Increasing intelligence through self hypnosis?

Postby Lazerald » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:54 pm

Hypnosis has proved it self as a legitimate method for getting stuff done. I'm not dosing off to fantasy land, you know? Intelligence is pretty simple concept, Information processing speed X working memory capacity = Intelligence, or general intelligence. If the subconscious truly has control over body regulations, hormones, etc, as they say, then it should be no problem to try to alter your memory capacity or processing speed?

There might be no "studies" done to prove this, but is it not worth a shot? It's not like I'm trying to make my fused bones grow, as some have tried (lol)..

Chemicals have a lot to do with processing speed, I'm not sure about working memory, but I am for sure about processing speed. The avg processing speed is about 280-320 ms.. Shedding 50 ms would be amazing.. This is too complex, if you want to go in to detail - "Produce hormones X to stimulate hormone Y to receptor Z to V lobe...! As you can see? More like, giving the subconscious a more "direct" command, "optimize information processing speeds to ... "

I really want to give this a shot. I have some experience with self hypnosis. Maybe you have heard of the old, "close your eyes and pretend they can't open" method? I've done it a couple of times, and it worked for me.. 21 day duration sounds good, no? Maybe 10-15 minutes sessions, with 15-20 suggestions..

Wouldn't mind some help on framing the suggestion, don't know how I should phrase it? I've bought some books on self hypnosis, and almost none of them talk about making proper suggestions...


Thanks!
Lazerald
New Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:46 pm
Likes Received: 0


#1

Postby Craig34 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:12 pm

Maybe we have heard of " close your eyes and pretend you cant open them? "

You mean the variation on the Original Dave Elman method?

So why exactly do you want to try this, sounds like you are pretty head strong in that department, so what makes it so appealing.

All the best

Craig
Craig34
Full Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:00 pm
Location: Coventry
Likes Received: 1

#2

Postby Wildcard » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:22 pm

Lazerald wrote:Hypnosis has proved it self as a legitimate method for getting stuff done. I'm not dosing off to fantasy land, you know? Intelligence is pretty simple concept, Information processing speed X working memory capacity = Intelligence, or general intelligence. If the subconscious truly has control over body regulations, hormones, etc, as they say, then it should be no problem to try to alter your memory capacity or processing speed?

There might be no "studies" done to prove this, but is it not worth a shot? It's not like I'm trying to make my fused bones grow, as some have tried (lol)..

Chemicals have a lot to do with processing speed, I'm not sure about working memory, but I am for sure about processing speed. The avg processing speed is about 280-320 ms.. Shedding 50 ms would be amazing.. This is too complex, if you want to go in to detail - "Produce hormones X to stimulate hormone Y to receptor Z to V lobe...! As you can see? More like, giving the subconscious a more "direct" command, "optimize information processing speeds to ... "

I really want to give this a shot. I have some experience with self hypnosis. Maybe you have heard of the old, "close your eyes and pretend they can't open" method? I've done it a couple of times, and it worked for me.. 21 day duration sounds good, no? Maybe 10-15 minutes sessions, with 15-20 suggestions..

Wouldn't mind some help on framing the suggestion, don't know how I should phrase it? I've bought some books on self hypnosis, and almost none of them talk about making proper suggestions...


Thanks!


Intelligence is not as simple as you percieve it to be.

I cant remember who did the studies, but they were groundbreaking.

In this expermiment rats were bred for stupidity. How that was done is not relevant.

But what they did show was that if you take these rats and put them in an enriched environment that their intelligence will almost be as high as the intelligence of those rats that were bred for intelligence.

What I mean by enriched environment is a cage with mirrors or spinning wheels...ladders...etc....

So that the rats can learn.

The rats that were bred for intelligence had no increase in intelligence, but the rats that were bred for stupidity did.

This study showed that intelligence is not only a thing of nature...but also of nurture.

I would say it is possible to increase performance and therefore get a better score on an intelligence test because IQ tests also consider the time factor....but getting past the max on what your genes dictate...hmmm....I doubt it.
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22

#3

Postby Lazerald » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:39 pm

Wildcard wrote:
Lazerald wrote:
Intelligence is not as simple as you percieve it to be.

I cant remember who did the studies, but they were groundbreaking.

In this expermiment rats were bred for stupidity. How that was done is not relevant.

But what they did show was that if you take these rats and put them in an enriched environment that their intelligence will almost be as high as the intelligence of those rats that were bred for intelligence.

What I mean by enriched environment is a cage with mirrors or spinning wheels...ladders...etc....

