Namaskar Laxmanji!

Everything about I.Q. is not about the brain.

I.Q. stands for Intelligence Quotient, and is a human construct used to attempt to gauge the cognitive capabilities of the brain. I.Q. only seems to behave as a physical trait and its value across the population ought to fit the normal distribution curve. The average I.Q. is set to 100, and 68% of the world’s population I.Q. scores fall between 85 sd15 and 115 sd15, in a particular model of the world.

 

By logging your I.Q. score, you can have an approximation of where you stand cognitively or rather perceptively aside yourself, and in parallels with the rest of the world, a world as reflected up to certain extent, or not at all, across the aforementioned model ~ the model can be self-falsifying at times regarding I.Q., some sort of self-denial out of its own aberrant nature, derived from the aberrant minds it needs by default to reflect upon.

 

A performance at 100, is meant to outscore 50% of the world’s population in that model, not in any specific reality, not even your reality in some cases.

Typical construct behaviour involving symbols and equations, such as some scientific models I.Q. inclusively -which is a feature of personality, firmly tied to awareness according to psychologists- implies that the construct reflects nothing and nowhere outside the type of subjective human experience that invents it. Approximating anything means the shot hits no bull's eye, hit's not right on target, yet. The correspondence between model and reality is not direct, it can be anything except an one-to-one relationship. That's how we can see any model helplessly hoping, sitting around and waiting to be replaced by the next version or another model, which should be closer an approximation, nonetheless far from having this so sought after one-to-one correspondence with the world it is meant to describe, explain, and accurately predict. There can't be levels of accuracy and precision in this case, it's binary, and you already know what that means, we're typing zero and one. You are reading that way now actually, and it feels like once more here we go.

The higher the I.Q. score, the larger the proportion of the population outscored.

That's alas in a sense though, because identifying one with a static personality is type of a continuous theatrical act on both sides, psychology and subject. The brain is not limits to the mind. The mind is not limits to your essence of sacred being within and without, whatever the Universe is doing to you and you do to the Universe at the place you call 'here and now'. Besides, the entire nervous system (e.g. sensory paths) acting different, or by being different even momentarily, thus rendering it different perceptively, doesn't guarantee anything about I.Q., neither lower, close to, or higher.

Most effortlessly, let us prevail across, along one selfless spirit, way to speak of it. Irregardless of I.Q., sparking sight or words per minute count. And then, one's soul stays gentle, loved, clean and clear. Focusing attentional resources over a specified timeframe is homonymous to achieving milestones and delivering landmarks. Fiqure is sampling your performance while you offer your best sharps to it.

Now, can you have a theory that's approximately consistent ? Once you have any inconsistency, you can promote it to 'everything is inconsistent with everything else', and that would undermine the hole basis for Physics. Can we get to the point ?

It's a vast unknown of Unknowns.
Better deal with known Unknowns.

When we encounter situations like these, we try to approach it as a paradox, from all angles, so that resolution comes to a totally different point of view than previously, (Universe as a Hologram ~ information in is equal to information out). As soon as you believe that is true, it's simply a matter of calculation to define bits and bytes on a surface, occupying a precise amount of Surface. Little or big or Endian and such, is irrelevant and inconclusive. And the question where the information is another question alone in itself.

Every thing about I.Q. is not about the brain.

Last update: 30 Δεκεμβρίου 2020

 

☮

Shout-outs for their astounding work:

                   Paul Adamson

                Alan Watts   (Zen)
 
            Jordan Bernt Peterson
              William James Sidis
 

Fiqure Team currently endorse admission criteria, among others to:

HRIQ.org
ISI | 151

HELLIQ - CIVIQ
The ENIGMA Society
Zerebrum

 

We no longer endorse @ GIFTED Network by I. Koukas

When you feel like taking an if-then-else break, even while in the session, then take a break, irregardless of the timer.

You don't have to take all questions in one shot. Case is you'd prefer having a test fly-by over the questions first and then give it a proper go, then so be it too. Nothing and nobody can make the rules to you :) It's not about the score, it's about the experience of getting wherever you let yourself be taken to...

 

To expand on the same theme, your true Self is not tied to the past or future.

Past and Future are projections only, and so the focused mind, is riding on the ever-present now with an innate ability to stretch, bend, or even disappear and give space to intuition which can never fail you. Don't think you can solve Fiqure, know you've already solved it. The mind who achieves the highest score is fundamentally no different than any other mind in terms of ability to bend, stretch and allow intuition to kick in full throttle :)

 

In other words, awareness moves from one element of reality to another, just as energy is only transformed, not lost nor produced. When we fully deploy our awareness to the process or activity we attend to, there's no such thing as unachievable. Everything is within reach.

 

Irregardless of your score to Fiqure, and any I.Q. test, you can do anything and everything yourself as you set to. By entrusting love in your Self, and having faith in the Cosmos, it comes and brings you from. The cosmos nurtures you be and do, even when you don't feel like it does so. 

 

Each moment you is anew, and there is no limiting factor to what anew can be.