8 Answers sorted by
162
The short answer is "No." No-one knows how to do that.
The longer answer is "It's complicated." Processing power, crystalized knowledge, and rationality are three different things.
Processing power is probably mostly genetic in humans and there's not much you can do about it. Exercise, nutrition, and nootropics can help, but only to a degree. Learning different tactics to apply to problem solving or mnemonics can help you use what you have more effectively. Still, the human brain is remarkably plastic. If I had to guess, techniques like sensory substitution, biofeedback, or advanced meditation might let someone reallocate their gray matter and improve their processing power that way. But no-one knows how, so that would be original research.
It takes a surprising amount of processing power to beat expert knowledge. When Kasparov lost the chess match to Deep Blue in 1997, he still won two games in the match! A lot of "smarts" is knowledge. A large language model takes a lot more processing power to train than to run inference. There are limited situations where figuring everything out on the spot is necessary. More processing power does let you acquire that crystalized knowledge faster, so those with higher IQs tend to have more of it, but so does effort, allocated time, effective teachers (private tutors), and accumulated civilizational knowledge. You can catch up with and even surpass a higher-IQ individual who isn't really trying in terms of crystalized knowledge if you take full advantage of these other factors.
The capacity for effort is partly innate talent, but nootropics can probably help you here more than for raw IQ. You probably have as much time as anyone else, but if you're willing to sacrifice time spent on other things, you can dedicate more of it to study. If you can afford private tutors, they're much more effective than classes. If you can't, you can ask GPT-4 to pretend to be one, and that might still be more effective than classes. There has never been a time with more available knowledge. You can read textbooks.
And finally, the sanity waterline is pretty low. Rationality can help you avoid a lot of stupid mistakes. Who you hang out with really affects how you think. You don't need a super-high IQ to learn and practice rationality. Most of their edge would go into finding us in the first place. But you're already here.
Maybe a slightly pity answer, but comparative advantage is worth learning about and Being the (Pareto) Best in the World is worth a read.
Update: Increasing IQ is trivial seems relevant. I think the case is far from proven, but worth a look.
It's worth mentioning that IQ tests have substantial error bars, and those get wider near the tails. Once you get higher than a few standard deviations (15 points each) above the mean (set at 100) the differences become too hard to measure to be very meaningful for individuals, a single one of whom can show substantial variation from among the different IQ tests.
139
It would help if you clarified why specifically you feel unintelligent. Given your writing style: ability to distill concerns, compare abstract concepts and communicate clearly, I'd wager you are intelligent. Could it be imposter syndrome?
In this vein, the only behavior displayed in the original post that reads as less "intelligent" to me is assuming the [existence * importance] of trainable abstract intelligence.
I notice that people who've gotten a lot of the cultural "you're so smart" feedback tend on the whole to be skeptical of abstract intelligence as an independent trait, perhaps because of the repeated experience of being told one has a trait that doesn't subjectively feel like it has a specific presence or location.
This gets me wondering if the feeling that one doesn't "have intelli...
65
You can compete with someone more intelligent but less hard working by being more organized, disciplined, focused and hard working. And being open to improvement.
update on my beliefs - among humans of above average intelligence, the primary factor for success is willpower - stamina, intensity and consistency
30
diet, exercise, a disciplined schedule
Do you also get enough sleep? (What is your definition of "disciplined schedule"? For some people it might mean: going to bed early to get enough sleep. For other people it might mean: do not waste time doing unproductive things such as getting enough sleep. The latter would be harmful.)
the mental fog remains
What exactly do you mean by this? Is it difficult for you to focus on things? (Maybe you have ADHD, or maybe you are just too distracted thinking endlessly about how "stupid" you are.) Or is it difficult to understand some complex topics, because you haven't learned the simple ones yet? (Start with the fundamentals, then. Read a textbook.)
And what about education? That’s supposed to be the great equalizer, right?