So that the rats can learn.

The rats that were bred for intelligence had no increase in intelligence, but the rats that were bred for stupidity did.

This study showed that intelligence is not only a thing of nature...but also of nurture.

I would say it is possible to increase performance and therefore get a better score on an intelligence test because IQ tests also consider the time factor....but getting past the max on what your genes dictate...hmmm....I doubt it.


Yes, I agree intelligence is much more complicated then the way I put it, but.. There are numerous studies showing, the exact correlation between intelligence and processing speed/working memory.. This can't be denied.

The question is, is there a gene solely for brain processing speed? I don't know, but there was a study with highly intelligent people (IQ 160+) vs normal IQ people, and guess what? They couldn't find a single gene that was "different" between the two groups.. If there was, what about, gene expression? Or epigenetics? It would only make sense, that there is a cap, which I'm not doubting, but what is "max", and are we already at "max"?

Do we lose those "super learning" genes during our young childhood? Or - Are they still there? Just not activated? Is our learning gene maxed out? I think not!

Craig34 wrote:Maybe we have heard of " close your eyes and pretend you cant open them? "

You mean the variation on the Original Dave Elman method?

So why exactly do you want to try this, sounds like you are pretty head strong in that department, so what makes it so appealing.

All the best

Craig


Hello Craig

Yes the Dave Elman method, what do you think of it, personally?
I'm really interested in this, because I believe it could work. I have ADHD with mild schizophrenia (runs in the family).. I'm cognitively deficient
Lazerald
New Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:46 pm
Likes Received: 0

#4

Postby Craig34 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:48 pm

Dave Elman, for me and a lot of others, find his works some of the best ever written.
Once you really dive into that world there are loads of gems, and to me Daves book is like the bible in my collection.

I have to agree with Wildcard on this one until someone can come up with concrete proof it is possible. enhancing the skills which you have performance wise, but again, to re iterate, going beyond what your genes dictated, I would find highly improbable. I never use the word impossible, just highly improbable, that is like I have said, until someone can prove it has been done, which to my knowledge so far, they havent.

All the best

Craig
Craig34
Full Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:00 pm
Location: Coventry
Likes Received: 1

#5

Postby Wildcard » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:33 pm

Yes, I agree intelligence is much more complicated then the way I put it, but.. There are numerous studies showing, the exact correlation between intelligence and processing speed/working memory.. This can't be denied.

The question is, is there a gene solely for brain processing speed? I don't know, but there was a study with highly intelligent people (IQ 160+) vs normal IQ people, and guess what? They couldn't find a single gene that was "different" between the two groups.. If there was, what about, gene expression? Or epigenetics? It would only make sense, that there is a cap, which I'm not doubting, but what is "max", and are we already at "max"?

Do we lose those "super learning" genes during our young childhood? Or - Are they still there? Just not activated? Is our learning gene maxed out? I think not!


No, no....I wasnt denying the correlation I was just saying that intelligence is not 100% genetic.

Maybe it has a little to do with gene expression. Some genes are only activated by stressfull life events so it could very well be the same with intelligence. At least thats how I would interpret some studies. Maybe an enriched environment during younger years activates these genes.

On the other hand you sometimes have a genetic makeup that cause a loss of intelligence...like with certain mental disorders.

And then if you take a look at autism...its the other way around. Ever hear of that one guy called "brainman"? Amazing!

Heres an example of what I mean when I talk about "max"....its about short-term memory, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJB ... re=related

The chimp can do it. We cant...and I dont think it matters how much practice we would get. It will never happen that we are better than the chimp. We just dont have the genetic makeup.
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22

#6

Postby Ben1987 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:25 pm

As a biochemist I have dealt with the subject of intelligence and the underlying
neurological bases.

I'm afraid to tell you but there are in general currently no ways to profoundly
improve intelligence, because it is determined by the structure of the brain.
And while it is often and rightfully said that the brain is adaptable,
(-> see neural plasticity), this aspect is often over-highlighted by
the popular media, since there are many aspects of our brain that
can't be changed by current means and are shown/implied to be
important for cognitive abilities. (e.g. the number of cortical columns,
the strength of the corpus callosum, even brain size itself.)

I think for those mentioned reasons self-hypnosis can't do this either.

Even most advertised methods for doing so IMHO, don't really train intelligence
but just train you to perform certain mental tasks, (e.g. doing Sudoku)
Yes, one can train IQ tests and there are highly trainable IMHO (e.g. Raven matrices),
but this would just mean you scored higher, not that you have
increased your intelligence, for the IQ test just being a proxy for the former.


