To most-effectively determine an actionable plan to increase intelligence, one must first consider the best of standards by which it can be measured and coordinated into mental gains. The most promising encouragement of this task comes from Richard Nesbit in Intelligence and How to Get It, where, when deliberating the relevance of hereditary intelligence, proclaims “the degree of heritability of IQ places no constraint on the degree of modifiability that is possible” (pg. 38). Intuitively, I imagine a structure set about some kind of conditioning for the mind, such as IQ puzzles or memory tests, but it is important not to overlook the easy fixes as well. For instance, if we are defining the word ‘smarter’ comprehensively, one can educate themselves on the most effective external mechanisms that allow him/her to solve problems (mental or not) more swiftly. As evidenced by Fisher, Counts, and Kittur in “Distributed Sensemaking: Improving Sensemaking by Leveraging the Efforts of Previous Users”, one such mechanism would be using others (friends, computers, or anything with additional brain power) to make more efficient sensemaking and deduction.
Then there is the question of defining intelligence. As our prompt asks for actionable representations of growth from our minds, or “evidence on practical outcomes of intelligence differences” (202, Deary, Penke, Johnson), we should prioritize the most transparent methods of demonstration, which include those discernable via paper result, positron emission tomography, regional cerebral blood flow analysis, and functional MRI (fMRI).
Information recall is one such demonstration. The understanding of an individual can be trialed via trivia, memorization, and potentially even multi-tasking examinations that can observably probe at their base intelligence measured over a period and any change in performance.
To this end, one should first adhere to the architecture of a transactive memory system as mentioned by Fisher, Goddu, and Keil in “Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge”, wherein one designates roles so as to maximize the ultimate output. A system rooted upon specialization can eliminate redundancy and other loud problems permeating intellectual performance. This can best be accomplished by establishing a consistent initiative to learn and retain internally (as opposed to misguiding confidence in one’s reliance on knowledge-access-mediums like the Internet).
Operating by this system, the person should then focus in on each competency underlying general g. For Verbal, they can practice articulation and the ability to recite and apprehend complex material. With Spatial, they can work with shape configurations and navigation. For mathematical intelligence, they should round out their current math acumen and work to become comfortable with abstract proofs and other ideas. One could diversify this further and follow Gardner’s model of multiple intelligences but should exclude those less demonstratable, such as existential intelligence.
To make these more implementable, one should form an unbreaking routine of drilling and exercise throughout each of the intellectual competencies, working during the most productive moments of the day and ensuring adequate time for sleep and subconscious processing. One will have to balance this among the demands of societal and professional life, making an inquisitive effort to inject learning or subconscious activation where relevant. Given the scale of tangible intelligence to develop, the durations of learning (weeks, months, years) are up for participant discretion, but should not be so long or short to hamper the reliability of measurement.
Before closing, it is important to recognize the less-readily observable, those prone naturally to the bedrock of intelligence in humans, such as aptitude and heritable traits, and the less significant variances elsewhere, like height. These divergences among people threaten the concreteness of a growth plan for intelligence but do not rule out its potential. Venturing to sophisticate one’s most fundamental competencies and prioritizing the monitoring of those with the most transparent evaluation methods is, too, the clearest means of making the self smarter.
Sources:
1. Nesbit, Richard Intelligence and How to Get It
2. Fisher, Counts, Kittur, “Distributed Sensemaking: Improving Sensemaking by Leveraging the Efforts of Previous Users”
3. Deary, Penke and Johnson, The neuroscience of human intelligence differences
4. Powerpoint Lecture Slides for 88-230, Danny Oppenheimer