In theory, things like Khan Academy are equally accessible to everyone. (If you have a computer. If it is translated to your language. Assuming optimistically that you have enough free time without interruptions.) But the existing school system is very far from this ideal, for various reasons:
- many schools suck, many teachers suck;
- the education is designed for the (below-)average student, so the smart ones either succeed to get to one of the better schools or are ignored by the system;
- there are many artificial obstacles in the system, for example you have to learn things at the specific time, and if you can't (e.g. if you are too sick, or can't focus on learning because your parents are divorcing or you are bullied at school) you won't get a second chance;
- generally, money can buy success, by getting you to a better school, by hiring tutors, by not needing a job after school hours, etc.
So it is also possible to conclude cynically that the purpose of education is to legitimize the existing inequality in the society -- to convince the people at the bottom of the social ladder that they deserve it because they are inferior ("stupid", "lazy", etc.).
The current state of education seems more geared toward churning out graduates rather than fostering genuine intellectual growth, especially for those who don't naturally excel.
Yep, as long as the most talented ones succeed to learn, there is not much motivation to make it easier for the less talented ones. (Sometimes there is even active opposition. Education system has two major tasks: to teach some people, and to separate the smart from the stupid. If it does too good job at the first task and accidentally teaches everyone, it means it has failed at the second task.)
As for intelligence being multifaceted, I understand the arguments. Yet, at its core, there seems to be a singular, critical capacity for understanding, learning, and problem-solving
Exactly, that's what generally referred to as "IQ".
Educational Software: These keep me engaged, but do they make me smarter?
Software cannot increase your IQ. But it can teach you things. Understanding things is one of the reasons why you want to be "smart", right?
It suggests that the relationship between intelligence, as we measure it, and success is more complicated than we'd like to admit.
Success = innate abilities + work + privilege + luck.
IQ contributes a lot to the result, but is only one of multiple components.
I’m seeking substantial, proven methods to increase my cognitive capacity.
To increase IQ, there is no known way. If you are healthy, get enough sleep, and checked for potential problems (including allergies or anemia), you probably did what you could.
Accumulating knowledge takes time. You mentioned nothing about what you study and how you study. Perhaps you are making some mistake there. Maybe you are watching YouTube videos or reading popular science magazines, instead of reading textbooks and doing online courses.
31
For problem-solving in particular, I've really enjoyed how this youtuber articulates specific strategies.
Why do you want greater intellect -- what do you want to do with it?
Consider how to get directly to those ends with the tools you have available. Consider the option of disregarding the abstract concept of "intellect" entirely, and simply going out and doing whatever it is you're waiting to do until you "get it", modifying your approach after each mistake.
Often when those around me describe something I said or did as intelligent, it actually feels from inside as if I simply identified my goal and went straight toward it rather than getting hung up on the expectations about what was or wasn't "supposed to" work. The insights and solutions that seem intelligent to onlookers come less from having some ephemeral "iq" trait and more from my willingness to notice the irrelevance of imagined constraints and disregard them.
Also, if you reflect on your attempts to learn things, it refines the meta-skill of learning stuff. I've been surprised by my ability to learn things I'd previously assumed I'd hit the intellectual wall on when I revisit them after having had more experiences of learning things in different ways. Avoid the trap of assuming that failing to grasp something quickly in one situation means you'll never grasp it quickly in another.
20
My approach to the personal stupidity issue is the "additive nature of intelligence" theory. It suggests that by spending more time on a problem or by seeking assistance from others (like AI, search engines, or people) and using tools (writing, drawing, etc.), you can achieve the same outcomes as a smarter individual.
This concept also posits that certain ways of thinking, such as Descartes' method, can yield notably good results.
21
(My day-to-day job is literally to tackle the 'generality' of intelligence)
While having high IQ/g is useful, it is not what lies at the core of great performance. Having developed 'intelligences' around the task you're tackling, + determination/commitment/obsession, + agency is what creates great results.
I think it's better to focus on things one could change/train, sadly IQ/g is not one those things.
-2-1
Can someone help me out please?
Are there agreed definitions of genius, and stupidity? Does it all hinge on problem solving across a varied range of tasks/situations? What about specific knowledge retention/recall?
I really hope that it isn’t down to IQ test scores (mine are ok though).
Stupid is relative, but if you used "anecdotal" and "multifaceted" correctly and on your own, I'd be surprised if you're in the bottom third of human intellect. You may be making a different, more specific kind of cognitive error.
