Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

People Trained To Experience an Overlap In Senses Also Receive IQ Boost

Posted by timothy on from the taste-the-rainbow dept.

Zothecula writes Tasting lemons when they see a number seven, regarding a certain letter as being yellow in color. Not a great deal is known about why some people experience an overlapping of the senses, a phenomena known as synesthesia. But a new study conducted at the University of Sussex has suggested that specific training of the mind can induce the effects of the condition. The study even suggests that such training can boost a person's IQ.

41 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. The biggest news was left out by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the 12-point boost in IQ permanent or does it fade over three months like the primary effects of the training?

    1. Re: The biggest news was left out by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      By far, the worst thing about half the articles being written about benny-boy is that the other half of articles are full of derails complaining about him.

    2. Re:The biggest news was left out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Intelligence is largely similar between all humans: we don't have actual boundaries. The normal intellectual boundary is artificial; even physical limits are artificial.

      One of the most famous examples of the human artificial boundary phenomena is running. For the longest time, a four-minute mile was considered physiologically impossible. When the record was broken, it was swiftly broken again by another bloke a month later. Within a few years, everyone was running four-minute miles. It's now a standard, and the record is much lower than four minutes.

      What held humans back from breaking the four-minute mile was not believing they could run a mile that fast. By not believing in the possibility, they trained themselves to assess those last precious seconds as the best they could do; they would push themselves, find difficulty, and assume this was as good as it gets. They wouldn't push themselves further because the exertion was interpreted as some sort of dangerous violation of what is possible, safe, or sane: it's hard because it can't be done, so the pain and exhaustion mean it's time to stop here.

      In modern times, Olympic records are broken every year; mental mathematics are continuously improved; and humans at the World Memory Competition continuously break previous records for memorizing lots of shit in little time. Typists type faster, bicyclists bicycle faster, and IQ tests follow a sliding scale such that Einstein was kind of dumb and we've repeatedly revamped the Culture Fair and changed the baselines for the Wechsler. People are of the mind that anything that can be done can be done slightly better, and continue to progress by degrees over their predecessors.

      What makes this progress possible--and what impedes it--is the form of practice taken. Time spent practicing has little to no impact on skill; it is the mode of practice that matters most. K. Anders Ericsson published a theory of Deliberate Practice: that a person practices in a goal-oriented manner with a focus on technique, folding in constant, continuous feedback to improve upon his deficiencies. In short: a person who simply tries repeatedly to memorize a deck of 52 cards will make small gains; while a person who reviews and notices himself confusing or slowing on specific cards will target those cards, correct the issue, and make rapid gains both small and large.

      All of this brings us to a head about intelligence, and about the permanence of training.

      Intelligence is a matter of creativity: a person must be able to apply knowledge to solve problems, rather than repeat back rote facts. Creativity is, in turn, a matter of knowledge: invention and inventory are the same; you invent by reassembling the inventory of your mind into new forms, dividing a problem into recognizable components and adjusting solutions to similar components so as to produce a solution. Knowledge is, of course, a matter of memory: you cannot know what you do not remember.

      Memory is improved by technique. The primary considerations are meaningfulness: information is best memorized when it is organized (grouped) and attached to well-understood ideas. Images are immediately well-understood, and so visualization is used to convert complex thoughts into meaningful representations of known topics (i.e. a running duck--both "running" and "duck" are meaningful--can be visualized). Attaching sounds, smells, and actions makes a more vivid, accessible, memorable image; and complex techniques and systems such as linking, story forming, and mind palaces further aid in recall by providing indexing or association.

      Synesthetes make concepts meaningful by attaching other concepts. Sound forms its own imagery, or numbers have their own smells. The mimicry of this is a core technique in memory improvement: speed card participants attach playing cards to images, emotions, smells, sounds, textures, and whatever else they can; while numeric memory is aided by a PAO system, converting numbers into people, actio

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:The biggest news was left out by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      "One of the most famous examples of the human artificial boundary phenomena is running. For the longest time, a four-minute mile was considered physiologically impossible. When the record was broken, it was swiftly broken again by another bloke a month later. Within a few years, everyone was running four-minute miles. It's now a standard, and the record is much lower than four minutes. "

      The progress in mile records over time is linear. There's no evidence that people believing that it was impossible held anyone back.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    4. Re:The biggest news was left out by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Tasting lemons when they see a number seven, regarding a certain letter as being yellow in color.

      When I read this, I didn't think of this "Memory is improved by technique.". It made me think that they're talking about an overlap in perception, not consciously trying to make associations. The only reason I thought about this is because I get an "overlap" with several of my senses with my vision.

