Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Fruit of the contemplative life: => Case Histories with religious experiences => : Jhanananda March 18, 2015, 12:42:25 PM
-
Having a high IQ and discovering deep meditation might be related. I happen to score in the top .1% of the human IQ bell curve. While I knew that my IQ was above 145 during my freshman year of high school; nonetheless, I did not know until recently that my IQ was in the top .1% of the human IQ bell curve. If I did my career would have been much different. I also happen to be a polymath.
The point here is I stumbled across the deep meditation experience in my first year of taking up a contemplative life more than 40 years ago; whereas, most people who practice meditation never find the deep meditation experience. Thus, I believe it is reasonable to consider that possibly all of the people who stumble upon the deep meditation experience might be geniuses. So, it would be very useful if those posting their case histories here also posted their IQ, if you are comfortable with doing so.
An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence...When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less...By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores an IQ between 85 and 115, and about 5 percent of the population scores above 125...IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[32][33][34][35][36] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points...The correlation between IQ test results and achievement test results is about 0.7.
2.1% of the population scores above 130, and 1% of the population scores above 140 and .1% of the population scores above 145.
Related concepts are genius and polymath.
A genius is a person who displays exceptional superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge. A scholar in many subjects or a scholar in a single subject may be referred to as a genius.[1] There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.
A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, "having learned much")[1] is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. The term was first used in the seventeenth century; the related term, polyhistor, is an ancient term with similar meaning.[2]
The term is often used to describe great thinkers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment who excelled at several fields in science and the arts. In the Italian Renaissance, the idea of the polymath was expressed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472), in the statement that "a man can do all things if he will."[3] Embodying a basic tenet of Renaissance humanism that humans are limitless in their capacity for development, the concept led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible. This was expressed in the term "Renaissance man" which is often applied to the gifted people of that age who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social and physical. This term entered the lexicon during the twentieth century and has now been applied to great thinkers living before and after the Renaissance.
"Renaissance man" was first recorded in written English in the early 20th century.[4] It is now used to refer to great thinkers living before, during, or after the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance man, a man of "unquenchable curiosity" and "feverishly inventive imagination".[5]
Many notable polymaths lived during the Renaissance period, a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through to the 17th century and that began in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spread to the rest of Europe. These polymaths had a rounded approach to education that reflected the ideals of the humanists of the time. A gentleman or courtier of that era was expected to speak several languages, play a musical instrument, write poetry, and so on, thus fulfilling the Renaissance ideal. The idea of a universal education was essential to achieving polymath ability, hence the word university was used to describe a seat of learning. At this time universities did not specialize in specific areas but rather trained students in a broad array of science, philosophy, and theology. This universal education gave them a grounding from which they could continue into apprenticeship toward becoming a Master of a specific field.
-
I can attest to being a polymath as well. My IQ is 140 on a fluid-intelligence test (raven progressive matrices) and 145 on a Cattell test. Perhaps it could be possible to look at past polymath geniuses such as Leonardo Da Vinci (200+), Albert Einstein (160), Descartes (180), Isaac Newton (190), Charles Dickens (145), Galileo (145), etc... (I would not trust the actual values though, since most of them are probably guessed.)
I can't help but remember Einstein's words:
“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."
"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
"The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man."
What do you think? Einstein sounds like a mystic... with Buddhist ideals at that. I do not know if they are bogus quotes, but if they are true, it might add to the hypothesis. Da Vinci's work is also inspiration-based in a way. I find like all of them seem to have had intuitive insight at a certain point.
-
We have discussed geniuses and polymaths being possible mystics here before. The quotes from Einstein are very probably apocryphal.
Both my father and his father had IQs around 145, and my grandfather was a polymath; however, there is nothing in the family history about either of them to suggest that they were mystics. In fact my father was an atheist until about 2 years before his death, when he became a born-again Christian. If anything they should tell you my father took a moron's approach to religion.
The history of the major geniuses also shows that many of them had very unhealthy relationships with their families of origin. Wolfgang Mozart comes to mind.
I too had a very unhealthy relationship with my family of origin. I was abused constantly throughout my childhood. My father did nothing to help me; and I came to find after his death that he had made a career out of hijacking my career, even up to his death. I now realize that he was behind most of the abuses that I encountered at the hands of my family of origin from birth to the present.
So, we have to conclude that just being a genius does not make one a mystic. On the other hand, I believe it might be true that the major mystics of the world might very well have been geniuses. After all, the earliest example of logic and critical thinking is in the Pali Canon. Since logic and critical thinking typifies geniuses, then we can use the Pali Canon as reasonable proof that Siddhartha Gautama was most probably a genius.
-
I think the greatest manifestation of real intelligence is to see life as a problem: and one that has to have a solution. If the world is just, there must be a way to escape.
I remember reading a quote from the Maharshi's life: that when he was an adolescent in school, he reacted one time to his brother studying. He asked, "What is the point of it?" In context, his brother thought how ignorant the Maharshi was. But, that was ironic. Rather, the question was evidence of how intelligent the Maharshi was at that young age: and how far he surpassed his brother. At 15 or 16 he knew what the only reasonable approach to life was.