"Dumber than the average LessWrong poster" is, according to surveys, potentially still pretty smart.
I came here to post a similar comment. I find it hard to believe that the person who wrote this post is "stupid".
It sounds to me like some sort of… intellectual dysphoia? Not unlike someone in the throes of bulimia; who despite evidence to the contrary, can not see themselves as thin enough.
To the OP, I don’t think that is a hypothesis that you can dismiss. Aliefs are pernicious. All we can really do is work with the brain we have. It took me a bit to accept ADHD as a mental disability. Once I made the flip, I was better able to set realistic expectations, and request accommodations and use my tools as mental prosthesis. A lot less negative self-talk.
It really is okay to be good enough.
I am, unapologetically, a genius. (A lot of people here are.)
My experience of what it is like being a genius: I look at a problem and I know an answer. That's pretty much it. I'm not any faster at thinking than anybody else; I'd say I'm actually a somewhat slower thinker, but make up for it by having "larger" thoughts; most people seem to have fast multi-core processors, and I'm running a slightly slow graphics card. Depending on what you need done, I'm either many orders of magnitude better at it - or completely hopeless. It mostly depends on whether or not I've figured out how to adapt the problem to my way of thinking.
Also, sometimes my "I know an answer" is wrong - this means that I still have to go through the "manual" effort of thinking, to verify the answer, and I'm using the slow graphics card to run a mostly single-thread process. Sometimes the answer is too hard to verify either way! (Hey, look at my username; I've been pursuing themes on a crackpot physics for twenty five years, and I'm not particularly any closer to being able to determine whether or not it is true or false!)
In practice, in the real world, what this translates to is: I'm often no faster at providing a "good" answer than a merely above-average person, because, while I know -an- answer, it will take me just as long to verify whether or not it is a good answer as it takes a merely above-average person to go through the manual effort of finding an answer and then verifying it!
Also, my answers are often ... strange. Not wrong, and I can find answers to problems other people find intractable, or find a way to do something in way less time than somebody else - but on rare occasion, I can't find the answer that an average person can spot immediately, and much more frequently, I find an answer that takes way -more- time than the obvious-to-other-people solution.
What I conclude is that what makes me a "genius" is context - I am in fact likely merely somewhat above-average, but that I find the difficulty of problems -different- than other people. Imagine, for a moment, that everybody is given a map of the world, which maps, let's say, 5% of the territory. But 99% of the 5% is in common; ask a hundred people, and 99 of them will know where Canada is. My map is only somewhat above average in size, but it covers an entirely different geography - I couldn't tell you where Canada is, but I know where Tucson is, something that is on less than .01% of the maps out there.
You need to get to Canada, you can ask just about anybody, and they can tell you how to get there. So, even though I don't have Canada on my map, this mostly doesn't present me any problems, except when I'm trying to get to Alaska and somebody tells me to just drive through Canada.
But if you need to go to Tucson, it's hard to find somebody who knows where it is. But I can immediately tell you. Nobody ever asks me how to get to Canada - why would they? - but everybody asks me how to get to Tucson, so I look like I know a lot. And IQ tests really reward knowing how to get to Tucson, and don't bother asking about Canada at all, so - I'm a genius. And because everyone knows where Canada is, I benefit, from an intellectual perspective, as much from having ordinary people around me, as they benefit from having a "genius" around them.
But I'm in the same boat as anybody else when I need to get to Jupiter; nobody has a map that says how to get there.
Have you actually taken an IQ test? It's possible for high-IQ people to also have learning disabilities. Such people are not actually stupid, but they can seem that way in situations that expose their weakness.
Nope. Sadly. And if there were, your intellect would not be impressive for such tools would reach fixation.
