IQ And Peat

[haidut]

That's incredibly interesting. Do you have a source, and were the changes physical or behavioral?

It was Russian research from the 1950s and I think it was done with foxes. Btw, Russians love foxes for some reason and breed them for using as pets, trying to remove some of their wild behaviors
I will dig for that article, but in the meantime here is another one on us humans carrying foreign genes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

 

[Regina]

This is very inspiring and I think it's why there are many cheerful people in the Ray Peat communities. Figures like Ray, Danny Roddy, Haidut, Karen Mcc, and Matt Stone all give off vibes of optimism and ease. Years ago, when I spent time in the raw fruit community, there was a surprising amount of neuroticism, bullying, and fear-mongering, and to a lesser extent in the paleo community, I notice that advice is given in the form of "do this; take this" as opposed to "I think this can work" or "this worked for me, maybe you should try it". Phoenixrising.me and methylation "doctors", who focus heavily on 23andme gene polymorphisms, never really produce results and all I really read is people getting hurt over there. I feel like looking at genes as a static foundation and basing your treatment off of that can get you nowhere or worse, hurt you.

We have the power to change ourselves and our lives if given the right information, and it's actually so simple and easy and can be done quickly or instantly. After being conditioned into victim-thinking your worldview can become so dark and hopeless (learned helplessness) Even the popular Stoic philosophy, that you can't change things, you can only change your reactions to them, I think is a lie. After previously subscribing to it, and in light of this thread, stoicism now looks to me like a philosophy of hibernation and pseudo-helplessness. We actually can change things, and doing so will profoundly change our reactions as a downstream effect instead of the excruciating cognitive behavioral modification crap.

As for IQ, genes, and the brain, it seems unclear but Ray/Haidut's proposition makes more sense. I seem to have inherited the manic tendencies of my father, but I wonder if things would be different had I never met him (never learning that behavior), if it would have manifested differently or not at all. But of course there are few geniuses in my family, my father and his side are not bright but I somehow acquired substantial curiosity and freedom of thought which allowed me to seek this fringe information without resistance, but with craving. My mother has the fringe-seeking trait, so I wonder if I learned it through perception or through some physiological inheritance in the womb? And the environment of the internet exposing me to deep thinkers enhanced my IQ. Icecreamlover (cute nazi girl pic) says that genes will predispose what your preferences are...but idk. My preferences have profoundly changed throughout my life solely due to experiences, learning, and consequences. I'm only interested in science because at first I had to be, to tackle my own health problems. Not a gene switching on or off, 5 and 10 years ago I was a completely different personality. Perhaps the very decision to fix my health instead of giving up is genetic according to icecreamlover, but then again I was exposed to ideas of strength and perseverance in my environment...so it just goes round and round in a circle of speculation. For maybe several more decades there will be conjecture and debate until a concrete consensus is made.

Since everything is so subtle, one side can say "oh that's genes" and the other side "oh that's environment/metabolism", but no one can currently be an arbiter and map out the exact timeline in someone's coding and see exactly what's causing everything.

As a rule of thumb, the slim or underweight people I know are more likely to be neurotic and really care what people think, while the burly or overweight ones are less likely to care what people think, are more outgoing and jolly, and less neurotic. In fact, I know two "developmentally disabled" kids at my job, same age, the very slim one is far more neurotic, jittery, and anxious, while the overweight one is indifferent, steadfast, and calm. The slim one is very immature in his tastes, and the big one is extremely insightful and scientific, when he does talk. Of course there are exceptions, but the correlation is heavy in EVERYONE I've met.

As for my "IQ", since eating more and warming myself up, my adrenaline has turned down, and has improved my thinking, and I'm now able to go about things better, I would guess my IQ is increasing. I've gained about 20 pounds, I'm more grounded in myself, and care less about my social perception by others. Before, I had to read things like 5 times to process them, and my thinking was stunted. In 2014, while malnourished, I watched the entirety of The Sopranos while practicing mindfulness and to this day I forget most, if not all, of that show. Just 2 or so months after finishing it, I couldn't even remember Carmela Soprano's first name. Whereas in my childhood, I could replay an entire episode of a cartoon in my head by memory.

