From "C" student to "A" student
DNBacker
"C" student. I struggled. Last year I started doing the DNB game and I
went to college in the US (medical field). Here I miraculously became
an "A" student and I'm always on the Dean's List.
Now I'm wondering - is it the brain game that surprisingly made me
smarter or is it the education system in the US that is way easier. I
am not sure.
Anyone who studied both in Europe and in the US to tell me their
thoughts? I'd like to find out whether it's just the different ed.
system that made it easier for me in the US or whether it's the dual n-
back game that made me smarter.
Thanks!
Dzialo, Chris
Seems like you could answer this question yourself having studies in Europe and recently, the US.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
workingonit
entirely to dual-n-back.
Factors that might have bigger affect on your performance:
- difficulty of work
- how hard you try
- how much sleep you get
- interest in work
- many more...
You can say dual-n-back played a huge role in the unlikely
circumstance that all those factors listed above were constant before
and after your move.
Reece
sure one way or another (or to what extent it may have played a role).
Maybe the fact you were motivated to use DNB continuously for a long
period of time is suggestive of other things which may have
contributed to your success -- say, for example, increased scholastic
motivation + conscientiousness (DNB-mediated dopaminergic
modulation?) .
There is of course the possible placebo effect that would be difficult
to control for when the very reason most of us are playing DNB is
because we believe it will *cause* us to improve in some way (eg. gF,
memory, creativity, etc). I'm sure you've probably heard about some of
the "prophetic" experiments psychometric researchers have done where
they told a certain group of people they would most likely do well/
poorly on a test beforehand due to X (eg. being female, being of a
certain race, etc).
Whatever the cause(s), congrats on your success!
Arkanj3l
That being said, I don't think medical school is any kind of joke, no
matter where you go. But then, THAT being said, neither is moving
between two relatively disparate cultural regions. Moves in general
can prove to be fresh starts, as you are in a completely different
environment and thus have an opportunity to create a completely new
set of routines and habits.
Anyway, yeah, congrats. I hope, for your sake and mine, that it was
the DNB :P
Noah Dunn
American teachers could be easier markers.
Perhaps N-back practice simply taught you the value of dedication.
On Oct 15, 7:45 pm, "Dzialo, Chris" <chrisdzi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you not able yourself compare the rigor of your coursework in Europe and
> in the US?
> Seems like you could answer this question yourself having studies in Europe
> and recently, the US.
>
> > I used to study at two different universities in Europe and I was a
> > "C" student. I struggled. Last year I started doing the DNB game and I
> > went to college in the US (medical field). Here I miraculously became
> > an "A" student and I'm always on the Dean's List.
> > Now I'm wondering - is it the brain game that surprisingly made me
> > smarter or is it the education system in the US that is way easier. I
> > am not sure.
>
> > Anyone who studied both in Europe and in the US to tell me their
> > thoughts? I'd like to find out whether it's just the different ed.
> > system that made it easier for me in the US or whether it's the dual n-
> > back game that made me smarter.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > .
Arkanj3l
averaging As, assuming they attribute the percentages similarly. If
it's the same coursework then I'm actually somewhat appalled,
especially since medicine is a somewhat objective science to learn.
It's not like the arts where grading is a somewhat more ethereal
affair.
DNBacker
programs don't seem to be that much easier in the US, anatomy and
physiology is not an easy subject. However, I do score 94-100% on
tests now though, my GPA is 3.88.
I used to struggle a lot at school. It surprises me greatly since I
didn't used to be able to memorize so much material in such a short
time. On the other hand, it's hard to believe the DNB game did it all
for me.
Currently I'm on triple 5-back (place, sound, color), got stuck there
and get extremely sleepy after doing 3-5 sessions.
All of this is just one little riddle ...
