Intelligence Quotient

Intelligence is something which I feel is never static it keeps growing, varying. Than circumstances add a lot in the whole play making a person sound justified or an unheard story to all. I could never seal a person with a tag of being intelligent or unintelligent. As I know the same person can be the wisest of the lot on another topic.

The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, generally describes a score on a test that rates the subject's cognitive ability as compared to the general population. Most people perform better on one type of question than on others, but experts have determined that for the most part people who excel in one category do similarly well in the other categories, and if someone does poorly in any one category, he also does poorly in the others. Based on this, these experts theorize there is one general element of intellectual ability that determines other specific cognitive abilities.

Because IQ tests measure your ability to understand ideas and not the quantity of your knowledge, learning new information does not automatically increase your IQ as per them. Learning may exercise your mind, however, which could help you to develop greater cognitive skills, but scientists do not fully understand this relationship. The connection between learning and mental ability is still largely unknown. Intellectual ability does seem to depend more on genetic factors than on environmental factors, but most experts agree that environment plays some significant role in its development too.

Dictionary defines IQ: a number representing a person's reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100.

One's IQ score can vary—either decrease or increase—as one grows.
So, it comes to innuendo that it is not reliably the best method. It changes by factors of social surrounding, education system or aging process?

Success is today realized to be reached by determination, not by one's level of IQ. It also involves the play of EQ (Emotional Quotient) and for some cases, SQ (Spiritual Quotient) too.

There are many people who never went to high school nor college that have wonderful intelligence levels. The testing for I.Q. levels seems out dated, due in part to having people learn throughout their lives. Does it make a person better then the next person just because they have a high I.Q.? No! It's what you do with your knowledge & common sense that stands you out from the crowd.

Old habits die hard

This blog may initially tickle, but later you may realize it was all the way worth. Staring at gods creations realized the behavior of dogs with lot of aah moment to myself. Where dangling from one thought to another was left with gamut of knowledge on the same.

First of all, dogs urinate far beyond the boundaries or limits of their so-called territory. Secondly, males aren't the only ones who lift their legs; some females (usually the anxious type) do this as well. Thirdly, dogs don't just urinate on large objects, but on vertical objects (trees, posts), unfamiliar or inorganic objects (tires, plastic bags, fire hydrants), and on anything carrying a scent that the dog wants to cover (such as another animal's urine).

Of course if a biologist who witnessed the African wild dogs madly scrabbling up the tree trunks did so with the belief that dogs urinate to send a message to other dogs, their behavior would, no doubt, confirm this hypothesis.  But if we approach this behavior with a clearer mind we might ask, how could these dogs possibly know the "nose height" of another, purely hypothetical dog who might (or might not) come along at some undetermined point in the future? 

Offhand re-telling of it, as if it were a scientific certainty, merely highlights a general tendency in science: in attempting to dissect how an animal's behavior might serve an adaptive purpose -- in this case marking would be a hypothetical means of limiting competition within a niche or habitat -- most scientists blur the line between what makes sense in terms of the grand arc of evolution, and what an individual animal is capable of in terms of its cognitive abilities.

Roger Caras, whose voice used to be heard each year at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York, was fond of saying that when a dog sniffs a fire hydrant he's "reading his mail". This is highly anthropomorphic, yet it's hard to dispute that a dog does get information from the scent of other dogs this way. The only question is, did the dog who left the scent do so with the intention of "sending a message" to the one who comes along later?

Territory is defined by biologists as an area which an animal will defend against intruders of the same species. But how is such an area delineated in the animal's mind? Are its boundaries visible and concrete or imaginary and abstract? Is a dog capable of forming a mental image of where his territory begins and ends? And if animals have no sense of self and other, how could they think of a territory as "mine" or "belonging to me?"

So it seems far more likely that when one dog detects the scent of another dog, (particularly an unknown), it could cause a perhaps low-level stress reaction, which would then increase his need to urinate. As he does he would feel the pleasure of releasing some of the tension and pressure in his body? And thus, over time, his body would self-reinforce the behavior of peeing on top of another dog's scent. It would be a purely emotional and perhaps Pavlovian response, not based on intellect or other mental faculties.

This explanation is simple, whole, and complete. It requires no complicated thinking on the dog's part. It obeys the rules of parsimony and logic. And it only requires that a dog have the ability to experience tension and pleasure, and to form simple physical and emotional associations.

Light - Darkness

Speed of Light 299792.458 km/se

Frankly speaking I had to look back in the records to be accurate & I’m sure you would have done the same. As this was always more of a theoretical learning, where did we actually use it in our life, in instances I can fail to see? The mockery is we keep looking for light, still feel this quantified figure could never be a help. I’m on the same page with you & will still not make an extra effort in learning through.

This definition only fits right for scientific theories & evidences. Which was further described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity in the presence of gravity. If I am at a different location than yours then I could measure the speed of light at your location to be any value smaller than or greater than 299792.458 km/sec. So in the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative.

In my quest I realized that not only the Speed of Light, but the Speed of Darkness has also to be searched. The one with which we can connect, don’t have to fall back for references. If we have do that, than that defeats the purpose makes us stand from where we had started.

After scratching & straining my head the best was my blink defined it to me. A real blink of an eye takes 300 to 400 milliseconds. Since there’s 1000 milliseconds in each second, a blink of an eye takes around 1/3 of a second. Irrespective of the outer condition you sitting in a dark or a lighted place. The Speed of Light & Speed of Darkness is measured as per your blink. Which equally divides the dark & light time.

 Speed of Darkness = Speed of Light = One Blink

Finally with the blinks your vision is formed towards what you are trying to perceive. A definition which a lay man can also understand. Broadening the word Vision not just to the ability to see but also the power to sense it more deeply to your understandings.

If mathematically we want to be more precise, the availability of records with the number of blinks taken in a minute/hour can be calculated it to the time taken by an individual to reach to his vision. On a serious note would like to leave it on the former, as we are again directing ourselves to another numerical figure making us lost to another game.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is - infinite.” ― William Blake 

Amend to Mend

Why do we hope people will change their goals, habits, and values to better align with ours when they haven’t given us any indication they’d be happier for doing it?

Sometimes we think we know what’s best for others, but if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll likely realize we want people to change when we simply don’t feel satisfied being in a relationship with them as they are.

We all want to be loved and accepted, just as we are. We want people to honor our interests, value our needs, and respect our choices in life.

People don’t want to be changed & we can’t force them to change. This causes no end of frustration, for us and the person who we’re trying to change. The people we want to change, there are others out there who’d accept and even value them, just as they are. 

If it’s not easy for you to change, why should we expect everyone else to change, and get frustrated when they don’t? Why not change to adapt to the reality of the world around you, instead of expecting the world to bend to your desires?

To change other people, you must change yourself. It is the only thing we have power over. If the flaws appear to be a big part of you that others also dislike, then change this part about you to the best of your ability.

Everything that we see outside of ourselves is a reflection of what is inside of us. The environment, the people, the economy, everything because we, as a collective whole, see these things jumbled into our world. If we did not have these qualities present within ourselves somewhere, we would not recognize them in our world.

If you want to change a mirror’s reflection, you must change. Once you have adjusted your emotions and beliefs, you will find that the reflection in your environment will have adjusted to match your new inner reality.