

trademark registration has been applied for in 2000.

What trademark? You're changing the subject.

maybe you want to read up on
http://marilynvossavant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15754
your naivity (or maybe ignorance) astounds me in every way. was this enough reason for you to stamp it as a scam?

You were the one who specifically used the word "scam", not I. Are you really that absurdly confused in your ramblings? Actually, don't bother answering that. It is obvious.

 

what about the test? tell me, how do you come up with that claim that the test has been conducted under unstandardized settings?

I said "untimed", which is a fact. BHM, who is not Jim Diamond (and please don't tell me you think the founder of HOTA is the same person as the one who claims to be "Mega Genius", because that would thoroughly discredit you as unfit for any further response), was tested by a psychologist, and given all the time in the world to finish: under those circumstances, one has to get a near-perfect score to qualify for Mensa according to how the test is normed in an untimed setting. (I.e., the test is easier with more time, so the scores become more frequent, hence higher scores are easier to obtain.)
 

as far as I remember the test was supervised by a Mensa official.

Yes, this is true.
 

now, come again? my reasoning was flawed?

Yes. Q.E.D.
 

and no, I won't elaborate on why I'm in believe that you're narcistic and a hybris.

Please do. Or are you not man enough to back up your fallacious claims to which I can add that they are thoroughly slanderous in nature?
 

maybe it's not the first time you caught my eye?

That wouldn't be surprising. I am a member of this forum just like any other person.

argumzio

[whoisbambam]

lmao

[shitsumeisha]

On 13 Jun., 18:58, ☉ <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, you're wrong on four counts: I'm neither naive, narcistic [sic], hybris
> [sic], nor insulting. You have thoroughly been the latter, however, and I
> wouldn't find it beyond me to file a complaint of slander to be made
> against you, but I'll let it pass seeing you're utterly incompetent and
> likely barely able to parse a coherent idea out of the perfect sentences I
> write.

If this would be ironic, everything would be fine.
I don't see this so one-sided as others do. Just two touchy persons.
You are both disputing about nothing.

[rgpddt]

No apologies needed. I find it very entertaining reading your
perfectly worded sentences.

[☉]

shitsumeisha,

That's exactly my point! I agreed with shuriken this whole time. That's what makes his reading comprehension so laughably poor and why I find this rather amusing.

argumzio

[☉]

They may be "perfectly worded" but they wouldn't pass editorial review without a few modifications, due to time constraints. So, many apologies to the Booda of Clerical Trifles.

argumzio

[Lumos]

Wow, I guess even really smart people get suckered into self-help pablum. 

" Every great philosopher searched for truth down the wrong road, Mega Genius ^®  discloses, due to a faulty definition of the word. Now, we for the first time this planet, Mega Genius ^®  defines the word  truth  accurately.  "

Dang, I guess I can throw away my logic books now because of their faulty definitions of truth. 

These seem like a waste of time to me but I'm sure you may be able to glean one or two useful things from them. I think you would learn much more reading this man's blog: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/ 

Terrance Tao, an actual creative genius, the "Mozart of Math". 

On Monday, June 11, 2012 5:29:13 p.m. UTC-4, Bill wrote:

Hello, Has anyone Listened to readings thesis? http://www.megagenius.com/ readings What do you all think? Thank you. Bill

[Colin Dickerman]

A poorly remembered David Hume quote goes like "how presumptuous of we
to propose to glean the deepest secrets of reality by taking little
pains where the greatest minds have failed taking great pains"

On Jun 17, 1:07 am, Lumos <luminoustoronton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, I guess even really smart people get suckered into self-help pablum.
>
> " Every great philosopher searched for truth down the wrong road, Mega
> Genius ®  discloses, due to a faulty definition of the word. Now, we for

> the first time this planet, Mega Genius ®  defines the word  *truth *

> accurately.  "
>
> Dang, I guess I can throw away my logic books now because of their faulty
> definitions of truth.
>
> These seem like a waste of time to me but I'm sure you may be able to glean
> one or two useful things from them. I think you would learn much more

> reading this man's blog:http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-gen...