      If I am working with something new to me or something happens unexpectedly, I "see" stuff. I can "see" sound, I can "see" touch, I can "see" my thoughts. I actually have a hard time reading story books because of this. When I read, I visualize what is going on and this conflicts with my ability to read. If I am allowed to listen, like someone reading to me, I am free to visualize. I can't remember passages in books, but I can tell you what I "saw". I have very vivid visual memories. The really strange thing is I may not remember something being described, like say a "fireplace", but when I think of the memory, I will "see" the fireplace, making me question if it was actually mentioned in the book or I just added it myself.

      I also process new information this way. I find that I listen better or "think" better when I'm looking at the ground, where nothing is going on. Walking and thinking can be dangerous for me, I can get disoriented as I switch between the world around me and the world in my head. I can start to lose my balance as I lose my orientation. Typically disorientation is more of an issue if I am thinking of a form of navigation than thinking of abstract ideas.

    5. Re:The biggest news was left out by turing_m · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intelligence is largely similar between all humans: we don't have actual boundaries.

      You do know what a bell curve is? Sure, most people tend towards a mean but the difference between either end is immense, with very real implications. It separates hedge fund managers from janitors. Different races and ethnicities also tend towards different means. Half a century of trying to eliminate "the gap" between blacks and whites (about a standard deviation in IQ) has been a dismal failure. Billions of dollars has been thrown at this money pit with nothing to show for it. We will see commercial fusion reactors, strong AI, heck, even mass-market-popular commercial flying cars before the gap has been eliminated.

      IQ tests follow a sliding scale such that Einstein was kind of dumb and we've repeatedly revamped the Culture Fair and changed the baselines for the Wechsler.

      I am definitely on the right side of the bell curve, I was born a lot later than Einstein, and modern physics is still one of the hardest subjects I've taken, if not the hardest. I call BS on this one. If Einstein did not so great on an IQ test, it says more about the particular IQ test than Einstein's IQ. I suspect that there were questions on the IQ test where Einstein was right and the IQ test was wrong, and/or the IQ test was only calibrated to be accurate near the mean and not where Einstein's IQ was. You can take a hundred cram school attendees who have managed to ace the SAT through sheer bloody-mindedness and still not get the intellectual output of one Einstein.

      Attaching sounds, smells, and actions makes a more vivid, accessible, memorable image; and complex techniques and systems such as linking, story forming, and mind palaces further aid in recall by providing indexing or association.

      I know the technique of mind palaces and find them utterly unwieldy. Why use a mind palace to remember a fact when you can just write it down or google it?

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    6. Re:The biggest news was left out by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It separates hedge fund managers from janitors.

      Don't leave us in suspense: which job is displaying intelligence?

      Different races and ethnicities also tend towards different means.

      Impossible to show. Different cultures tend towards different means, for various reasons. To demonstrate IQ differences between races, we'd have to eliminate cultural differences.

      If Einstein did not so great on an IQ test,

      As far as I can tell, based on a little Googling, Einstein never took an IQ test. Various people have estimated his IQ at 160 or more, on what basis I don't know. There is a persistent rumor that Einstein had bad grades, but AFAICT that's not true.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:The biggest news was left out by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Technically some Olympic events or others happen every two, but the same events don't repeat but every four.

    8. Re:The biggest news was left out by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Between can be used even when there are more than two if the entities are considered as distinct individuals. Among, when they are considered as a mass or collectivity.

      In this case I believe it was used correctly.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/between

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    9. Re:The biggest news was left out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Simplifications are good for application. All heavy scientific research becomes simplified application.

      It's a gross oversimplification to say you can do anything that you put your mind to; it's not an oversimplification to say that everything requires effort, but methodical effort can bring everyone to the same skill set if they are sufficiently motivated. The first implies that all things are apparently easy, or at least equally difficult; the second implies that all things are equally possible for all persons, and they may or may not be of sufficient value for any given individual to put forth the potentially immense effort, or they may require a method of pursuit which a person is not aware of.

      The most succinct coverage of this is a passage in Joshua Foer's "Moonwalking with Einstein," an entertainment piece. If you bother to read the writings of K. Anders Ericsson, you can take this out incredibly far; but you'll also notice Foer's distillation into a few paragraphs is precisely the point which matters, and the rest is academic. Likewise, I find Kennith Higbee's book, "Your Memory: How it Works and How to Improve It", provocative and intriguing; but, once you've gotten it in your head that memory techniques can improve memory, much of the scientific study and the explanation of how the mind works is just a sales pitch. In my case, I find this information useful: I want to design a better education system; but, in the greater cases, the simple explanation is the most meaningful.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:The biggest news was left out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      1945: 4:01.4. 1954: 3:59.4.