Intelligence has a strong genetic bases, there are indeed genes related
to intelligence. It's just that there's no single gene that alone determines
between low and high. i.
Meaning that the combination of a set of genes determine (in combination
with the environment) i.


However there are some ways to enhance certain aspects of cognition,
that indeed can help you in your real life/ work.
As well as there are some novel ways to increase cognitive performance,
but those I don't want to discuss here since it would go too much into detail.

PN me if you're interested in learning more about those.



-Ben
Ben1987
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:27 am
Likes Received: 0

#7

Postby jargan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:10 pm

Ben1987 wrote:there are many aspects of our brain that
can't be changed by current means

At least none that are scientifically documented. :)

(By the way, there are so many different definitions of intelligence that this question cannot really be answered, anyway...)
jargan
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Germany
Likes Received: 34

#8

Postby kevsheldrake » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:01 pm

Ben1987 wrote:even brain size itself


I thought (with the human species) that size of brain had been shown to not be related to intelligence.

Kev
kevsheldrake
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Likes Received: 1

#9

Postby Lazerald » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:46 pm

Ben1987 wrote:As a biochemist I have dealt with the subject of intelligence and the underlying
neurological bases.

I'm afraid to tell you but there are in general currently no ways to profoundly
improve intelligence, because it is determined by the structure of the brain.
And while it is often and rightfully said that the brain is adaptable,
(-> see neural plasticity), this aspect is often over-highlighted by
the popular media, since there are many aspects of our brain that
can't be changed by current means and are shown/implied to be
important for cognitive abilities. (e.g. the number of cortical columns,
the strength of the corpus callosum, even brain size itself.)

I think for those mentioned reasons self-hypnosis can't do this either.

Even most advertised methods for doing so IMHO, don't really train intelligence
but just train you to perform certain mental tasks, (e.g. doing Sudoku)
Yes, one can train IQ tests and there are highly trainable IMHO (e.g. Raven matrices),
but this would just mean you scored higher, not that you have
increased your intelligence, for the IQ test just being a proxy for the former.


Intelligence has a strong genetic bases, there are indeed genes related
to intelligence. It's just that there's no single gene that alone determines
between low and high. i.
Meaning that the combination of a set of genes determine (in combination
with the environment) i.


However there are some ways to enhance certain aspects of cognition,
that indeed can help you in your real life/ work.
As well as there are some novel ways to increase cognitive performance,
but those I don't want to discuss here since it would go too much into detail.

PN me if you're interested in learning more about those.



-Ben


I couldn't shoot you a pm, sorry. I've heard piracetam strengthens the corpus callosum? Have you heard of Image Streaming? It's also claimed, to strengthen or lead to growth in the corpus callosum.

I've been doing research on a game called "N-back".. It's shown to improve working memory, and after 15 hours, after physical effects on the dopamine receptors in the brain... If working memory correlates with fluid intelligence like they say, then maybe N-back could increase intelligence?
Lazerald
New Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:46 pm
Likes Received: 0

#10

Postby Wildcard » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:34 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:
Ben1987 wrote:even brain size itself


I thought (with the human species) that size of brain had been shown to not be related to intelligence.

Kev


It actually is. The reason they started to look into the matter was because over the thousands and thousands of years the weight of the brain increased. 3 million years ago about 450 gramms. Today about 1200 to 1500 gramms. They also claim that intelligence has increased over that time, too.

MRI studies show a positive correaltion between .35 and .40

Willerman et al.(1991) also showed a positive correlation of .65 between brainsize and males. For females it was .35 and for both sexes together it was .51

But as you see for yourself that one study was done in 1991...so who knows what they know now.

There are attempts to try and explain this by saying it is an effect of stimulation of the nervous system in early years.

Either way...it doesnt help us any more to better understand what intelligence is.

There is a positive aspect though to those studies!

You can piss women off really fast by claiming it is scientific fact that men are more intelligent than women because our brains are bigger

:)
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22

#11

Postby Ben1987 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:04 pm

jargan wrote:
Ben1987 wrote:there are many aspects of our brain that
can't be changed by current means

At least none that are scientifically documented. :)

(By the way, there are so many different definitions of intelligence that this question cannot really be answered, anyway...)




Hey Jargan,

What do you mean with 'none that are scientifically documented' ?
It's evident IMHO that there are of course features of the brain that
remain static, (not discussing decline with age here^^). Could you for
example increase the number of neurons in the neocortex, other than interneurons? Could somebody that underwent lobotomy reconnect
the seperated areas of his brain.