What the young Maharshi meant was: "If we're subject to aging, sickness, pain, dissatisfaction, failure, death... if life is so short, if we're so limited and frail and unimportant... why are you spending this time studying? What value is worldly knowledge? What value is title, wealth, or education? The only sensible thing is to dedicate all one's time/energy to the spirit, and to hope there is a way out."
The facts of life are there for everyone... but few react to them in an intelligent way.
-
I think the greatest manifestation of real intelligence is to see life as a problem: and one that has to have a solution. If the world is just, there must be a way to escape.
I remember reading a quote from the Maharshi's life: that when he was an adolescent in school, he reacted one time to his brother studying. He asked, "What is the point of it?" In context, his brother thought how ignorant the Maharshi was. But, that was ironic. Rather, the question was evidence of how intelligent the Maharshi was at that young age: and how far he surpassed his brother. At 15 or 16 he knew what the only reasonable approach to life was.
What the young Maharshi meant was: "If we're subject to aging, sickness, pain, dissatisfaction, failure, death... if life is so short, if we're so limited and frail and unimportant... why are you spending this time studying? What value is worldly knowledge? What value is title, wealth, or education? The only sensible thing is to dedicate all one's time/energy to the spirit, and to hope there is a way out."
The facts of life are there for everyone... but few react to them in an intelligent way.
Yes, I agree. We are all running after name, fame, power and wealth, but all we end up with is death. So why pursue the 7 deadly sins? instead let us live our lives in bliss, joy, and ecstasy.
-
Between 138 and 143--depending on test. I am unsure if I could be considered a polymath, but I can say that THESE DAYS almost anything I find interesting I catch onto rapidly. It seems to be related to the nature of intuitive insight, and seeing the recurring patterns in life.
I have the rough IQ's (memory) of other mystics in my local area which are between 134-150. I know some who can access 1st-2nd jhana with guidance, but are below 134.
I was actually just talking about this the other day. Not every genius is a mystic, but every mystic whom I know the IQ of is a genius.
Interestingly, I am finding that an IQ beyond 130-150 usually results in too much intellectualizing and I have yet to meet a 150+ mystic. "Middle-way" is my simplistic explanation for that.
Lastly, although I endured a lot of physical/emotional abuse and family dysfunction in the first 2/3rds of life, I have been able to unite most of my family, including extended family. About 40 percent are proto-mystic, and 20 are mystic. Once I unpacked that 60 percent's terminology (because I wanted to understand them), and subsequently helped them see their commonality, they became very close and functional.
-
Thank-you, Jhanon, for contributing more data points to the hypothesis that there might be a correlation between IQ and mysticism. I would hold off on any assumption that IQs in the upper .1 percentile result in too much intellectualization, and therefore a mid-range IQ is better, because we only have 3 data points for now, and finding enough people in the upper .1 percentile of the IQ range to make any assumption should be quite difficult.
We just need to focus on the mystics, and find out their IQs. If we find that a statistically significant group of mystics have above average IQs, then we have something of significance to record.
-
To add to a data point, my IQ is 135 on official IQ tests.
However, to really get a scientifically unbiased study, one would have to collect a random sample of all mystics. And of course, doing so would be quite difficult. So for now, we have this convenience sample from the GWV.
Because the GWV appeals to those who enjoy discourse, it may be that more intellectual and therefore conventionally intelligent mystics happen to land here. It may also be true (though probably much less true here) that those of lower intelligence may not feel as comfortable posting their score, if they know it.
It may be interesting to know that there are multiple intelligences that are measured, such as emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and so on. Some theorists call for a spiritual (or existential) intelligence, though they have not yet developed a valid tool to measure it, as so far they can only rely on self-reporting of specific internal behaviors and experiences.
-
To add to a data point, my IQ is 135 on official IQ tests.
Thank-you, Anatta, for providing us with another data point in favor of the premise.
However, to really get a scientifically unbiased study, one would have to collect a random sample of all mystics. And of course, doing so would be quite difficult. So for now, we have this convenience sample from the GWV.
Random sampling will not work for studying mystics, because mystics are not randomly available. To make this study more useful we would need to test the IQ of every subject in the study ourselves.
Because the GWV appeals to those who enjoy discourse, it may be that more intellectual and therefore conventionally intelligent mystics happen to land here.
This might be quite true, but we do receive a fair number of case histories from people who never otherwise post. I am not sure if we could argue that they have less intellectually acuity. I believe it would be better to say that mystics tend to shy away from dialog of any kind, and especially intellectualism.
It may also be true (though probably much less true here) that those of lower intelligence may not feel as comfortable posting their score, if they know it.
This is a good point. We can only rely upon honesty, but I suppose for the most part we will only receive IQ scores from those who have a high IQ score. I do have a premise that anyone can become a mystic, but it is the geniuses who stumble naturally upon mysticism.
It may be interesting to know that there are multiple intelligences that are measured, such as emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, musical, and so on. Some theorists call for a spiritual (or existential) intelligence, though they have not yet developed a valid tool to measure it, as so far they can only rely on self-reporting of specific internal behaviors and experiences.
Good point, if we had IQ scores for all of the above measured intelligences, then that might be more useful. However, the problem with measuring spiritual intelligence is the psychiatric and religious communities have only proven that they are completely clueless as to what is "spiritual," if we consider that being a mystic is being spiritual.