      Almost a decade to improve two seconds. In 1934, the time was 4:06.8, giving 5.4 seconds of improvement over a decade; in 1964, the improvement was 5.3 seconds for the decade. There was also a period from 1895 to 1911 where the record, just above 4:15, improved by 1/5 of one second.

      More importantly, once the 4 minute mile was broken, it quickly became a standard benchmark. This was a world record set for just a few years, after dangling 1.4 seconds out of reach for a decade, and it's suddenly required of everyone who competes. A few short years prior, nobody could run a mile that fast. It'd be like telling everyone on my 100 meter dash team that they're getting cut if they can't run within 0.05 seconds of Usain Bolt's 100 meter dash, because that's just how fast people run.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    11. Re:The biggest news was left out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, that happens when you have strong synesthesia. Those of us who don't, or who have a moderate synesthesia, are able to willfully apply such associations as a matter of technique. This makes our minds more functional.

      Solomon Shereshevskii had such strong synesthesia that he couldn't read. His brain turned everything into a mess; visual imagery and metaphor were lost on him. Whatever was going on in the story was occluded behind a wall of garbage; but he could vividly recall that wall of garbage by assembling it into a systematic image. Us normal people can do the same, turning numbers and concepts into pictures and actions; but we're not compelled into it, and so we can use other mental techniques as appropriate. Where Shereshevskii could only read a book as a jumble of abstract images, most people can thread a narrative into a representative visual image, unless we make the purposeful decision to assemble it as a representative assembly of abstract images for memorization purposes.

      I have, at times, been able to experience something as you describe: when I read some of the Thomas Covenant books, I ceased to exist in this world, and instead lived through the experiences of the books. In my case, I divorced myself from the experience of reading, but continued to pull information into my head through the text; my mind assembled everything into a vivid representation of the world being described, and I came out of it with a sense that months of time had passed and that I had lived my life upon a ship with giants and with a great many perils to face and conquer. The experience of reading was lost; the experience of adventure is a part of me.

      I do not remember how to do that. I wish to learn, and to document how to do this intentionally; for us who are unlike you, we would be able to firmly remember stories as such, and to enjoy them to a greater degree. For you, perhaps you can come the other way: accept what happens when you read stories, but perhaps shape it to live in the story, and teach yourself to continue reading even as you become unaware of it. Maybe we can meet in the middle.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    12. Re:The biggest news was left out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You do know what a bell curve is? Sure, most people tend towards a mean but the difference between either end is immense, with very real implications.

      You assume performance as such is inherent, and cannot be changed. It's not.

      I am definitely on the right side of the bell curve, I was born a lot later than Einstein, and modern physics is still one of the hardest subjects I've taken, if not the hardest.

      Bacon claimed that a man cannot know much of mathematics until he has studied for at least 40 years of his life. What Bacon knew about mathematics is well-known to most grade school kids now; we have since developed calculus, statistics, modern physics, and all such things beyond basic Algebra, Trigonometry, and Geometry.

      Do you honestly think Einstein's physics was the pinnacle of modern physics? Special relativity is nothing more than complex math; it is a dated theory which has been built upon because it is so firm, along with general relativity. Quantum physics exceeds it, and we are ever searching for a grand unified theory to bring these together. Einstein's arguments about quantum physics were frequently put in their place, and more frequently found wrong later; modern physicists have little problem looking at Einstein's incorrect arguments and postulating counter-arguments.

      In short: you must be smarter than Einstein.

      I know the technique of mind palaces and find them utterly unwieldy. Why use a mind palace to remember a fact when you can just write it down or google it?

      For the same reason you actually study physics, instead of googling it the moment you have a piece of physics research on your desk.

      The difference between a CERN physics researcher and a third grader is what the CERN physics researcher remembers. When a CERN physics researcher sees something he doesn't recall, he goes and looks up the concept; that is to say, he remembers something about special applications of the Casimir effect or some such, based on information that indicates attributes he recalls about the Casimir effect, and realizes he can't remember what in the fuck the Casimir effect actually does. He then looks up the Casimir effect, relearns it in full (which takes little time, since he's already learned it and a bunch of supporting information), and continues his work.