I don't get your point...


I expected we would come to semantics sooner or later.
You're right that there's a plethora of definitions for intelligence.

'An abstract information process that allows humans/animals to achieve complex goals in complex environments.' would be one.

One might suggest that most definitions of intelligence are quite anthropocentric and therefore define intelligence by it's result to
allow survivability. In this understanding bacteria, viral particles
might be intelligent - even photons should be regarded to possess
a form of intelligence. (That's what the famous physicist Feynman once proposed AFAIK)


Therefore we should clarify our own understanding of intelligence, if we decided
we could go deeper into the topic.

My own understanding is well reflected in the wiki description of intelligence.
It's more a list of attributes of intellgence that a hands-on description.
"Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving."
I would argue that this capacity is related to structural properties of the brain, that yet have to be identified, confirmed and their working explained.
(The number of cortical columns might be one piece in the puzzle.)


-Ben
Ben1987
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:27 am
Likes Received: 0

#12

Postby Ben1987 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:13 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:
Ben1987 wrote:even brain size itself


I thought (with the human species) that size of brain had been shown to not be related to intelligence.

Kev


You migt have read Jargan's extensive article already.

You'rre right it it now nearly common knowledge that intelligence and
brain size are not correlated. It's somewhat inconclusive since different studies
came to different conclusions in this regard. A correlation is however found
in many, like this one:
[url]'http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072853'[/url]


Just consult pubmed in the case you are interested digging deeper.



-Ben
Ben1987
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:27 am
Likes Received: 0

#13

Postby jargan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:23 am

@Ben1987:

>> What do you mean with 'none that are scientifically documented' ?
>> It's evident IMHO that there are of course features of the brain that remain static, (not discussing decline with age here^^).

I could claim "only because we haven't found a reliable method to change them," and you couldn't refute me. That kind of "not scientifically documented".

>> Could you for example increase the number of neurons in the neocortex, other than interneurons? Could somebody that underwent lobotomy reconnect the seperated areas of his brain.

Do I have a reliable method to do anything like that? Heck no. Do I completely discount the possibility that (at least some) people might be able to learn to do it? Heck no again.

>> I expected we would come to semantics sooner or later.
>> You're right that there's a plethora of definitions for intelligence.

My point isn't that some definitions are better than others (even though that might well be the case), but that there is none that is clearly "much more correct" than the others. All functional definitions (i.e. definitions that explain intelligence by its results or "intentions") are absolutely sufficient for use in standard language, but they do not provide any insight into what precisely intelligence is made out of, so to speak.

>> 'An abstract information process that allows humans/animals to achieve complex goals in complex environments.' would be one.

That's an example of a functional definition. It says nothing about intelligence itself, only about the purpose/use of intelligence.

>> One might suggest that most definitions of intelligence are quite anthropocentric and therefore define intelligence by it's result to
allow survivability.

Same thing.

>> "Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving."

Same thing again.

None of these discussions get us any closer to finding out how intelligence "works". How can a system become intelligent? Given any of these definitions, we can only say whether a system is intelligent or not, but we could not build a system that attains a human-like level of intelligence because we don't understand intelligence.

Now, how can we make an absolute statement about how immutable intelligence is when we don't even know what "causes" it? We have many data points that tell us that random things we've tried have not resulted in more intelligence by most functional definitions. We also have data points that say that there are correlations between intelligence (according to different functional definitions) and various other things. (And, of course, as serious scientists we know that correlation does not imply causation.)

What we definitely don't have is: a) data points that generally exclude the possibility of influencing intelligence, b) data points that prove that some thing or another "causes" intelligence.

Conclusion: it's not currently feasible to answer the question whether there is a reliable method to increase intelligence using self-hypnosis or voodoo or drugs or willpower or whatever.
jargan
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Germany
Likes Received: 34

#14

Postby Wildcard » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:53 pm

What we definitely don't have is: a) data points that generally exclude the possibility of influencing intelligence, b) data points that prove that some thing or another "causes" intelligence.

Those are interesting points right there.

What pops into my mind are studies done on twins and studies done on families with more than one child.

These studies show that twins on average have a lower intelligence than other children born in families with only that one child.

These studies also show that in families with more than one child the first born...on average...has a higher intelligence than second or third born.

The studies dont show the "causes" or what is influencing this...but the findings are interesting none the less.
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22


Next

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Hypnosis