>
> Terrance Tao, an actual creative genius, the "Mozart of Math".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 5:29:13 p.m. UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>
> > Hello, Has anyone Listened to readings thesis?http://www.megagenius.com/

> > <http://www.megagenius.com/lectures>readings<http://www.megagenius.com/lectures>What do you all think? Thank
> > you. Bill
>
> > <http://www.megagenius.com/lectures>

[☉]

ORLY?

argumzio

 

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:00 AM, shuriken < m.velimi...@googlemail.com > wrote:

a lot to acquire you still have left, young padawan

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:58:46 PM UTC+2, ☉ wrote:

Since your reading comprehension is so low, where you apparently believe I've been defending Mega Genius, and your half-comprehended prejudice so great, I'll spell it out clearly for you: I do not find the "Mega Genius" even partly genuine as a person selling legitimate wares to anyone, even less from the "lectures" I've heard, which it may nevertheless be said contains a lot of information for those who know absolutely nothing of the specific contents disclosed by them. (I.e., I knew a lot of the material in it already, so it would have been a huge waste of money to listen to all of them.) I further added two links to a public blog which disclosed some damaging findings indirectly implicating Jim Diamond.

So, you're wrong on four counts: I'm neither naive, narcistic [sic], hybris [sic], nor insulting. You have thoroughly been the latter, however, and I wouldn't find it beyond me to file a complaint of slander to be made against you, but I'll let it pass seeing you're utterly incompetent and likely barely able to parse a coherent idea out of the perfect sentences I write.

argumzio

[Jotto]

The use of blatant hyperbole like "Mega Genius" as a marketing term ought to arouse caution.  I will consider parting with my assets when I see peer reviewed clinical trials showing results.

[Brandon Woodson]

Bill,

> Has anyone listened to these lectures?http://www.megagenius.com/lectures

I have listened to the entire "The Genius Formula" lecture.

> What do you all think? Thank you.

I do have few opinions regarding this thread and your question:


1.)  Assuming your question pertains to the quality of the product
itself, and not some facet of the author's personality and/or
background, I opine arguments aimed at the latter are irrelevant and
misplaced, and in some ways, constitute red herring.


2.)  Finding what one could consider wide applicability in its
vagueness and generality, the formula is a three-step process that
illuminates what often naturally occurs in the mind of a person with
exceptional reasoning skills. In a sense, the formula is also as much
of a lesson on how NOT to think as it is how to think intelligently.


3.)  Given (again) the generality of the formula, use of it (correctly
or otherwise) is something we all do when we make decision and form
conclusions, whether we consider it a "genius formula" or not.
However, it is when we include certain fallible, and
characteristically human, ways of thinking in our reasoning that it
goes astray. "Mega Genius" (the name is a bit over the top, isn't it?)
boasts that even great thinkers of past occasionally deviated from
correct thinking (i.e., the genius formula), and contends that it was
this that resulted in their occasional errors.


4.)  With the layperson of modest I.Q. in mind as its targeted
audience, the formula itself would be highly useful for most
individuals with at least average intelligence, conferring the ability
to make decisions on a much higher "level" than would be usually
possible, granted their own intellectual devices alone. I don't
believe raising the intelligence of the minds of highly capable
individuals is, or ever was, the intended function of the lecture; in
fact, the author, himself, states that most individuals of high
intelligence (which he limits to ~ > 3 S.D. since he believes few
tests are truly capable of discriminating above this level) innately
think in this manner, which might lead one of higher intelligence to
reason that s/he wouldn't profit nearly as much from listening to the
lecture as a typical person possessing a nearly average I.Q.