      In short: your ability to assess the various technical problems relies on your ability to remember how to assess them. You can only google things you already know something about. Your brain is an enormous index of facts, and includes indexing of external facts; but your brain is associative, and must analyze information and find a relationship to what facts you want to look up.

      Mnemonics techniques such as progressive elaboration and the mind palace are used to index important facts. Besides just storing this week's grocery list--another good use of the mind palace--you can store information about things you've recently learned. If you're studying new material or working on new research, you can keep important information in your head by indexing it firmly. This shortens your referencing time, and eventually incorporates the facts into long-term memory by repeat referencing; eventually, you can drop them out of the mind palace. The end goal is to put more things into your head and keep them there so that you can recognize and recall them, rather than spending half an hour looking through your notes, re-reading a physics test, or punching random phrases into Google while complaining that you can't remember what the fuck the thing you're searching for is called.

      More important to the discussion, however, is the illustrative nature of this whole system: anyone can teach themselves to have a useful semantic memory by training these techniques; likewise, anyone can use these techniques to store and recall more information as they study a subject, allowing them to recognize and understand the

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  2. Ugh. Grammar much? by sootman · · Score: 1

    Expecting a sentence and seeing only fragments, not having a proper subject and verb.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  3. Re:IQ is not a simple measure by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's an interesting result, but nobody should pretend they really know how to interpret it.

    Green with a hint of ginger

  4. Similar effects have been found from psilocibin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is a rebranching of the brain circuitry that is linked to a cognitive boost - also being used to experimentally treat dementia and other similar disorders.

  5. Psychedelics by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    So...then...does this count as an endorsement of chemically induced synesthesia?

    LSD: Boost your IQ *and* be convinced you're a snake-monkey who can read the secrets of the universe!

    1. Re:Psychedelics by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      I used to use synesthesia, but since I started using Clementine the nyanalyzer cat has become the main music visualization for me.

  6. Re:IQ is not a simple measure by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    My first guess would be that because you have different sections of the brain being used together, you are essentially.getting higher throughput. If that's the case, then recent studies on psilocybin might suggest that if we were to learn to use them properly, we might be able to become much more intelligent creatures.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. Re:IQ is not a simple measure by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    What does this have to do with 534?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  8. Something about this story ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... tastes funny to me.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. neat tricks by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised there aren't more neat tricks like this. I learned to offload some 3D geometric simulations to my subconscious and instantly having it hand back a result. It's complicated but basically you send a request to the part of your brain that's responsible for unconscious generation of realistic objects in dreams and it returns a proper, accurate result without having to consciously make the determination yourself. That's why I can solve problems at superhuman speeds while doing 3D modeling at my work. I'm actually the CIO and they made me part time 3D designer because of that :D

    I also heard about techniques that any normal person can do to memorize and entire deck of cards. Someone covering an international memorization competition as a journalist thought he should try it out and then went on to win it the next year, proving anyone can do it.

    I should also mention that it's unbelievably easy to learn to speedread. I learned it in one day. I also learned a technique to gain control of and remember all dreams you have. I had mixed success. It's a bit harder. But why are there not more brain tricks like this becoming popular? Most are not even difficult!

    1. Re:neat tricks by pla · · Score: 1

      I'm actually the CIO and they made me part time 3D designer because of that :D

      "I make half a mil a year to align the corporate IT strategy with the CEO's vision... But the company would rather use me to fill a 50k chair".

    2. Re:neat tricks by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      You too?

      I can't offload--at least not that I'm aware of--but I can simulate anything and everything in my head. I've hit physics problems that I didn't understand purely by moving objects I'd assembled in my head and getting unexpected results; an hour of experimentation--in my head--allowed me to figure out what was going on in the system. I use the same facilities to model economics and human societal behavior on a large scale, which is why I have so much trust in markets, but why I also firmly challenge what markets will and will *not* do; the invisible hand isn't magic. (As a general rule, the powerful abuse the weak; most market-solvable problems make it advantageous to be abused, e.g. businesses draining the poor dry for a permanent welfare stipend will absolutely supply the poor with housing and food, as those are the first two things the poor will buy, and thus the best way to take their money.)

      I've read Joshua Foer's stuff. It was entertaining. Kenneth L. Higbee's book, "Your Memory: How it Works and How to Improve It," is also enlightening.

      As for why these things aren't popular:

      "The cognitive boost, although provisional, may eventually lead to clinical cognitive training tools to support mental function in vulnerable groups, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity (ADHD) children, or adults starting to suffer from dementia,” says Dr Daniel Bor, one of the study's co-authors.