-
I don't think I have a high IQ. I have never had a full education. Only had 10 years of education and the rest is life education.
-
Back in the mid-seventies the psychiatrist decided I should have an IQ test. He was probably wondering why I was stupid enough to see a psychiatrist in the first place. So I presented myself to the psychologist for testing. I found the experience totally unpleasant. I resented being defined by a test. I got the whole nine-yards complete with the stop watch to measure my speed and a Rorschach test to top it all. According to their test I was labelled as being bright. They didn't tell me what the score was . I swore I would never submit to such a test again.
How do you define intelligence? I would say that intelligence is knowing what is worth pursuing.
I like to learn things on my own and I excel at certain creative things like original musical composition, building classical guitars, carving and sculpturing 3-d objects, and was good at calculus. I have a good eye for what is beautiful. Some of these things are not represented in an IQ test. I never went beyond high school. Unfortunately, I can't say I am gifted at meditation like most of you here. But I'm a genius at diligence and patience.
-
I am certain that both you, Michel, and gandarloda are geniuses. A genius learns by doing, and does not need a formal education.
-
I don't think I have a high IQ. I have never had a full education. Only had 10 years of education and the rest is life education.
Gandarloda, the theory of IQ is that it is the mind's capacity to learn, not what it has learned from being afforded certain educational privileges. People who have had no formal education at all can be geniuses. However, the people who develop IQ tests have doctorate-level educations, so naturally, they unwittingly skew their tests somewhat in favor of a traditional formal education.
If you can keep up here, you are most likely at least above average in IQ, and if you have had little formal education and can still keep up, then you are probably more than above average. So while I do not know you, evidence makes me agree with Jhananda's assessment of your intellect as a genius.
-
Gandarloda, the theory of IQ is that it is the mind's capacity to learn, not what it has learned from being afforded certain educational privileges. People who have had no formal education at all can be geniuses. However, the people who develop IQ tests have doctorate-level educations, so naturally, they unwittingly skew their tests somewhat in favor of a traditional formal education
I get bored easily. I don't like repetition and I find it very irritating. I learn everything very fast though. Lots of people told me that I am very intelligent even at a young age and I am not very young now. I don't really think that intelligence is that important as other qualities like diligence and patience as Michel have mentioned is equally important or more so. I don't think I am intelligent anyway. I said this not out of humility but due to the understanding that one quality does not make you know how to survive in any situation and it takes a lot more.
I have a friend who only had 5 years of education. He doesn't read or write well but he is successful in his chosen field and he has never deviate from it. Others who are much more educated and intelligent does not fare as well. I am currently helping to do all his paperwork for his company. He treats me very well. He loves me. (I love him like a son even though he is my age) He is married with 2 kids all quite grown up now. He is my age. He gives me money every month.
All in all, intelligence does not make you a good person either. It takes much more. It would be very arrogant to say that mystic are more intelligent than lay people. It might be good for the ego but it might not be true.
-
I get bored easily. I don't like repetition and I find it very irritating. I learn everything very fast though. Lots of people told me that I am very intelligent even at a young age and I am not very young now. I don't really think that intelligence is that important as other qualities like diligence and patience as Michel have mentioned is equally important or more so. I don't think I am intelligent anyway. I said this not out of humility but due to the understanding that one quality does not make you know how to survive in any situation and it takes a lot more.
It is a fact about geniuses that they get bored easily, and they often have low grades due to lack of attention span. For most of them the learning rate in school is just too slow, so they would rather study on their own, and only the subjects that interest them. I found that true for myself.
I have a friend who only had 5 years of education. He doesn't read or write well but he is successful in his chosen field and he has never deviate from it. Others who are much more educated and intelligent does not fare as well. I am currently helping to do all his paperwork for his company. He treats me very well. He loves me. (I love him like a son even though he is my age) He is married with 2 kids all quite grown up now. He is my age. He gives me money every month.
Another aspect of geniuses is they generally do not get wealthy, because they generally do not seek wealth. Instead they are busy doing what interests them, and that is often the acquisition of knowledge.
All in all, intelligence does not make you a good person either. It takes much more. It would be very arrogant to say that mystic are more intelligent than lay people. It might be good for the ego but it might not be true.
I agree, IQ does not make one a mystic either. Steven Hawkins comes to mind as someone who is generally regarded as intelligent, but he is no contemplative, nor mystic.
First, the term 'lay' in English just means someone who is not of the priesthood. Therefore, I am a layperson, even though I have been a monk for more than 15 years now.
Thus, I have to disagree on your premise that it is arrogant to say that mystics are more intelligent than lay people. I could be wrong, because I am just collecting data now, but it is starting to look like mystics might just have a higher IQ. We just do not know until there is more data. However, Siddhartha Gautama was no doubt a genius, because the Pali canon clearly shows he used logic and critical thinking to express his teaching. The Pali canon is the earliest example of logic and critical thinking. Socrates also used logic and critical thinking to express his philosophy, and he appears to have been a mystic. And, we have had a few people here post case histories that demonstrate that they are mystics; and they claim to have IQs in the top 1%. Therefore, the evidence is mounting in support of my premise.