5.)  You're welcome. :)


- Brandon

[Ancient Memory]

Thanks for all the intelligent contributions, Brandon. It is sad that no one seems to have heard from you in years, despite the wisdom you have shared with many, including the conversations we used to have. Unfortunately, the person who delivered these lectures, Jim Diamond, died on December 5th 2023 
https://www.thenorthlakeoutpost.com/Uploads/LegalNotices/Diamond_ShuffieldLowman.pdf

A “Notice to Creditors” for the Estate of Jim Diamond in the Circuit Court for Lake County, Florida (Probate Division) (File 35-2024-CP-000257), published in May of 2024, states the following, "The administration of the Estate of Jim Diamond, deceased, whose date of death was December 5, 2023, is pending in the Circuit Court for Lake County, Florida, Probate Division..."

Since then, the website has gone offline and the lectures have been posted in various places online for free, e.g., YouTube.

For myself, after beginning a journey in streaming over 10 years ago, and experimenting with many different forms & schedules, and then having much more success with the lectures, the picture was ultimately clear: Volume of information does not equate to intelligence. Therefore, it is no surprise that streaming increases neurotic behaviors by training noise into one's mind and in my experience, can somewhat undo successful and meaningful progress made using the lectures. As Brandon himself clarified to me a long time ago, streaming is merely a temporary way to mimic the symptoms of intelligence, whilst the genius formula is the real thing.

Whilst there are many wild & difficult to verify claims in the lectures, separate what is useful from what is not, maintain skepticism & prove what you can to yourself (don't accept anything else), and keep in mind that the intended audience for these lectures includes those of, at minimum, average intelligence, and so many things may seem obvious to those of above average intelligence (but don't underestimate the value that can be found in a relatively more precise determination of what is being said; i.e., you will find a surprising level of value the second time you listen through). Finally, it is not so much the ideas in isolation that make the lectures worthwhile, but their sequential combination - listen in order, & continually consider ideas in the added context of the prior ideas.

[Michael Taylor]

Hello! My name is Mike Taylor. I also have purchased and listened to Jim Diamond's Mega Genius lectures, but, alas, he died before I could purchase a private consultation with him! As a result, I'm not really sure how he might counsel someone on how to personally apply the Genius Formula, and especially in such a way as to continually hike my intelligence without limits, as he claimed. 

Do you have any tips or pointers as to how I might go about doing so? He claimed he could take any man of average intelligence,  and, by continually coaching him on the application of the Genius Formula, cause him to pretty much max out the IQ tests of his day, which I imagine would have capped out at 155 to 160 IQ, in his days. Do you agree with this?

--
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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/96022f19-bd57-4eee-a7ff-6081a84b705dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ancient Memory]

Hi Michael, pleasure to speak with you.

Do I agree with the statement? I don't agree nor disagree - I just don't know. It's something we need to test - but it's also something we need to assess the relevance of. I have had enjoyed some success in this pursuit, but who is to say it will generalize?

The test that Jim Diamond took, latest being "the most advanced procedure" for measuring adult human intelligence in 2000 (lecture purported release) was most likely the WAIS-R, with a ceiling that appears to have fallen in that range, with a theoretical maximum around 150-160 & scores tending to cluster just below the theoretical maximum, as would be natural.

However, whilst Jim Diamond professes his IQ attains to some "immeasurable" point above the top of the IQ scale, he does describe himself as a "Mega Genius". 

In lecture 5, he says with 'complete confidence' that the intelligence differential of a mega genius to a genius is 15 times that of the differential between 100 and a genius. In the same lecture, he describes 132 as attaining "genius". This is further corroborated by claims, in lecture 5, that in less than one year, an average *IQ'd* person could be guided to "genius", and in less than 2, to the upper limits of the IQ scale (~160), assuming a roughly linear increase of approximately 32 points per year. Noted, this is a presumptuous analysis. 

