"J C" <null at nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:AE2hPyAXos6SD6lb0gJt8=nWEhxD at 4ax.com...
| On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:19:15 GMT, "KP_PC"
| <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|| You seem to be saying that IQ can be
| learned through experience and enhanced
| and thus a person can increase their score
| on a standardized IQ test. However we all
| know that there are people that no matter
| how much experience you give them still
| find even simple tasks impossible. We also
| know that highly intelligent people can
| practice by taking as many IQ tests as they
| want, but that their scores do not substantially
| improve over time.
|| Therefore, I firmly contend that experience
| knowledge, although linked, is different than
| the innate processing power of a given human
| brain. (Didn't I read that Einstein's brain was
| studied and found to have more neurons than
| the average brain?)
Substantially-more neuralglia, not neurons
An over-abundance of neurons would only
'get in the way' of convergence within the
My view on Einstein's glia count is with re-
spect to the size of the spectrum with re-
spect to which the network of neurons can
Anyway, with the following clarification, I
still stand on what I've posted.
I deal in 'normal' nervous systems, and
'normal' nervous systems' information-
processing capacities are flat-out exper-
That is, given two 'normal' nervous sys-
tems, drive one hard, and the other soft,
and folks'll experience their relative 'in-
The problem is that notions of "intelligence"
[and 'iq' testing, etc.] have been 'defined' in
the absence-of-understanding of how nervous
systems process information. They are little
more than ancient prejudice, perpetuated.
The 'iq' tests are static instruments, but ex-
perience is dynamic, so as one's experience
augments, one's information-processing
capacity also augments, but, because they
remain static, the 'iq' tests are 'disconnected'
from the realms of augmented information-
processing capacity - they're 'blind' to it, so
they cannot 'test' what they cannot 'see', see?
[For those who have AoK, what I've discussed
above is treated in Ap7, and is in specific
regard to relative "volitional diminishing-returns
Also, 'tics', etc., that are not life-long features
within behavioral manifestations can simply
be the result of diet, but can also result from
'slipping of the pawl" [AoK, Ap5 "hippocampal
ratchet-pawling"] that correlates with global
TD E/I(up) that further correlates with ongoing
elevation of the V DR threshold. During such
'periods' of relatively-high TD E/I, the nervous
system cannot achieve TD E/I-minimization
robustly be-cause there's just too-much going-
This's no 'big-deal'.
NDT makes it clear that the thing to do is just
work-harder, experience, and as one does so,
one's nervous system will converge, over the
long term, upon TD E/I-minimization - which is
the essence of the experientially-augmented
'intelligence' that I've been discussing in this
[Before I forget to mention it, as is discussed
in AoK, Ap5, behavioral manifestations such
as typos fall into the same general category.
They occur as 'slips of the pawl', and are act-
ually "scraps of creativity" that've occurred
within behavioral contexts that make them
'stick out like a sore thumb' [which 'negative'
condition is illusory, resulting from the fact that
folks who experience them don't understand
how nervous systems process information,
which results in those who experience them
concommitantly experiencing experientially-
'defined' [aculturationally-induced] TD E/I(up),
which tends to induce 'moving away from'
behavioral manifestations [the full spectrum
of which has been discussed in AoK all along].]
| I'm contending that this processing power
| is directly related to the way the brain is
Yeah, it is.
It's just that the way the nervous system is
"wired" is governed by experience.
What nervous systems do is alter their wiring
in accord with the neural activation that has
has actually occurred within them.
| Therefore my question is whether tics are
| also part of this wiring scheme and brain
| development in highly intelligent people.
Tics are as above [which needs AoK for full
| I'm not saying all tics, I'm wondering if there's
| some subset. And whether this subset of
| benign tics has been found to exist with a
| higher incidence in the highly intelligent.
They are as above - an artifact of the under-
pinning TD E/I-minimization dynamics' be-
ing [in the transitional case that you've
brought up] 'temporarily' overwhelmed.
You brought up Einstein earlier. When he
was hot-into wrapping-up Special Relativity,
Einstein was a virtual 'cauldren' of 'tics'. He
was disheveled, spent some nights sleeping
in the bushes, etc :-]
He triumphed because, as part of his problem-
solving method, he set-aside 'appearances'.
I view this as a result of his Family-life - his
relationships with his Mom and Dad, who fos-
tered his cognitive independence.
Surely, he was well-equipped, but, without such
Parenting, he might've ended-up as tied-in-knots-
by-social-convention as 'typical' folks, and have
missed his date with his New Science.
Instead, he distinguished between 'social-con-
vention' and the Worth of doing the Science,
thereby being Free to just do it.
| A search of PubMed doesn't seem to indicate
| that the problem has ever been looked at from
| that direction. But I believe it is a question
| worth asking.
It is. It has been. AoK remains Unpublished.
| I realize that you may not agree. That's fine. I
| may be totally off base. But until your or my
| opinion is confirmed by scientific investiga-
| tions, we'll never know.
Sadly, I agree, in-part.
My experience differs from yours :-]
The stuff I've discussed already stands Con-
firmed. All that's necessary to Confirm it has
been in the Published Neuroscience Literature
for at least 50 years.
And it's been in AoK for more than two decades.
How can folks experience AoK, and receive the
benefit of it's understanding [as above, with re-
spect to augmented information-processing
capacity] if it'll not be Published?
[Please Forgive me for, as usual, writing my
comments for a more-general audience.]
ken [k. p. collins]