"I have come to find out what it's like to be dumb."

I get so tired of seeing this. We can't even really define intelligence but I'm guessing this is based on a previous assumption that IQ was static, which we now know it not to be. We need to remember, also, that IQ is not a measure of intelligence.

Thank you, fortunately I don't have it myself but three of my family members do.

> At least it can be cured?

If you catch it early enough you can get complete recovery. If you catch it a little later you'll have symptoms lasting for months or years, if it starts to progress you might be able to arrest it at some level or slow the progression but it will always keep trying to get worse. And once you reach any of the advanced stages it can not be cured, you're stuck with it for life.

...they'd solve problems in entirely different ways, out of necessity for not recognizing patterns as easily. And then you can reflect that intuition to understand what it would be like to be more intelligent than you are: someone who would also solve problems in different ways, for seeing their structure more easily...

Let me unpack this a bit; it annoys me to end that every person depending on his/her coterie ( think technology coteries, humanities coteries, political/legal coteries etc) seems to nourish his/her own definition of what intelligence is and how - if at all - it can be measured and quantified on a nice linear scale.

Surely we all agree that such a definition and quantification is useful. I hope that is not up to debate. Only the most hyper egalitarians, insisting on the absolute equality of social statuses of all humans, would refute the utility of such quantification.

For instance, most learned, secular and urbane people do not think twice before frowning on religious zealots. Their views and outlook of the world seem like they belong in the stone-age. Whatever their scriptures say or hold, a religious devotee has to suspend the most basic premises of logic and reason to be able to subscribe utterly risible notions of how one ought to conduct his or her life based on preposterous doctrines.

In essence they almost invariably have to belong to a lower order of intelligence (if you set aside the atypical cases of candidates who are esteemed scholars, scientists and technologists, who are nevertheless fervently religious, of whom we can be sure there are more than a handful).

Surely we should be able to define - using certain parameters whatever those are - and quantify this "lower order of intelligence" in an objective manner.

After all we just cannot describe their quantum of intelligence through purely the notions - as moronic those notions might be - they subscribe to. There has to be an objective assessment.

Since such a quantification is useful - for purposes of classification or otherwise - what then is the most current (more or less universal) consensus on the measure of intelligence?

Obversely, when defining stupidity, is there no single measure that more or less captures "the congenital lack of capacity for reasoning"? [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity#Definition

The cold turkey was for the internet use. The method I used was to expose myself to the computer but actively resist the impulse to read bullshit no matter what. It's mentally exhausting but after the first week you get into the habit of resisting.

I still haven't completely mastered my procrastination. Like the other posters mentioned, the key is to break the task into small chunks, thereby tricking your brain into considering it to be easier.

As for meditation the simplest thing is to spend at least 15 minutes everyday doing nothing and focusing on the present moment. I suggest reading Jon Kabat-Zinn's books: they offer advice based on science and without the eastern mumbo jumbo. Good luck!