Great commentary JCastro.
And ditto to Much respect for Haidut for this incredibly interesting subject.

 

[Drareg]

As I mentioned above, the environments we expose ourselves to is in large part genetic. But even under controlled circumstances, the way we respond to these different environments is genetic also! Nutrition affecting phenotype does not mean that genes don't matter. Actually quite the contrary. I could take a wiener dog puppy and give him the best nutrition/excercise possible but it will never resemble a german shepherd.

Take note of your reasoning here and apply it to your other views/perceptions. Stop closing doors on what you think you know.

To add to haiduts post,if we increase the longevity of wiener puppy we will see this occur,the dog currently lives for 12 years,caterpillar to butterfly is another one for you,look at the semantics of the argument Darwinists use to justify the butterfly to caterpillar,it's typifies authoritarianism.

Those who speak about an underlying code in genes that makes us human,that shapes our form therefore heritability of traits is real are regressing to maintain an underlying xenophobic racist stance, the genetic code is a tiny aspect of what we are,what we don't know the evolutionists ignore to maintain the monopoly under the claim of its reasonable to stick to what we know,the duality of not knowing is just as essential.
A mothers womb is the environment for a child,if the mother is in a difficult environment so is the child before it is born,this is different to heritability of unchangable traits.

 

[Drareg]

You are being a little hard on the guy but I do agree with you that he and the majority of people hardly understand genes at all. They see it as some biological fate rather than very adaptable instructions. Genes are regulated by many things and any change in one's biology (like taking a vitamin or eating differently) will result in many gene alterations and difference in expression.

Be careful of who you believe to be your allies and the lies they are telling you.
I'm not the guy you are looking for.

 

[Constatine]

Be careful of who you believe to be your allies and the lies they are telling you.
I'm not the guy you are looking for.

Indeed.

 

[michael94]

Take note of your reasoning here and apply it to your other views/perceptions. Stop closing doors on what you think you know.

To add to haiduts post,if we increase the longevity of wiener puppy we will see this occur,the dog currently lives for 12 years,caterpillar to butterfly is another one for you,look at the semantics of the argument Darwinists use to justify the butterfly to caterpillar,it's typifies authoritarianism.

Those who speak about an underlying code in genes that makes us human,that shapes our form therefore heritability of traits is real are regressing to maintain an underlying xenophobic racist stance, the genetic code is a tiny aspect of what we are,what we don't know the evolutionists ignore to maintain the monopoly under the claim of its reasonable to stick to what we know,the duality of not knowing is just as essential.
A mothers womb is the environment for a child,if the mother is in a difficult environment so is the child before it is born,this is different to heritability of unchangable traits.

Haidut is correct is saying Genes are mostly a "memory" of past environments. I've never disregarded the validity of this. The problem is if one uses this as proof that genetics don't matter. That's tantamount to saying paintings don't matter because they're just the product of paint and brush strokes. LMAO. Zztr was right in saying the nature vs nurture dichotomy is very misunderstood. And I say mostly in the first sentence, because I don't believe in evolution and I am certainly not a Darwinist. By the way, Darwin didn't even come up with the theory attributed to him. It was stolen from the vile rat Averroes. So Darwin is basically the Einstein of evolution. Anyway like I said evolution is 100% bunk. There is no such thing as evolution only devolution and a return from devolution. All modern dogs are devolutions of the wolf, cows are devolutions of the auroch, etc. Humans used to be much taller, stronger, and loyal. No humans never lived in caves. No Dinosaurs never existed. Yes we live on a flat plane and it's only purpose is as a training/proving ground.