-
Another aspect of geniuses is they generally do not get wealthy, because they generally do not seek wealth. Instead they are busy doing what interests them, and that is often the acquisition of knowledge.
I have a friend who only had 5 years of education. He doesn't read or write well but he is successful in his chosen field and he has never deviate from it. Others who are much more educated and intelligent does not fare as well. I am currently helping to do all his paperwork for his company. He treats me very well. He loves me. (I love him like a son even though he is my age) He is married with 2 kids all quite grown up now. He is my age. He gives me money every month.
What I meant was that those who thinks that they are intelligent. For that quote, I am trying to convey that a rolling stone gather no moss. One needs diligence, patience among other qualities.
First, the term 'lay' in English just means someone who is not of the priesthood. Therefore, I am a layperson, even though I have been a monk for more than 15 years now.
Ler's not split hair. You do understand what I meant.
Thus, I have to disagree on your premise that it is arrogant to say that mystics are more intelligent than lay people. I could be wrong, because I am just collecting data now, but it is starting to look like mystics might just have a higher IQ. We just do not know until there is more data. However, Siddhartha Gautama was no doubt a genius, because the Pali canon clearly shows he used logic and critical thinking to express his teaching. The Pali canon is the earliest example of logic and critical thinking. Socrates also used logic and critical thinking to express his philosophy, and he appears to have been a mystic. And, we have had a few people here post case histories that demonstrate that they are mystics; and they claim to have IQs in the top 1%. Therefore, the evidence is mounting in support of my premise.
It's good that you disagree. So what if we are more intelligent? Is that going to effect how we are going to behave? Does intelligent people makes better choices? With these questions, does it not makes it a bit arrogant? I do understand that you are collecting data for your premise but to what purpose?
I do not know if Socrates is a mystic or not. As far as I know, there are no actual evidence of that. Others might practice critical thinking/logic but that does not prove that they are mystic.
P.S. Usually I don't like to discuss unless I have to. This is just to practice my written English. Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to question you. I am just trying to understand.
-
What I meant was that those who thinks that they are intelligent.
Yes, I agree, those who think, or boast, that they are intelligent are often arrogant. And intelligence does not necessarily lead to humility.
Oddly, my father, who was supposedly a genius, had a self-effacing quality to him, yet he could not bare the idea that his son had a higher IQ and GPA than he had, so he made a career out of obstructing his son's career.
For that quote, I am trying to convey that a rolling stone gather no moss. One needs diligence, patience among other qualities.
I agree, it takes discipline to become a mystic. And, not all geniuses are disciplined, nor are they all mystics.
It's good that you disagree. So what if we are more intelligent? Is that going to effect how we are going to behave? Does intelligent people makes better choices? With these questions, does it not makes it a bit arrogant? I do understand that you are collecting data for your premise but to what purpose?
Well, I would find it rather interesting if most mystics were geniuses.
I do not know if Socrates is a mystic or not. As far as I know, there are no actual evidence of that. Others might practice critical thinking/logic but that does not prove that they are mystic.
I found sufficient evidence in the Complete dialogs of Plato (http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/181711415250?lpid=82&chn=ps) to conclude that Socrates was most definitely a mystic. But, you can decide for yourself by reading the works of Plato.
P.S. Usually I don't like to discuss unless I have to. This is just to practice my written English. Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to question you. I am just trying to understand.
This forum is for dialog. Dialog is about coming to an understanding, and not for idle verbal warfare. I am here to learn as much as anyone else is here.
-
I found this interesting link on Sam's timeline on FaceBook, which I thought was relevant. 10 Geniuses Who Were Shockingly Horrible People (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-Xh_G2tXw).
-
IQ is 138, but ive only taken one test, so it may or may not be accurate.
-
Thanks, Cal, the scale upon which your IQ was measured is important to know for relevance. In the 60's the scale was 155, now it is 200, which shifts up the IQ measurement. However, if you do not know the scale that your IQ was measured against, and it was measured in the 60s or 70s, then you know the scale was 155.
-
I felt like this article may contribute to some insight to the link (or maybe not):
http://www.spring.org.uk/2015/08/a-high-iq-may-also-have-this-mental-cost-psychologists-find.php
Bipolarism seems to be associated with intelligence or creativity (correlation though, not causation).
-
Thank-you, bodhimind, for posting the interesting link. Perhaps the problem for people with high IQs is realizing that they are in a world that is run by morons, as demonstrated by continual wars, corruption, and deficit spending.
-
A high IQ does not at all mean one is a saint, or a mystic. 5 Famous Historical Figures Who Were Total Perverts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4n84bRxqqs).
-
What Makes a Prodigy? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-a-prodigy/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150922). The article states, "it is possible that most anyone could be a prodigy, with the right environment."
-
Interesting correlation. I have always been a very gifted student. I don't know my IQ, but I recently learned that I was diagnosed as a genius (or whatever label was used back then for a high IQ) as a toddler. Apparently my father dismissed it and said he didn't want to hear about it. Later when I was 10 years old, my teacher called my parents to tell them that he believed I was incredibly gifted and they should do something about it. Again, my father told him he was out of his mind and should forget about it. He only told me this a few weeks ago after I asked, because my aunt had casually mentioned these facts to me by accident believing that I knew about it. I had no idea actually. But it is true that as a teenager, I was very good at everything I did at school, especially in mathematics (although I later chose languages for some reason that made sense to my rebellious teenage self, which I now regret although it allows me to communicate with you at least). At university, I was also a top student and I am now finishing a PhD in linguistics.