Gwern Branwen
American schools can be very easy though, compared to some other
countries. Here's a comment by a Korean (you will remember South Korea
placing very high, shall we say, in international testing):
> (Aside: the only time I was better than an A-minus student was during the 2.5 years in my high school in California, when I could not speak English for half of that time. And it’s not as if my school was a bad one with low expectations either. If that’s not an indictment against the deplorable state of K-12 education in America, I don’t know what is. The reverse of my situation – a 16-year-old American coming to Korea and getting straight A’s without knowing Korean at first – could never, ever, ever happen. Ever.)
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/koreans-english-acquisition-and-best.html
My own impression of higher education is that it isn't that much
different from high school, and diligence gets you most of the grade.
Maybe you just started being more focused and diligent for some other
reason, which contributed to your willingness to engage in an
unrewarding and difficult task like n-backing?
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
Pontus Granström
dicipline than with IQ.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
A.Four.Sigma
(actually the other person, from this forum, went from C's to a 4.0).
I also noticed marked improvement in academic performance (but only
started during my last year of college so I didn't have time to see
major shifts in GPA).
Nbacking does make you smarter. That's the reason for all of the
hoopla around it. If people can score higher on IQ exams after
training, it seems obvious that they should also be able to find
school easier. I personally went from abhorring math to studying it
every day, for fun, because it has become easier now after Nback
training. Any research on WM training and neuroplasticity will allow
skeptics to see that substantial transformations occur in key areas of
the brain related to logic and executive function after some time
spent training. These tranformations likely produce a better student.
Gwern Branwen
> On the other hand, school performance correlates higher with self
> dicipline than with IQ.
Oh, I agree. Maybe I wasn't particularly clear on the
correlation/causations that seemed perfectly possible to me. DNBacker
studies at the 2 European universities, and he is apathetic, often
misses deadlines, that sort of thing; naturally he gets low C-grades.
Then he somehow gets into an American medical school*. Our mysterious
X factors intervenes, and DNBacker gets religion about hard work, and
in the course of studying hard, extracurricular reading, and whatnot,
happens to also randomly hear about n-backing and take that up too -
which he can, because the X factor gifted him with motivation to do
hard things like n-back.
Perfectly consistent with the evidence, anyway. What is the X factor?
Maybe he moved to a sunny US state and a vitamin D deficiency went
away. Maybe he got over a low-grade depression for biochemical reasons
unfathomable by modern science. Or maybe he was just marking time in
getting a bachelor's, waiting to do what he *really* wanted (become a
doctor of some sort). etc. Graduating and moving countries is a huge
transition; many things change (while most of the testimonials in the
FAQ do not seem to bridge any such discontinuities**).
* luck? not a great school? European cachet? C-grades there
corresponding to A-grades here, thus making the mystery vanish?
** that they mention, anyway
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
DNBacker
I actually moved to a cold northern US state. In Europe I did submit
papers on time and I did try hard to pass my exams. Strangely, I could
not remember much of the information that I read from books / notes. I
felt like my brain was not intelligent enough.
In the US, however, I need to e.g. memorize the whole skeletal system
during only one class - not just all the bones in the body but also
all processes and foramens, bone structure to the very smallest cell
and the like, and guess what - miraculously I do remember most of them
- even without making all the crazy flashcards that many others
students do. That feels so good to just read it once or twice and it's
stuck there.
My question is - why wasn't I able to memorize so much during my last
19 years of fairly diligent study? Is memory only motivation/
environment-based?
I guess no one can give me one good answers. I am just curious how it
all might be working.
workingonit
Reece
completely normal in teenagers and young adults) could explain a whole
lot of this transition.
I was motivated enough in 11th grade to both get a job and almost
completely finish not only my grade 11 but also my grade 12, getting
accepted into university and being granted permission to take a full
year of university courses (not AP courses) the next year while
finishing up the single high school course I had left. This was many
years before any of the DNB research came out and was not something I
would have had the motivation to undertake at an earlier age -- I was
always the kind of student who was quite content (some might even say
that I was "happy") to get a bad grade in a subject I viewed as being
unintelligently taught or otherwise uninteresting.