      Ethical Calvanism. Drugs are bad, unless you need drugs. Similarly, this therapy that makes people intelligent... should be reserved for the retarded, so they can be normal. You don't need it, and giving it to you gives you an unfair advantage over the retarded.

      In truth, the retarded are just punted back a few dozen meters. Provided they're educable in the most basic sense, they can be trained to be normal; and, once normal, they can use the training to become hyper-intelligent. Any normal person can use the same training to become hyper-intelligent, and so is on even ground with the retarded. The argument works better for drugs: people don't want ADHD drugs or nootropics in the hands of normal people, because they make autistic people normal and normal people hyper-intelligent (they don't, really, but that's the theory).

      I've been trying to assemble the lot of this into an education plan to fix the school systems, but it's difficult. America has two problems: first, we don't like to step backwards, and instead want to abandon anything old--the Soroban, old mathematics techniques, the teaching of Latin and Greek, old memory techniques, all the things which found the skillful use of the mind are abandoned in favor of computers, calculators, and modern education curriculum. Second, John Dewey's progressive education programs have destroyed our favor for memory, and it is considered a terrible thing to memorize. Both of these poor beliefs must be broken before we can move forward.

      You should learn to introspect. Write down how your mind works when you offload. It's difficult, and your first tries will be inane and useless rambling; keep them, and write more. Do it two or three times a week. Fill a 192-page ruled A5 journal with writings about your mind. Review them as you go. In the end, review them in full and take new notes for a structured discussion. Believe me, we would like to know how you do this; even if you can't give meaningful direct instruction, a relatable description provides the path just as it does with the teaching of meditation (dafuq does 'relax your mind" and "don't think or attempt to not think" mean?).

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:neat tricks by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Maybe his CIO position is boring, and being in the hot seat gives him both something to do that interests him and a better understanding of the technical needs of the company.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:neat tricks by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Can you also walk on water

      At this time of year, yes. It's COLD up here!

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:neat tricks by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "I make half a mil a year to align the corporate IT strategy with the CEO's vision... But the company would rather use me to fill a 50k chair".

      Few leaders want underlings who are good at determining what their "visions" will actually look like once implemented.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:neat tricks by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      the part of your brain that's responsible for unconscious generation of realistic objects in dreams

      There's very little that's realistic about dreams. Even Kekule's famous dream about the benzene molecule wasn't very realistic, since carbon atoms don't dance and hole hands. Any realism you likely see in dreams is because you can't tell the difference when you're dreaming.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:neat tricks by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In truth, the retarded are just punted back a few dozen meters. Provided they're educable in the most basic sense, they can be trained to be normal; and, once normal, they can use the training to become hyper-intelligent.

      This seems highly unlikely. You are in essence claiming physical deficiencies in brain structure will simply disappear with enough training. This in turn implies that anyone who has such a handicap is merely too lazy to overcome it. Do you have any evidence?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:neat tricks by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Daniel Tammat went from being an incredibly-fucked-up autistic sociopath to a fairly normal, highly-intelligent savant. Kim Peek, on the other hand, has brain damage such that he can't properly be educated: he just regurgitates facts and occasionally interacts with people by what amounts to reflex, although it's cognitive reflex and appears to approximate intelligence ("I don't know! Shut up! I'm reading!!").

      Peek is interesting in that he can learn, but can't be educated: he is so divorced from human interaction that he can't follow what people are saying. You don't expect a car to tell you anything; you get inside, try to drive, and figure out how to make the damn thing go where you want. When people talk to Peek, he doesn't take stock in what they're saying if it's not directly to his interest; he's learn to tell people to shut the fuck up when he wants their mouths to turn off, and isn't aware that this is rude. Because of this, he doesn't recognize any external suggestions about learning or improving, or about anything being wrong with him; thus he can't be educated.

      Tammat was just fucked up. He could interpret what people were saying, regard them, and then regurgitate some horribly-formed reaction. With some concerted effort (driven by severe discomfort in life), he learned to be a normal person: he is now charismatic and highly intelligent. Tammat was always educable; it was never easy, but he's learned to be more effective at learning, and developed an ethos to do so vigilantly.

      There are multiple studies concerning people with damaged hypocampus structures, who universally display an inability to access long-term episodic and semantic memory. They can learn patterns and tasks, but are unaware of those patterns and tasks, or of any events or facts they've learned. These are people who learn to knit, and then never knit because they don't know how; and then you give them knitting needles and they are amazed that knitting comes so naturally to them. Two minutes later, you can give them knitting needles again, and they're convinced it's the first time they've ever seen knitting needles in person, and amazed that knitting comes so naturally. These people are also beyond reach, even worse than Peek.