The funny thing is that as a child and teenager, I didn't see myself as particularly gifted, but rather as the other kids being lazy. As it took very little work to succeed, I assumed that the kids who didn't pass simply didn't work. Now that i teach, I realise that many many people lack interllectual skills. It's sad really because it is the majority of people by far.
-
Interesting, Kai Ryu, because my hypothesis is that those who arrive at deep meditation most probably have superior IQs. I suggest that you take the free MENSA test (https://www.us.mensa.org/join/mht/) to see what your IQ is.
Sadly, if you had know that you have a superior IQ when you first applied to college, you might very well have received a full academic scholarship to the best universities in the world for your IQ plus good grades. As, I may have as well, but my family, like yours, thought it was better to keep me in the dark regarding my IQ. Further, with a superior IQ, you are more likely to find a post-doc position somewhere, which will further your career, and you are more likely to get yourself into a tenure track professorship sooner, and at a higher ranked university, than others, if you want it.
I am not sure what the motivation was for your parents to disregard your superior IQ, but I am quite certain the reason why my parents chose to do so for me was to place as many obstacles in the way of my career path that they could, because they clearly did not want me to be successful.
-
I took the MENSA test and scored very low. My IQ is in the 86th percentile, around 125 on this scale. It makes sense though. In viewing what others write, who are genius level IQ and above, I see a sharpness and flow to their thoughts; much more expansive. I tend to rely more on feeling in viewing patterns and not so much in cognitive recognition. So I found the number patterns took more time on the test. Was interesting to view though how the test was about organizing and connecting the dots.
-
I would not call an IQ in the 86th percentile, around 125 on their scale, very low, because it is certainly significantly above average. So, you are working quite well with what you have, and that is all that matters. So, thank-you for posting your results, because it helps with the case histories.
-
I'll try to do it when I have the time and when I am not nearly as exhausted as I am right now (very long day at work). I am not entirely sure, however, that a test made in English would accurately represent my IQ because no matter how good my English is, it will never be as good as my native French language, especially considering I am finishing a PhD in French. If time is an aspect of the test, I'll have to make sure my 10-month-old daughter is sleeping or I am likely to get retard-level results :-D!!
-
What sort of role might IQ play in the religious experience, Jeff? Is it in the initial recognition or what is religious? Would it be just a commonality? A prerequisite? Discernment?
Is it the free-thinking that seems to be comon among those with a higher IQ?
-
Kai Ryu, while IQ tests are often timed, I doubt if it matters what your language of origin is, because most IQ tests are about problem-solving, and are often more visual than written.
Cal, It appears it is the free-thinking, or the ability to transcend conditioning, that seems to be comon among those with a higher IQs, and those who realize that the contemplative life has value, and take it far enough to develop depth in meditation. However, most geniuses probably never get to the contemplative life, so we cannot say this relationship is reflexive.
-
I went to the link but it seemed you had to pay so I tried to find a free Menza test on Google and it seemed free except I now need to pay 20$ to know my results. I'll have to decline, I don't need to know my IQ that bad. The test was very language heavy anyways (around 50%) with statements such as "x is to y as z is to..." and things like this. There was even one question about US coins. I have literally no idea how they are called so I just chose randomly ("quarter", as it was the only one that kind of sounded American). It doesn't matter as I will never know the result :-D. Kind of frustrating because I "wasted" 35min doing it. I should have meditated instead.
-
I've tried to do it on another website but in French. Not sure if it is reliable. It was way more difficult than the previous one. I scored 123. I could have done better but not without expecting at all the type of question. Some questions took me by surprise.
-
Thank-you, Kai Ryu, for your diligence. It would be useful to know what the range is for your score, which gives meaning to your score.
-
I'm not sure, I didn't know about this and I don't know if they gave any. There was a bell-shaped curve and it placed me in the lower portion of the downward bell, with the statement "you are very intelligent". It looked like most people are typically at 100 and very few people in the 160s or higher.
-
I agree with "you are very intelligent," because you reveal that in your comments here.
-
Research Confirms a Link between Intelligence and Life Expectancy, The reasons are unclear, but higher IQ is correlated with longer life span (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20151222)
On the other hand, my grand father was a polimath with a whopping big IQ and died at 63. Leonardo da Vinci was a polimath with a whopping big IQ and died at 67. So, we have at least 2 exceptions to the premise of the above article.
-
Ah well if it turns out to be true, this means well have more time to practice ;-)
-
How Does a Mathematician's Brain Differ from That of a Mere Mortal? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-a-mathematician-s-brain-differ-from-that-of-a-mere-mortal/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160413)
An interesting speculative article with some data to back it up. The problem that I see with the article is it is only focused upon math abilities, and not the broader picture of superior genius.
Both myself and my grand father was/are superior geniuses; however, neither of us acquired any recognition for our work. Speaking from his life, and mine, I am inclined to believe that more often than not superior genius is ignored. So, the world is not going to understand superior genius, when it ignores them.