Pontus Granström
brain always develops given the right stimuli.
A.Four.Sigma
unproductive; I don't find this instance of skepticism to be high
quality or useful. This is for several reasons, but chief among them
is that me and several others have experienced similar results as the
originator of this post, and another person on this forum who
experienced similar improvements in academic performance after DNB
training. In other words, why such skepticism when the results have
been replicated several times throughout the forum, and the
demonstrated effect of DNB is to significantly improve brain function?
On Oct 16, 4:52 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bryan
complete joke. I attended one of the top 10 best universities in
Korea. First year graduate school courses consist of teaching people
how to cite research properly. There is one university in Korea that
is ranked in the top 100 internationally, and it's somewhere near the
bottom.
On Oct 17, 1:25 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I used to study at two different universities in Europe and I was a
> > "C" student. I struggled. Last year I started doing the DNB game and I
> > went to college in the US (medical field). Here I miraculously became
> > an "A" student and I'm always on the Dean's List.
> > Now I'm wondering - is it the brain game that surprisingly made me
> > smarter or is it the education system in the US that is way easier. I
> > am not sure.
>
> > Anyone who studied both in Europe and in the US to tell me their
> > thoughts? I'd like to find out whether it's just the different ed.
> > system that made it easier for me in the US or whether it's the dual n-
> > back game that made me smarter.
>
> American schools can be very easy though, compared to some other
> countries. Here's a comment by a Korean (you will remember South Korea
> placing very high, shall we say, in international testing):
>
> > (Aside: the only time I was better than an A-minus student was during the 2.5 years in my high school in California, when I could not speak English for half of that time. And it’s not as if my school was a bad one with low expectations either. If that’s not an indictment against the deplorable state of K-12 education in America, I don’t know what is. The reverse of my situation – a 16-year-old American coming to Korea and getting straight A’s without knowing Korean at first – could never, ever, ever happen. Ever.)
>
Arkanj3l
Because we can always be wrong. It's more ignorant to deny skepticism
in the name of "productivity", because if we don't generate possible
alternatives, then we may be simply working in a faulty perception of
what dual-n-back is and what it does, thus biasing any so called
results we have garnered through our testimony.
N-back isn't the only possible trainer of intelligence and it
certainly isn't the only factor that judges it. In addition, every
person physiologically is different, and thus we find that certain
people seem to have massive gains while others don't. Usually the ones
who have higher gains are the ones who have attentional difficulties,
or score low on IQ tests in the first place. People who do not have
these traits notice fewer benefits from doing n-back. Since we know
little of DNBacker's true profile in life, the possibility of another
so called "X-Factor" still exists.
Gwern in his FAQ has reported he has seen few benefits at all, despite
finding it an intriguing exercise. I myself find plenty of short term
benefits but then find it harder to tell whether DNB has helped me in
the long term (I've been seeing an improvement in my work and my
memory but that doesn't have to mean anything).
Denying skepticism is placing too much faith in your ability to
discern the truth. We're only human.
Pontus Granström
Gwern Branwen
> Do you live in north or south korea?
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Bryan <bryanhay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I live in Korea and have gone to graduate school here--and it's a
>> complete joke. I attended one of the top 10 best universities in
>> Korea. First year graduate school courses consist of teaching people
>> how to cite research properly. There is one university in Korea that
>> is ranked in the top 100 internationally, and it's somewhere near the
>> bottom.
I assure you, Pontus, there are no internationally ranked universities
in North Korea, and if Bryan were in North Korea & one of the very few
elites allowed access to the public Internet, he certainly would not
mention being in any Korea.
As for Bryan: yes, I have heard this. The Korean quote I gave was
specifically for high school; weak higher ed seems to be pretty
general in East Asia due to its lower ed system (I hear much the same
thing for Japan).
