Crystallized intelligence is your ability to utilize information, skills, and experience already learned -- basically, it's cerebral knowledge. This tends to build as you age, and is emphasized in most Western cultures especially since it's easily tested on standardized exams.
Fluid intelligence, by contrast, is your ability to identify patterns, solve novel problems, and use logic in new situations. It's not about how much you know; it's about your ability to be creative, aware, innovative, and visionary. It's relatively easy to improve your crystallized knowledge: read, listen to podcasts, collect more facts, learn.
But fluid intelligence isn't like that.
It's not about facts and figures; it's about your capacity to take something you've never seen before and work with it -- to be ingenious. Now, studies show that there is something you can do to dramatically improve your fluid intelligence as well as your overall IQ: meditate.
That's correct: Meditation is not just good for your physiological health, reducing stress, improving mood, and setting you up for emotional equilibrium rather than reactivity. Siegfried Othmer , former president of the neurofeedback division of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, conducted neurofeedback research on participants using brainwave training a specific form of meditation. Those who meditated showed an average gain in IQ of 23 percent.
Not only did the meditators improve their IQ, but the effect was lasting, according to a follow-up study conducted one year later. Participants who meditated showed significant gains in creativity, concentration, and self-awareness. Another astonishing study in Consciousness and Cognition showed that after just four days of daily minute meditation, participants demonstrated significant improvements in memory, cognition, and lowered stress levels.
Perhaps most notably, the group that meditated scored as much as 10 times better on a working memory task -- an important part of fluid intelligence. Why does meditation improve your IQ? There are a few reasons, but one of the main ones is that deep meditation slows brain activity. As slower brainwaves take over also known as being in a delta or theta state , the brain increases its own plasticity, or ability to reorganize itself.
By practicing focused attention during meditation, whether on your breath, a mantra, or even music, you give your brain just the right kind of respite. That's all you need to do: You rest your brain, it improves itself. Amazing, no? It's worth noting that neither of the groups that experienced such extraordinary improvements were yogis, nor were they meditating for hours at a time.
Charlie Gordon, squared. To achieve this maximal type would require direct editing of the human genome, ensuring the favorable genetic variant at each of 10, loci. Assuming Church is right, we should add super-geniuses to mammoths on the list of wonders to be produced in the new genomic age.
And again. Every second is an opportunity to use your power to get what you want. In effect, you are wave streaming the physical image, and image streaming the mental image when it comes. More videos In fact, listening to harmonics at bed time will keep you awake all night! If you feel pain while running, switch to swimming or cycling temporarily to maintain fitness until the injury is fully healed. Don't miss out.
S ome of the assumptions behind the prediction of 1, IQs are the subject of ongoing debate. In some quarters, the very idea of a quantification of intelligence is contentious. The sentiment is a familiar one: Common wisdom sometimes says that people who are good at math are not so good with words, and vice versa. This distinction has affected how we understand genius, suggesting it is an endowment of one particular faculty of the brain, and not a general superlative of the whole brain itself. This in turn makes the idea of apples-to-apples comparisons of intelligence moot, and the very idea of a 1, IQ problematic.
But psychometric studies, which seek to measure the nature of intelligence, paint a different picture. The figure below displays graphically the ability scores of a large group of individuals, in areas such as mathematical, verbal, and spatial performance. The space of the graph is not filled uniformly, but instead the points cluster along an ellipsoidal region with a single long or principal axis. These positive correlations between narrow abilities suggest that an individual who is above average in one area for example, mathematical ability is more likely to be above average in another verbal ability.
They also suggest a robust and useful method for compressing information concerning cognitive abilities. By projecting the performance of an individual onto the principal axis, we can arrive at a single number measure of cognitive ability results: the general factor g. Well-formulated IQ tests are estimators of g.
Does g predict genius? Consider the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, a longitudinal study of gifted children identified by testing using the SAT, which is highly correlated with g before age All participants were in the top percentile of ability, but the top quintile of that group was at the one in 10, level or higher. When surveyed in middle age, it was found that even within this group of gifted individuals, the probability of achievement increased drastically with early test scores. For example, the top quintile group was six times as likely to have been awarded a patent than the lowest quintile.
It is reasonable to conclude that g represents a meaningful single-number measure of intelligence, allowing for crude but useful apples-to-apples comparisons. Another assumption behind the 1,IQ prediction is that cognitive ability is strongly affected by genetics, and that g is heritable. The evidence for this assumption is quite strong. In twin and adoption studies, pairwise IQ correlations are roughly proportional to the degree of kinship, defined as the fraction of genes shared between the two individuals. Only small differences due to family environment were found: Biologically unrelated siblings raised in the same family have almost zero correlation in cognitive ability.
These results are consistent over large studies conducted in a variety of locations, including different countries.
In the absence of deprivation, it would seem that genetic effects determine the upper limit to cognitive ability. However, in studies where subjects have experienced a wider range of environmental conditions, such as poverty, malnutrition, or lack of education, heritability estimates can be much smaller. When environmental conditions are unfavorable, individuals do not achieve their full potential see The Flynn Effect. The Flynn effect, named after the philosopher James Flynn, refers to a significant increase in raw cognitive scores over the last years or so—the equivalent of two standard deviations in some cases.
This raises a number of thorny issues. Were our ancestors idiots? Is cognitive ability really so malleable under environmental influence contrary to what has been found in recent twin studies? United States gross domestic product per capita is eight times higher now, and the average number of years people spend in school has increased dramatically. In the America of , adults had an average of about seven years of schooling, a median of 6.
Modern twin and adoption studies only include individuals raised in a much smaller range of environments—almost all participants in recent studies have had legally mandated educations, which in the U. There is a revealing analogy with height. While taller parents tend to have taller children i. S uper-intelligence may be a distant prospect, but smaller, still-profound developments are likely in the immediate future.
Large data sets of human genomes and their corresponding phenotypes which are the physical and mental characteristics of the individual will lead to significant progress in our ability to understand the genetic code—in particular, to predict cognitive ability.
Detailed calculations suggest that millions of phenotype-genotype pairs will be required to tease out the genetic architecture, using advanced statistical algorithms. However, given the rapidly falling cost of genotyping, this is likely to happen in the next 10 years or so. If existing heritability estimates are any guide, the accuracy of genomic-based prediction of intelligence could be better than about half a population standard deviation meaning better than plus or minus 10 IQ points. Once predictive models are available, they can be used in reproductive applications, ranging from embryo selection choosing which IVF zygote to implant to active genetic editing for example, using CRISPR techniques.
In the former case, parents choosing between 10 or so zygotes could improve the IQ of their child by 15 or more IQ points. This might mean the difference between a child who struggles in school, and one who is able to complete a good college degree. Zygote genotyping from single cell extraction is already technically well developed, so the last remaining capability required for embryo selection is complex phenotype prediction. The cost of these procedures would be less than tuition at many private kindergartens, and of course the consequences will extend over a lifetime and beyond.