A characteristic of superior genius is they are commonly talented in more than one area. For instance both my grand father and I were/are artists, as well as engineers/scientists/inventors. We can often times do significant work with almost nothing, no funding, and no recognition.
-
A recent article in the Washington Post, Why smart people are better off with fewer friends (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/18/why-smart-people-are-better-off-with-fewer-friends/), explains why intelligent people tend to be contemplatives.
The article explains a lot to me. However, once I realized that my IQ is in the top .1% I have have had to wonder why it is that no university offered me a scholarship with such a high IQ and a good GPA?
It has recently come to my attention that Richard Nixon developed the drug war specifically to marginalize minorities, intellectuals, and liberals. He found that a significant percentage of them also smoke marijuana, so by elevating that drug to a class 1 narcotic, and intensifying the drug war he could marginalize everyone who he felt was against him, and what he stood for. A decade later Ronnie Regan escalated that war.
This explains to me much the reason why someone with my massive IQ was never offered any kind of advancement in the sciences or industry, and why I have found that people with exceptional IQs are about 10% of the homeless population.
-
Regarding science careers, while I recognize that there is a sense of democracy represented in the pursuit of the sciences; nonetheless, that was not at all my experience. Instead I found, with an IQ in the top .1%, and a very high GPA, there was no support for my research goals in academia. Instead I found scientists who were peasants, like me, were kept around like indentured servants for decades in the research lab, while students who came from personal wealth got their degrees in the shortest time possible, and got tenure track professorships right out of their degree program.
Also, while doing some research on homelessness, I found that the Drug War is recognized as the primary cause of homeless in the USA; and it was Richard Nixon who started it specifically to disenfranchise the liberals, who he believed were a danger to this country, and were known to be well educated people with high IQs, but who happened to smoke marijuana, so by classifying marijuana as a class 1 narcotic, and prosecuting possession of marijuana as a felony, he was able to disempower a whole generation of people with high IQs. It just so happens that my experience of homelessness has shown that I have met more geniuses at homeless shelters and food banks than I ever met in academia.
The consequence of this action of the Republican party is the dumming down of the USA. So, I am not at all impressed by any program that claims to document geniuses, scientists and engineers, if it does not expose the disenfranchising the intellectual elite of this culture.
-
Agreed. :(
-
Thank-you, rougeleader115.
(http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/solar-panels_1024.jpg)
Chile is producing so much solar power, it's giving it away for free (http://www.sciencealert.com/chile-is-producing-so-much-solar-power-that-it-s-giving-it-away-for-free)
It may come as a surprise to some of you, but almost 50 years ago was the first Earth day, and I attended it, and I decided then that I wanted to make a career out of research and development of alternative energy forms. However, I found no interest in academia in these subjects, or in my interest. If; however, the USA was actually engaged in research and development of alternative energy forms, then by now fossil fuels would most probably have been completely replaced.
This suggests that the fossil fuel industry has actively suppressed that development. Any nation that is not a fossil fuel producer is thus dependent upon imported fuel sources today, which is always going to lead to national debt. Thus, it is to the advantage of all nations that are not fossil fuel producers to develop alternative energy forms. I can think of 3 nations that are actively engaged in such research and development. That would be: Iceland, Sweden, Chile, and New Zealand.
-
I am beginning to acquire a record of evidence in support of marginalizing geniuses, and elder geniuses. Today I received a message from such a person on my YouTube channel. Here is what he had to say:
Jose Francisco Medeiros 10:17 AM
It's common in Silicon Valley were we live people 50 and over are pushed out, I worked for technology companies for 20 years, they probably want my friend which a bachelors in chemistry to get his masters, their was an opening for a chemist at the San Jose water pollution control plant, starting pay was 50,000, but he didn't want that kind of job, and has been volunteering at Sacred Heart services for the poor and homeless for the past 5 years.
-
I have been in isolation from technical people for a long time, so I was not aware that the older we get, the more marginalized that we become. Here is a more recent response from Jose Francisco Medeiros.
Jose Francisco Medeiros, Yesterday 8:28 PM+
Thank you for your empathy, most people think I just wasn't good enough or lazy, I worked 60 hours a week on Salary at most companies, most IT jobs can now be done in other countries, the Internet is fast enough that everything but hardware failure can be done remotely. When I was in the server engineering team at Symantec, all my servers were located in Tuscon, Arizona at the main datacenter, everything I did to build them, r manage them was done remotely from my desktop computer in Mountain View, Calif, which was much more frustrating, and difficult then just walking into a local datacenter to see why some thing was not working, or cabled incorrectly on the network.
I had much the same experience as he did, both in a social response to why I was no longer hot in the job market; and the frustrations with having to manage a computer network remotely. I just wish it did not take me 40 years to realize that the system was rigged for me to have to retire at 40.
-
Thanks, Cal, the scale upon which your IQ was measured is important to know for relevance. In the 60's the scale was 155, now it is 200, which shifts up the IQ measurement. However, if you do not know the scale that your IQ was measured against, and it was measured in the 60s or 70s, then you know the scale was 155.