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
Pontus Granström
before starting their worklife.
A.Four.Sigma
backing improve performance in school; i hazard that the answer is yes
since multiple current students have noticed increased academic
performance (I did as well). You and Gwern's main gripe is that there
is too much statistical noise for you to be sure about the impact of
DNB on grades.
There is always a possibility to be skeptical about results of
something (e.g. Holocaust deniers) despite repeated evidence to the
contrary. In this case, several individuals repeatedly report improved
performance in school, but one who isn't in school, or hasn't
perceived similar benefits, says that it seems unlikely for that to be
possible. Yet it is the case that students are reporting this, along
with improved memory and the standard array of benefits.
The point is that there is a good portion of statistical noise that
can confound the results, but not to be confounded by the noise. In
this case, I am sure that there is enough evidence that DNB is the
common theme in these academic success stories. Personally
experiencing improved performance also gives me more reason to agree
with the findings of the other users. Now there is a chance that Gwern
is right, but I find his critique to be spurious; a plausible false.
We can flip this bout of skepticism 180 (Gwern's skepticism of any
benefits) and say that without taking an fMRI, he really couldn't say
whether or not he has benefited at all. Maybe he has, but simply has a
negative bias about the effectiveness of the training, preventing him
from perceiving actual effects.
Main argument/theory: if DNB improves cognitive efficiency for a user,
it is likely that the user will also find school easier(if they are
still enrolled).
A.Four.Sigma
particular skeptic is presenting spurious, or high quality skepticism.
In this case, this heuristic process seems to sense spurious criticism
for the above listed reasons.
Gwern Branwen
> i denied the quality of the skepticism. the main question is does n
> backing improve performance in school; i hazard that the answer is yes
> since multiple current students have noticed increased academic
> performance (I did as well). You and Gwern's main gripe is that there
> is too much statistical noise for you to be sure about the impact of
> DNB on grades.
My essential concern with these sorts of emails is whether I should
include them in the FAQ or not, and if so, where (IQ section,
Benefits, no results, or negatives).
Most - I think all - of the reports are from people in relatively
static positions. They're basically as much as one can hope for with
anecdotes.
Someone who in the middle of a semester notes her grades skyrocketing
even as the material gets more difficult is a useful anecdote because
in distinction to Nbacker, she has not: changed courses; changed
majors; changed colleges; changed countries; changed continents;
changed cultures; changed diets; or changed languages.*
And we have good reasons to think that this is very much a comparison
of American apples & European oranges to begin with, quite aside from
the many confounding factors. Given that it's not even clear that
there *was* an improvement, this anecdote is very weak evidence,
although I wish Nbacker the best in becoming a doctor of whatever sort
(not like there's a huge surplus) and agree that DNB *ought* to
improve academic performance through some combination of improved
attention control/self-discipline, working memory, or IQ.
But I'm not going to put in a rubbish anecdote where the before/after
comparisons are so disparate, and if I already have, please point it
out so I can remove it.
(Reversal test: if Nbacker had written in saying he was an American
who moved to China and saw his grades plummet from As to Cs, would you
be saying my points are crappy skepticism and that anecdote should
definitely go into the FAQ as very important disconfirmatory evidence,
or would you be busy pointing out confounding reasons like culture
shock and unhealthy public water supplies and easier East Asian
universities & other possibilities? Remember, America's higher ed
reputation is for its *research*, not its teaching.)
* Nbacker's English seems pretty fluent to me, so I assume he is
actually from Great Britain/Ireland. If he's from somewhere else, then
that's a pretty big change as well!
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
αrgumziΩ
been N-backing, my grades have gone up" when innumerable confounding
factors interfere with arriving at such a conclusion.
