>when you been distracted and busy doing stuff, and then after all the stuff is done, your brain is free to think about other stuff, and you remember that you exist and are currently occupying a physical body
>then you dissociate a bit
I need to find something to do asap>>59503
Yes, it is probably referring to some real phenomenon, but it falls under the "can't be falsifiable" category, thus not scientifically valid. It's just... a word. Maybe a word that accurately describes something real, and is useful, but not a scientific concept like some people try to pass it off ass. Rather than being one thing, it's probably a whole range of psychological factors, from genetic to developmental to mental illness.
Also, the stereotype of intelligent people being less socially adept is mostly wrong too. I think it's an independent factor with little correlation, but I can't be sure. There's plenty of dumb people with bad social skills, but they tend to be just aggressive assholes rather than merely awkward or autistic, so it is perceived as different things, but perhaps poor social adaptation manifests as awkwardness in intelligent people, and as bydlo aggression in dumb people.>>59504>>59506
Afaik the scientific consensus is that IQ solidifies in early teens and stays the same with very little deviation. Yes, perhaps a few points here and there, but not that significant. Although there's some ongoing research trying to find out if it's possible after all.
You can get better at IQ tests by studying them and taking them repeatedly in a short span of time, but that's considered cheating. They are meant to be taken once in a couple years without preparation. Because IQ is meant to test your ability to effectively reason through arbitrary abstract problems, and solve them quickly, spending more time on them means that you're solving them slower, and gaining an unfair advantage over those who do it properly. And since IQ is a score relative to the rest of the population, if everyone else also started studying for IQ tests and taking them repeatedly, you'd go back to where you're "supposed" to be on the scale.
Regarding cultural factors, like language, education, etc., most IQ tests do not contain any language or instructions at all, and are purely abstract patterns (like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices
), so I'm not sure how such things could have a significant effect. But it's also important to note that genetic factors determine one's potential for intelligence, sort of the ceiling for how smart one can become. Illness, malnutrition, and so on, can lower that potential, but the genetic component is still there. It is sort of like height. The genetic component does not exhibit itself when there are no conditions for it, like if the population is sick or malnourished. In this case, external conditions play a bigger role. But if there are no external inhibitors, the genetic component takes prevalence, as in a healthy person with high genetic potential will achieve their ceiling, and so will someone with a low genetic potential reach their lower ceiling. A genetically gifted person can fall short of their potential, but a genetically... unfortunate person will never be able to exceed their limit. At least not until the development of technologies that would allow that.
And lastly, IQ refers to a specific definition of intelligence, we could call it "brain speed". As in, how fast you can solve arbitrary problems, given no prior context or knowledge. Of course, having more education, knowledge, and lack of other inhibiting factors (mental illness, personality traits, disorders) makes you more capable in that it allows one to use their intelligence to full potential, making them overall smarter, but that's not really what IQ is trying to measure. Even so, IQ has a very strong correlation and predictive power regarding things like career success, criminality, academic success, etc.