 

[Drareg]

Haidut is correct is saying Genes are mostly a "memory" of past environments. I've never disregarded the validity of this. The problem is if one uses this as proof that genetics don't matter. That's tantamount to saying paintings don't matter because they're just the product of paint and brush strokes. LMAO. Zztr was right in saying the nature vs nurture dichotomy is very misunderstood. And I say mostly in the first sentence, because I don't believe in evolution and I am certainly not a Darwinist. By the way, Darwin didn't even come up with the theory attributed to him. It was stolen from the vile rat Averroes. So Darwin is basically the Einstein of evolution. Anyway like I said evolution is 100% bunk. There is no such thing as evolution only devolution and a return from devolution. All modern dogs are devolutions of the wolf, cows are devolutions of the auroch, etc. Humans used to be much taller, stronger, and loyal. No humans never lived in caves. No Dinosaurs never existed. Yes we live on a flat plane and it's only purpose is as a training/proving ground.

We all come from the same source access to higher coherent energy builds higher forms so to speak and the feed forward feedback goes on.
The pathetic racial intelligence argument ignores all of this because you use terms like "mostly memory of the past",the word "mostly " is the point here.
The people using this argument are deluded and want to hit the pause button on their beliefs,rigid and authoritarian they are,no energy to adapt just want to stop and say hey I'm Asian or white I have superior intellegnce and that's that,they are the ones lacking intelligence,hiding rigid hypervigilant authoritarianism behind studies and vocabulary,manifests as racism and xenophobia.
Past and future are the human mind at work,the DNA code we don't fully comprehend how it works in relation to magnetism,water etc,this does code for the future as it changes according to potentials in the environment,availability of energy in the environment,the question is ,what is future and past outside the 5 senses.

 

[Constatine]

Haidut is correct is saying Genes are mostly a "memory" of past environments. I've never disregarded the validity of this. The problem is if one uses this as proof that genetics don't matter. That's tantamount to saying paintings don't matter because they're just the product of paint and brush strokes. LMAO. Zztr was right in saying the nature vs nurture dichotomy is very misunderstood. And I say mostly in the first sentence, because I don't believe in evolution and I am certainly not a Darwinist. By the way, Darwin didn't even come up with the theory attributed to him. It was stolen from the vile rat Averroes. So Darwin is basically the Einstein of evolution. Anyway like I said evolution is 100% bunk. There is no such thing as evolution only devolution and a return from devolution. All modern dogs are devolutions of the wolf, cows are devolutions of the auroch, etc. Humans used to be much taller, stronger, and loyal. No humans never lived in caves. No Dinosaurs never existed. Yes we live on a flat plane and it's only purpose is as a training/proving ground.

I am certainly not a Darwinist but I do not agree with your assertion that there is only devolution (also that the world is a flat plane). Humans did used to be much taller, stronger, and perhaps even loyal (due to higher androgens) but there is always the potential for this process to reverse, for humans and other creatures to become stronger. Recently Haidut released a study of some population (I forget which) getting taller this past century. It all has to do with nutritional factors and life style. Genetic adaptations are also very smart. In my humble opinion the evolution of the eye was not due the previous existence of similar biological structures but rather due to and intelligent coding system acknowledging the need of a function. DNA is the most efficient coding system ever (and one of the only natural ones), thus intelligent engineering does not surprise me. The origin of such a coding system on the other hand bewilders me.

 

[bdawg]

Haidut is correct is saying Genes are mostly a "memory" of past environments. I've never disregarded the validity of this. The problem is if one uses this as proof that genetics don't matter. That's tantamount to saying paintings don't matter because they're just the product of paint and brush strokes. LMAO. Zztr was right in saying the nature vs nurture dichotomy is very misunderstood. And I say mostly in the first sentence, because I don't believe in evolution and I am certainly not a Darwinist. By the way, Darwin didn't even come up with the theory attributed to him. It was stolen from the vile rat Averroes. So Darwin is basically the Einstein of evolution. Anyway like I said evolution is 100% bunk. There is no such thing as evolution only devolution and a return from devolution. All modern dogs are devolutions of the wolf, cows are devolutions of the auroch, etc. Humans used to be much taller, stronger, and loyal. No humans never lived in caves. No Dinosaurs never existed. Yes we live on a flat plane and it's only purpose is as a training/proving ground.