Of course, anecdotes are always dismissed in rigorous science
precisely due to their unreliability.
argumzio
On Oct 18, 12:33 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pontus Granström
in Sweden, is a school called "Handels". It's somewhat of an exclusive
club for education people that are going to be the top
of corporations and so on. Even though it's so tremendous popular,
their ranking is among the lowest in Sweden and even the world. They
haven't really come up with anything, in fact
dual-n-back research would seem as Einstein to them. Add to this that
in Sweden, teachers are seen as the root of all evil in the world. In
fact most teacher students are far better
than most economists. The economists need one week to learn the "least
square method(?)". If they are lucky they manage to learn some
derivative rules from high school during 3 weeks.
And these people are going to control the economy, no wonder we get
financial crisis when they can't seem to grasp the most basic of
things.
αrgumziΩ
imply that that was what DNBacker was himself claiming (he doesn't
appear to be claiming, but inquiring). In other words, I support
Gwern's notion that we cannot reasonably include anecdotes to the
effect that academic performance sharply _increases due to training
alone_.
argumzio
On Oct 18, 7:24 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Not sure what the big fuss is about...
> "because I've been N-backing, my grades have gone up"
>
> other possibilities that may vouch for the sudden increase educational
> attainment.
>
> Pt. 1 = It isn't an argument for causation as _argumzio_ has
> eloquently concluded, however, its not unreasonable to suggest that
> along with other variables to take into account, its at least
> correlated.
> Pt. 2 = This _side effect_, regardless of the strength of correlation,
> should probably fit quite well in the _benefits_ section of the FAQ.
> However, the account may best be noted with sensitivity as previously
> hinted by other users and myself.
>
> Finally, in relation to training on n-back and it's implications for
> increases in g and certain processes of working memory, the jury is
> still out in my opinion. Yes, the evidence is growing and focusing in
> on the bulls eye with each glimmering article released, however, the
> bridge is still not complete. There are a few bricks loose which make
> crossing the bridge confidently an unlikely endeavor, unless you're
> the village idiot of course. I very much look forward to the progress
> in this field and I hope that this progress eventually opens the door
> to same conclusion that its been knocking on, that brain training can
> influence people's lives in a positive way, contributing to their
> ambitions to a meaningful extent.
>
> I do believe in the capacity to change one's brain (consequence of
> neuroplasticity), however, to what degree and whether this degree is
> meaningful, I still fumble to find the words.
>
> likeprestige
αrgumziΩ
it is an open question if someone else is to take up the task of
collecting information of various merits and demerits in terms of its
scientific value. Some people seem to pay more attention to anecdotal
testimony, so there's no absolute method involved, to be sure.
Needless to say, if I had the vim and inclination, I would remove a
lot of the dubious information there, but then there'd be little left
besides that which can be found in the literature. When it comes to
practicality, information of purely scientific interest may not be all
that interesting.
I suppose the real point in all of this is that we need to acknowledge
the possible shortcomings of certain kinds of information, if we're to
rigorously document it. Not a _big_ problem.
argumzio
On Oct 18, 8:46 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> p.s - sorry to sound like a gospel preacher.
>
> On Oct 19, 12:37 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, my bad. I haven't bother to read the other posts, bad judgment
> > on my part.
> > "I support Gwern's notion that we cannot reasonably include anecdotes
> > to the
> > effect that academic performance sharply _increases due to training
> > alone_"
>
> > this blog. This is why I said that the account should be noted with
> > _sensitivity_, in other words, caution. It would seem silly if at
> > least a murmur of this did not pass the 'red line' of entry into the
> > benefits sections of the FAQ, considering some of the ridiculous
> > anecdotes that are already described. If that is the case then the
> > benefits section should be reviewed to get rid of some of the flies
> > that are turning it all into garbage.
>
> > likeprestige
Pontus Granström
shows that it plays twice the role compared to IQ. Might n-back
strengthen our ability to stay focused on boring tasks which helps us
to study?