Ah! That's really interesting. When I was in high school in the 70s I scored 135 on an IQ test. When I entered a graduate philosophy program at 50 years old, I scored 165. I was thinking perhaps one or the other was wrong, or perhaps the one in the 70s was low (or high!) because I was on acid when I took it.
That's a pretty weird intro from me, having just logged in for the first time. I'm browsing at the moment... :)
-
Welcome, JamesC, and thank-you for posting here. If your IQ is 135 out of 155, and 165 out of 200, then your IQ is in the top 1%, which means that you could join MENSA (http://www.us.mensa.org/), if you wanted to. I look forward to reading what else you have to write here.
-
I am extremely skeptical of standardized intelligence tests and even more skeptical of a society that seems to worship a sort of mechanized spatial hyper intelligence. The whole intellectual aspirations of this culture seem to be geared towards conquer and conquest of the world and universe through a mechanistic scientific worldview. It reeks of a game meant to lure our egos into servitude of the greater venture at large.
That really is the crux of it, intellectual abilities are not valued by themselves but in their ability to serve the vested power interests. .I don't think there is any conspiracy against mystics other than the fact that the mystics view and insight often go against power structures.
My suspicion about intelligence is that the human is far more innately intelligent than society and cultural conditioning allow expression of. Deep meditators may find access to hidden and innate intelligence more readily because they have navigated out of such conditioning. The impulse to begin navigating out of such conditioning is the real origin of this intelligence and for most deep meditators it seems to be just as the buddha described, pain and suffering. When anybody gets real honest about how they feel and real earnest to look for a way to feel deeply better then they will begin the process of shedding all the layers and getting closer to innate intelligence of mind.
-
You make good points, roamer. However, as I have experienced IQ tests they are more about the ability to solve problems and the exercise of critical thinking, than they are about the ability to mesh culturally.
And, considering that people are almost always tested for their IQ in this culture, but almost never informed regarding the significance of their IQ; and the war on drugs originated with criminalizing liberals, who happened to have high IQs and good educations; then I am forced to accept that this culture has been in war against its intellectual elite since the 60s.
-
"However, as I have experienced IQ tests they are more about the ability to solve problems and the exercise of critical thinking, than they are about the ability to mesh culturally. "
Yes but even the type of critical thinking tested is a reflection of what problems the culture focuses on. Imagine a buddhist IQ test, differential moral calculus around maximizing happiness of some such would be deemed intelligent, rather than say the ability to spatially manipulate objects in ones mind or some such.
"And, considering that people are almost always tested for their IQ in this culture, but almost never informed regarding the significance of their IQ; and the war on drugs originated with criminalizing liberals, who happened to have high IQs and good educations; then I am forced to accept that this culture has been in war against its intellectual elite since the 60s."
I fully agree, there has been a war against non-elite and non conforming intellectuals since the 1960's. Such sinister attacks as you hint at don't surprise me. The universities in the 60's were in my opinion intentionally compromised and subverted to to thwart the threat to power counterculture intellectuals were representing. But its not just the sixties, probably every major power structure, barring perhaps the occasional benign enlightened kings of old india or something have been more less corrupt, functioning hardly any different than a big male bear killing young male cubs threatening his rule. Depressing but seems true.
-
I fully agree, there has been a war against non-elite and non conforming intellectuals since the 1960's. Such sinister attacks as you hint at don't surprise me. The universities in the 60's were in my opinion intentionally compromised and subverted to to thwart the threat to power counterculture intellectuals were representing. But its not just the sixties, probably every major power structure, barring perhaps the occasional benign enlightened kings of old india or something have been more less corrupt, functioning hardly any different than a big male bear killing young male cubs threatening his rule. Depressing but seems true.
I happen to agree.
-
In an article Does Giftedness Matter? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/does-giftedness-matter/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160829)
...large segments of the gifted and talented community, who already feel as though they have to constantly justify the existence of gifted and talented programming in school.
"I’m sad because the misconception of giftedness is so rampant. I’m sad because giftedness continues to be thought of only in terms of education and intellect, when in truth, it has very little to do with education. It has to do with living and experiencing life more intensely. It has to do with being wired differently. Which, trust me, has some great benefits and some great disadvantages." - says Heather Boorman, a writer and licensed clinical social worker.
...the whole concept of giftedness was, from the very beginning of its inception, tied to educational outcomes. When Lewis Terman invented the concept*, he made giftedness synonymous with high IQ scores (on his own test, of course), and linked it to high achievement (genius).
What seems to be going on here (and I document this trend in my book Ungifted), is that a sizable proportion of the gifted and talented community-- mostly clinicians who actually work with such children on a daily basis-- fundamentally conceptualize giftedness as something very different than high achievement, and often also very different from high cognitive ability.
What this particular segment of the gifted and talented community seem to be describing as giftedness-- exquisite sensitivity to the environment-- certainly is a particular dimension of human variation that is important, and most certainly has substantial variation, like the rest of human personality differences.
This contradicts a widespread belief in the gifted and talented community that the higher the IQ, the higher the morality and depth of emotions a child will experience (see here for an example of this meme). I'm not sure how this meme started, or how it could even be true from a face validity perspective. When you look at an IQ test, you see a potpourri of cognitive tests, from reading comprehension to mental rotation to holding various bits of abstract information in one's head and integrating them on the spot. Yes, these skills do a great job of predicting academic achievement. But there is not a single item on an IQ test that measures someone's capacity to "live and experience life more intensely".