Why is Averroes a vile rat?

 

[Parsifal]

Is there scientific evidence that genes change/mutations occur because of metabolism? Do we even know how and why they change? IIRC some people say that it's because of radiation rays so how to change "bad" genes/mutations/SNP?

 

[Travis]

Samuel L Jackson has the MTHFR gene. He is unusual in that he inexplicably has 256 copies of it on every single DNA strand (gametes not excluded!). Notice the symptoms:

 

[MetabolicTrash]

IQ to me seems to be one of those things that can be equally useless and equally useful, depending on your perspective (thought that could be said of anything, true).

I don't believe IQ is set in stone and that you're born a certain way and can't change things (look at all of the evidence here proving otherwise in many other areas -- specifically medicine and disease -- that shows plenty of things are controllable/changeable). I know some here might think many things are set in stone or extremely difficult to change if theoretically possible, but it seems small adaptations & changes in environment stimulate many processes in humans epigenetically anyways (which could have a part in one's intelligence/capabilities of course). I don't think one considered "dumb" at "X" point in life will necessarily always be seen that way or such.

A lot of us are tempted to take IQ tests just for the sake of seeing how we stack up with others -- and sometimes getting a big head over a mere number that's debatable.

I don't know what Peat would say about IQ variances, but my guess is he'd think it's more malleable than not, given his understanding of many different principles/ideas. Also, it's questionable how "good" IQ can even be considered as part of a wholly unified brain function/intelligence metric anyways. Some people seem really good at some things vs. others, but I don't know if it's right to just consider that "smarter" point blank, as we'd be very much tightly encapsulating what intelligence means to our convenience. For example, imagine someone doing well on brain games and someone doing bad. Given the interpretation you'd be inclined to assume someone doing better is smarter and someone doing worse is dumber -- but that concept becomes problematic because "better" and "smarter" don't always have to perfectly overlap to one's convenience and ego. I know there are people who can do things much better and worse than me, but I could be less/more intelligent than either or both of them.

Overall, I'll close with my view that IQ isn't entirely useful, but still isn't entirely useless either -- it all depends on perspective at the least. I know some people correlate higher IQs with certain professions and whatnot, but I'm not sure that's an ideal way of summarizing intelligence/human capability in to one sort of "form" if you will.

 

[Diogo]

There are a few studies on using creatine supplementation in humans to boost IQ. The results were remarkable and beyond what simple statistical deviation would allow. Creatine serves as a buffer for ATP and creatine supplementation is presumed to raise ATP levels in the brain. Getting magnesium to the brain seems to have similar effects. Finally, since NAD and ATP are perfectly correlated I would venture a guess that niacinamide would increase IQ scores too. The company pushing the proprietary NR supplement is already jumping on that train and starting the PR mill.
Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.
Boost Your Brain Power: Creatine, A Compound Found In Muscle Tissue, Found To Improve Working Memory And General Intelligence
Magnesium supplement helps boost brainpower

Creatine and magnesium are relatively weak IQ boosters. Taking T3, especially in combination with thiamine and niacinamide can probably make enough of a difference on your SAT scores (which are modified IQ tests) to push you from a B to A-league school. Just thiamine and niacinamide are probably good enough for a sporadic IQ boost. Peat said in a few articles that taking some extra thiamine helped him learned new languages.
Deficits in discrimination after experimental frontal brain injury are mediated by motivation and can be improved by nicotinamide administration. - PubMed - NCBI

What exact mechanisms make T3 such an incredible nootropic?

Can't find anything on the forum