If it’s any consolation, all the brilliant people able to make many multiples of your salary due to being born with a better brain - while almost to a man being incredibly smug about it - will soon be losing intellectual death matches with toaster ovens.
i would hate pity answers like "not everyone needs to be smart"
the great majority of people who aren't "smart" also aren't "stupid"
and if you understood that without having to think about it much, I'm gonna guess you're one of the great majority
that wouldn't mean you're automatically "not stupid" enough to accomplish whatever you want to be "not stupid" enough to accomplish, of course, and trying to increase your cognitive capacity can still be good and helpful and etc, but if you are accidentally thinking "anyone scoring under about 108 on an IQ test is stupid", then managing to discard that bias might be helpful in its own right
1I do not know what are your definitions of "intelligent" and "stupid", but I have found the following quote to be insightful and generally true so far :
The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. - Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
If we take this to be our definitions, then the question is whether a person that cannot handle subtlety (sees things in black and white) be able to do so.
I feel that this is mostly dependent on the plasticity of mind and stickiness of mental habits. I think that the ability to be aware of our mental models, and judge when they are useful and when they are not, can be taught to most people. However, whether or not they are able and willing to adopt this mindset of constantly looking for subtlety and contradiction is another matter.
If you think about it, "intelligent" and "stupid" have subtleties to them as well. Let's assume that intelligence is distributed across the population on a bell curve - What percentile do you think you fall into?
I incorporated the elements you mentioned—such as a (ketogenic) diet, meditation, listening to podcasts, and exercising—into my routine with specific, goal-oriented applications. Competing in marathons, practicing martial arts, developing front-end and back-end code, learning how to play the guitar and sketching - these projects allowed me to test my increased capacity to think and do things well. I believe there is value in using the enhanced capabilities gained from exercise, mental wellness, and a good diet to improve cognitive function. While application alone doesn't make one a genius, it certainly contributes to improvement.
I've come to a rather uncomfortable self-assessment: I believe I am a stupid person. This isn't an easy thing to say, especially in a community like LessWrong, where intellect and deep thinking are highly valued. But it's a sentiment that has been echoing in my head for a while, and it's time I faced it head-on.
I've done my due diligence, adhering to the healthy lifestyle that's supposed to bolster brainpower—diet, exercise, a disciplined schedule. I’ve hoped these would somehow kickstart a transformation, but the mental fog remains. When it comes to the raw intellectual horsepower that seems to come so naturally to others, I'm left feeling stranded.
And what about education? That’s supposed to be the great equalizer, right? Well, in my experience, and judging by numerous critiques I’ve read—including on LessWrong—it doesn't quite cut it for those of us who feel innately challenged. The current state of education seems more geared toward churning out graduates rather than fostering genuine intellectual growth, especially for those who don't naturally excel.
As for intelligence being multifaceted, I understand the arguments. Yet, at its core, there seems to be a singular, critical capacity for understanding, learning, and problem-solving that some people have in spades, and others, like me, seem to lack. It's this core aspect of intelligence that I'm most concerned with.
I've chased down various methods and interventions in hopes of a breakthrough:
1. Nootropics: A temporary bump in concentration didn't translate into better cognitive abilities.
2. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): While helpful for managing mental blocks, it didn't increase my learning capacity as I'd hoped.
3. Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI): Still more of a sci-fi dream than a practical tool for boosting intelligence.
4. Educational Software: These keep me engaged, but do they make me smarter? The evidence is thin.
5. Physical Health Regimens: My body is healthier, but my brain hasn't experienced the same growth spurt.
This quest has been disheartening. The supposed 70% genetic determination of IQ feels like a life sentence for my brain. I see people in high places, wielding power and influence despite what appears to be a lack of the very intellect that's celebrated here. It suggests that the relationship between intelligence, as we measure it, and success is more complicated than we'd like to admit.
In my pursuit of intelligence, I'm looking for more than anecdotal success stories or motivational pep talks. I’m seeking substantial, proven methods to increase my cognitive capacity. I am not just looking for ways to cope with or work around my limitations—I want to fundamentally enhance my ability to think, learn, and understand.
So, to the LessWrong community, I pose these questions: Is there a concrete path for increasing one's baseline intelligence, especially for someone who feels inherently deficient in this regard? Are there breakthroughs on the horizon that could offer hope? Or perhaps there's a piece of this puzzle I'm missing—a perspective or a piece of wisdom that could shine a light on a new path forward.
I'm not reaching out, for a miracle cure, but for a solid step I can take toward becoming a smarter person and i would hate pity answers like "not everyone needs to be smart" etc...