-
I was given an official psychologist administered IQ test around the age of 13. I wasn't informed of my score except told that it was "near-genius". I later learned that I scored 135, which is consistent with the results I usually get from online tests. I never received the comprehensive breakdown, so I'm not sure what of that is spatial/verbal/etc.
I agree with the premise that those with high IQs are more likely to become mystics. Reading the words of figures like Jesus/Buddha, I'm left thinking that they are obviously extremely intelligent and would score incredibly high on a modern IQ test.
I wonder what life would be like if most people were more intelligent. I admit my sense of morality has been logically reinforced. Karma can very clearly follow from cause and effect and doesn't require much 'faith'. Same for most of the virtues of most religions. With a little empathy, logic and effort, I think most would arrive at the same place as Jesus..at least in a "rule" sense. I still have yet to experience the oneness/non-duality/transcendental or whatever you want to call it that would make these truths more experiential as opposed to deductive.
Unfortunately most use their intelligence to deceive their less intelligent brothers and sisters. This is where it's clear that wisdom and intelligence are different. Using your intelligence in this manner simply opens yourself up to even more intelligent bad actors. Malice is a sucker's game.
-
I was given an official psychologist administered IQ test around the age of 13. I wasn't informed of my score except told that it was "near-genius". I later learned that I scored 135, which is consistent with the results I usually get from online tests. I never received the comprehensive breakdown, so I'm not sure what of that is spatial/verbal/etc.
Thank-you, Marcus, for providing your IQ to support the strengthening premise that there is a close relationship between IQ and mysticism.
I agree with the premise that those with high IQs are more likely to become mystics. Reading the words of figures like Jesus/Buddha, I'm left thinking that they are obviously extremely intelligent and would score incredibly high on a modern IQ test.
Yes, I am not surprised that you support this premise.
I wonder what life would be like if most people were more intelligent. I admit my sense of morality has been logically reinforced. Karma can very clearly follow from cause and effect and doesn't require much 'faith'. Same for most of the virtues of most religions. With a little empathy, logic and effort, I think most would arrive at the same place as Jesus..at least in a "rule" sense. I still have yet to experience the oneness/non-duality/transcendental or whatever you want to call it that would make these truths more experiential as opposed to deductive.
Yes, I agree. Ethics reflects intelligence. As an anthropologist I have had to accept that civilization breeds week fools; whereas, the hunter/gatherer lifestyle breeds genius/athletes.
Unfortunately most use their intelligence to deceive their less intelligent brothers and sisters. This is where it's clear that wisdom and intelligence are different. Using your intelligence in this manner simply opens yourself up to even more intelligent bad actors. Malice is a sucker's game.
Those who choose to harm others are demonstrating a lack of intelligence.
-
I don't know my IQ, since I have never been tested by a psychologist or psychometrician, IQ is not a big deal here in Brazil, I don't think I have ever met anyone personally that has taken an IQ test. I've done a Raven progressive matrices IQ test online and got a 120 score, not anywhere near what you guys report here, not really genius level, I hope that doesn't make me unsuited for experience jhana or to progress in the contemplative/mystical path.
-
I'm not sure if IQ is exactly the right term, but I definitely think making your way to a place like this, seeing, understanding, and valuing the accounts of mystics, and valuing the premise mysticism presents, is a function of intelligence.
I remember growing up, panegalli, intuitively understanding the premises of mysticism. I would be in the classroom and think to myself, "this is all pretend right?" or "this is like Plato said, we're in the shadow world or the false world, this isn't reality itself" or "as above, so below; just like we can play a virtual reality computer game, so too my existence in this body is the same."
I was constantly trying to find someone who perceived things in the way I did (I particularly hoped for an attractive young lady to think the same haha) but I found no one shared my views.
I remember when I studied philosophy in college, how far it went off-topic. In an academic setting I don't even know what "philosophy" means. Plato and Socrates were very clear philosophy was a preparation for death, that philosophy purified and elevated the soul, and that the goal of the philosopher was to separate from the corrupt body and to return to Reality.
And don't get me started about religious people haha. It is interesting how universal religion is, that it is inherently human to value it and have a sense of the spiritual. But how it is interpreted is amazing.
I find the symbolism of Christianity very heroic myself. Of Christ, the god-man and Crucified One (as Teresa called him), calling the Christian to forsake the body and embrace the life of the spirit. Yet this call isn't followed by any Christian I know. Particularly here in America Christians are so far removed from the life-negation and self-transcendence of Christ it is astonishing. They do none of the aid to the poor, sick, alienated or imprisoned. I expect most of these Christians will find themselves making their way right back here again.
So, I definitely get what Jeff is getting at when he says "IQ." It is certainly a faculty of intelligence to value these topics and come here. And, the fact your Inner Director brought you here is evidence you have what Jeff describes.
-
panegalli, I agree with Alexander here. If you have found yourself here, then by definition you certainly have the IQ necessary to question mainstream thought, and pursue a spiritual life.
-
Thank you Jhanananda and Alexander for such kind words