      The brain is a fascinating machine, but it has its limits. We haven't quite reached them; although we've become familiar with its limits in routing around damage.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  10. Re:IQ is not a simple measure by Jesrad · · Score: 1

    534 is a red, rounded corner box containing a green rectangle with a blue blob inside. Which makes it rather pungent than gingery.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  11. simulate it? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Is there some way to simulate synesthesia? Drop acid? I kinda want to try it now.

    1. Re:simulate it? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LSD will induce it. I don't recommend this. Psilocybin will do it as well; I also don't recommend this, but it may be safer than LSD. Some research suggests LSD is safer. Both are poisons. My understanding of LSD is it allows far too much neuroplasticity: traumatic experiences when on LSD can reform the brain such that a later trigger may cause a drug state, which can be disastrous (i.e. high while driving, decide you're a bird and leap out a window, etc.). There is dispute over this being an actual possibility.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:simulate it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Psilocybin is rather safe (regarding lethality, not commenting on behavior while under the influence).

      The median lethal dose when consumed orally is 280 milligrams per KG of body weight. From the link below:
      "1.7 kilograms (3.7 lb) of dried mushrooms, or 17 kilograms (37 lb) of fresh mushrooms, would be required for a 60-kilogram (130 lb) person to reach the 280 mg/kg LD50".

      Given common dosages are 1-3 grams (up to 5 grams for heavier users) of dried mushroom there is very little risk. I'm not sure if one could consume 3.7 pounds of dried mushrooms without vomiting a lot (I grind them up and put them in capsules, they taste awful and it helps with accurate dosing). As for eating 37 pounds of fresh ones, physically impossible.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      I take them about once a year, it is refreshing but a little overwhelming. My favorite time is coming off of them (about 4 hours after consumption), the world is surreal but though processes are very clear. Insights gained can be incredible, and the way you view the world is changed afterwords. Alice in Wonderland is an awesome movie...

  12. Interesting but small sample by LibertyMark · · Score: 2

    This study is interesting, but I suspect it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The sample group is tiny, and the IQ increase is huge. I think an interesting and fairly easy-to-answer question is: how does the average IQ of large numbers of synesthetes compare to the population at large? I've had the most common form of synesthesia (letters-colors) from my earliest memories. I don't think it was induced by environmental factors like colored magnetic letters. The phenomenon for me is not actually seeing a floating yellow 'A' like on a fridge. It's that 'A' simply IS yellow. Think of it this way: when you perceive the color yellow, you have an aesthetic experience. I have the same aesthetic experience when I perceive the letter 'A'. I enjoy having this condition and it has been helpful to me.

  13. learning piano - visual, aural, kinesthetic by digsbo · · Score: 1

    I started studying piano 7 years ago (I'd previously been a semi-pro woodwind player). One of the things I noticed was that I was i/o bound reading the highly parallelized piano input stream (two staves w/ multinotes on each) and this interfered with my proprioception (perception of where my limbs and philangeas are in space). Over time,it's gotten a lot easier to read and perceive muscle motion through space. This process started at age 33, and I'm pretty sure it's been more difficult because of that, but I can't help suspecting the forced rewiring of my brain hasn't helped my general learning capacity. You're simultaneously stimulating the visual, aural, and kinesthetic senses in concert for a sustained period during practice.

    1. Re:learning piano - visual, aural, kinesthetic by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      ...but I can't help suspecting the forced rewiring of my brain hasn't helped my general learning capacity.

      I expected you to say that it HAS helped your general learning capacity, but you're implying that it hasn't. Could you please clarify or reinforce your point?

    2. Re:learning piano - visual, aural, kinesthetic by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I think it has helped, though I have no proof. But there's no scientific way I could get proof. IQ tests are pretty useless for this kind of thing, and there's no control group. Small sample size and all...

  14. Re:Easier means of boosting IQ by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I don't think that there are any reputable IQ tests that make use of vocabulary, so I'm not sure how accurate your assessment is. I'm not aware of any training (prior to this, anyway), that was able to produce more than a few points difference for well rested test takers that don't have severe test anxiety.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  15. Re:IQ is not a simple measure by Jhon · · Score: 1

    Kind of a cross between "Transcendence" and "Limitless".

    What could go wrong?

  16. Common knowledge by freshlimesoda · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows Carrots a 6 ..

    --
    I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.