If we recreationally assume this difference to be 'measurable' and the magnitude being measured is reflected in IQ 'point differences' (which might be corroborated by the supposed linearity of the prior analysis), then this would be an "IQ" of 612. Such a number is superfluous at least by any implied statistical derivation, and breaches the "upper limits" of the IQ scale, which loses accuracy particularly on the high tail ends/limits of the scale.

We just don't have the data on how the method can work in our favor with respect to this measure. That intelligence can be taught if taught intelligently certainly begs the question & the "guidance" required in reaching genius in a year, or the upper limits of the scale in 2, is another relatively undisclosed variable, as you have pointed out. He does give some instructions in lecture 5 on how to intelligently teach intelligence, which could be useful to try out.

IQ is useful as far as being our best simple & objective proxy for intelligence, but it's highly limited & may not reflect with sufficient sensitivity some of the purported benefits of the method / increases in "intelligence", where I use double quotes to emphasize my use of the lecture's notion of intelligence. We should use it, but it's not wholly dependable as a source of insight.

I developed an exercise you might like to test. It is similar to QWS, but rather than employing a 'streaming' component, you employ the formula: 

Use the formula step-by-step on a random object in your surrounding observable environment, and then iterate again on another object in your surrounding observable environment. For each object, after iterating the formula on that object, compare (differentiate the qualities of - note difference & lack of difference of) it to prior iterated objects for the first 2, 3, or 4 objects. 

Let the number of objects you have thus compared be X. Then, for another X objects, use those (X+1)th, (X+2)th, ..., (X+X)th objects to "inspire" comparisons amongst the first X.
An example of "inspired" differentiation: if I am comparing a cat to a dog, a lamp may inspire me to think about the cat's tendency to lay around as a warm object, whilst the dog is more lively, but both are warm & do lay around - the cat, at least according to my current unvalidated impression, simply seems to lay around more.

This encourages both convergent & divergent means of differentiation whilst simultaneously training the axes of perception. 

I have found that twice doing X=4, which includes, in total, 16 different objects, takes about 14 days of recovery before I can perform the exercise again without any accumulation of fatigue (at least from what I have observed thus far). But recovery time increases non-linearly with the total objects in a day, so you might be doing X=2 once per day, every day, and it could take a while before you notice any accumulated fatigue, if at all. I have tried more than 16 objects, but I have noticed growth slows down when recovery starts taking too long. 16 objects seemed optimal to me for complexity & growth but the intensity is quite overwhelming that one can end up skipping the exercise. Having had a friend test at much lower frequencies/volumes than I, they still experienced benefits & anecdotes largely mirroring my own, which tempts me to suggest one can test this with similarly less frequency/volume.

[Michael Taylor]

Thanks, Ancient Memory! On a side note though, I thought about the 30ish point gain per year too, but I think it would slow down (numerical test score wise) after about 160, because those higher numbers tend to come slower, and are harder to achieve I believe. I listened to an interview a lady gave him, and she mentioned that his IQ was probably above 200, which he didn't disagree with. Furthermore, I would have to most likely agree as well, because I have met and befriended a man whose IQ was around 170, and, as brilliant as he was, I have to conclude that Jim Diamond was (even significantly) smarter than him, by gauging their sentence structures, and the thoughts and ideas generated by them in fluid conversation. 

As a matter of fact, it was after meeting and conversing with my friend for that week that I did, that revived my desire to become a genius, (if possible!)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/4786b7ff-c914-4b55-9f30-ba01d69356dan%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael]

Hi AncientMemory,

I developed an adaptation you might like to test. It grew in stages.

First, while playing n-back (auditory only, though you can test with spatial) I would stream whatever pattern/s appeared in my mind. Then I would pair that pattern to the current N-back letter. If “solidification” appeared as the convergent pattern and the letter was J, then J = solidification.

At every new letter, I streamed a new pattern and paired it. But I did not wait for matches for comparison, each time a new pairing was created, I compared it against all other active pairings inside the N-window. So at 3-back, every new pattern was compared to the previous three letter–pattern pairings. When a letter matched, I retrieved the earlier pairing and compared again, making sure I remembered what belonged to that letter.

That was stage one: streaming + pairing + continuous cross-letter comparison.

Then I expanded it.

Instead of holding one consciousness stream per letter, I began holding two or more consciousness streams at once. These patterns within each stream were allowed to interact. I compared within each pattern, between simultaneous patterns, and across letters. This became Superpositional N-Streaming.

Now I have adapted it further to include your structured differentiation method.

For N = 3:

1. Stream one or more patterns.

2. Pair them to the current letter.

3. Extract clear features (similarities and differences).

4. Compare the new pairing against all active pairings (full pairwise coverage).

5. When a letter repeats at N-back, retrieve its earlier pairing.

6. Reorganize all active pairings across the relational axes you have described (very well by the way).

7. Do not skip any comparisons.

So the standard system becomes:

Stream ~> pair to letter ~> extract features ~> compare across all active letters ~> retrieve on match ~> reorganize relationships ~> repeat.

Where the more advanced system involves how every new pairing must be systematically compared against all retained pairings. Additionally, recombination operates at two distinct levels: (1) within-stream recombination between simultaneous patterns, and (2) cross-letter lattice recombination across stored pairings. These are treated separately and explicitly, not implicitly blended. So your 'recombination principle' is able to be executed at two intervals not just one.

It combines streaming, superposition, continuous cross-letter comparison, and full structured lattice differentiation inside the N-back window.

Higher 'meta' levels are easy to imagine, however actually having the cognitive horsepower to strap everything together for execution within reality? A very different story, at least for me right now ha. Moreover, Superpositional Streaming (originally without 'N') is something I actually created nearly a year ago now for that very reason. Along with other experimentation's, moving forward I will strategically include it with the rest of my regimen, which includes approaches to relational reasoning (analogising the 4-8 spatial cardinal directions to abstract directional space with what I've coined "The Da Vinci method") with game implementations coded mostly with AI. 

Otherwise personally, I found that the rhythmic nature of n-back constraining me to a certain temporal interval brought stability to energy expenditure, allowing me to train and recover with less time and more predictability. 

Thank you for sharing your ideas, the aspect of your technique involving the recombination of relations was especially valuable and served as the primary intervention to advance my own approach.

Best regards.

[Michael]

Just to add briefly to my response directly above as well, 

A further refinement I am now testing extends this structure slightly. Beyond continuous recombination and structured differentiation, I am explicitly extracting the dominant relational rule that stabilizes across the N-window, then deliberately reapplying that rule to reorganize all active pairings before proceeding. This adds controlled rule abstraction and redeployment on top of superpositional N-streaming, increasing structural coherence without abandoning the rolling lattice framework.

My working theory is that recombination, paired with explicit rule extraction guiding subsequent mutation, mirrors the process of detecting a higher-order pattern within one set of stimuli and then either recognizing that same pattern in a novel set (‘detection’) or deliberately applying it in a new context (‘building’). I suspect that feature detection, recombination, and mutation together form a central operational loop underlying fluid intelligence, and therefore designing the foundations for what fluid intelligence training interventions should most likely include.

Thank you again Ancient Memory, very interesting ideas, grateful. I'd be interested in potential corrections, improvements, feedback you may have.

And to finish with some examples of rule extraction that then mutates future recombination.

Example (3-back, 12 trials):

Letters: A B C A D B E C F D A E

1–3:
A=Cat (warm)
B=Ice (cold)
C=Lamp (warm)
Rule: warm vs cold.

4–6:
A=Snow (cold)
D=Dog (warm)
B=Water (changes)
New rule: changes vs stays same.

7–9:
E=Ball (round)
C=Sun (round, hot)
F=Rock (hard)
Rule: makes heat vs borrows heat.

10–12:
D=Puppy
A=Tiger
E=Earth
Rule: small vs big version.