ABSTRACT—In a longitudinal study of 140 eighth-grade students,
self-discipline measured by self-report, parent report, teacher
report, and monetary choice questionnaires in the fall predicted final
grades, school attendance, standardized achievement-test scores, and
selection into a competitive high school program the following spring.
In a replication with 164 eighth graders, a behavioral
delay-ofgratification task, a questionnaire on study habits, and a
group-administered IQ test were added. Self-discipline measured in the
fall accounted for more than twice as much variance as IQ in final
grades, high school selection, school attendance, hours spent doing
homework, hours spent watching television (inversely), and the time of
day students began their homework. The effect of self-discipline on
final grades held even when controlling for firstmarking-period
grades, achievement-test scores, and measured IQ. These findings
suggest a major reason for students falling short of their
intellectual potential: their failure to exercise self-discipline.
Gwern Branwen
> Yeah, my bad. I haven't bother to read the other posts, bad judgment
> on my part.
>
> to the
> effect that academic performance sharply _increases due to training
>
> I agree with you, such a statement only discredits the tacit values of
> this blog.
Blog?
> This is why I said that the account should be noted with
> _sensitivity_, in other words, caution. It would seem silly if at
> least a murmur of this did not pass the 'red line' of entry into the
> benefits sections of the FAQ, considering some of the ridiculous
> anecdotes that are already described.
Perhaps I've argued myself into an extreme position (the X bias) and I
would have included it if I hadn't argued against it.
So, if 5 people in this Group disagree with me, I'll add it in.
> If that is the case then the
> benefits section should be reviewed to get rid of some of the flies
> that are turning it all into garbage.
Feel free to point out the most egregious ones.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Pontus Granström <lepo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I uploaded the article on self discipline and academic performance. It
> shows that it plays twice the role compared to IQ. Might n-back
> strengthen our ability to stay focused on boring tasks which helps us
> to study?
I would hope so. Self-discipline may be behind the improved results of
the kids Klingberg did WM training with, which is pretty strong
evidence that it may help the rest of us; further, there are a number
of results about 'willpower' that it is more akin to a muscle than a
battery - it can be exhausted but it also can be trained and
strengthened. (This is the sort of thing I mean when I say that DNB
may not improve IQ, but still produce benefits akin to improved IQ.)
(Definitely worth covering in the FAQ.)
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
Gwern Branwen
>> This is why I said that the account should be noted with
>> _sensitivity_, in other words, caution. It would seem silly if at
>> least a murmur of this did not pass the 'red line' of entry into the
>> benefits sections of the FAQ, considering some of the ridiculous
>> anecdotes that are already described.
>
> Perhaps I've argued myself into an extreme position (the X bias) and I
> would have included it if I hadn't argued against it.
Er, I sent this before I finished looking it up. The specific example
I was thinking of was psychologists in a study asked students to write
an essay strongly supporting/arguing for a position that the students
only weakly believed; the students naturally wound up arguing
themselves into a stronger more extreme version of that position.
Doesn't seem to have a specific name, but relevant links:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
Reece
this group will inevitably come across this information, some of whom
are in all likelihood the same people who buy products based on
testimonials from people they know even less than we know each other
(at least members here can and I'm sure do read a few of a person's
posts to get a general idea of whether what someone says in a post or
is quoted saying in the FAQ is a quack, off their meds, etc).
Gwern Branwen
> First of all, I think you deserve credit in regards to reflecting on
> your potential bias, if there was any to mention anyway. Secondly,
> lol, I can't believe how many anecdotes there are in relation to
> increased dream recall. This I find interesting.
I've noticed it too. I have a few theories about it. Could be the
Tetris effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris%20effect), which
seems to often bleed over into dreams. Could be a reaction to learning
- sleep (and REM specific IIRC) are heavily associated with learning.
Could just be that dreams are much more easily noticed or remembered
with more working memory - I believe I mentioned long ago that lucid
dreaming research had found a correlation with high WM and ease of
noticing that one is in a dream.
> Finally, if "DNB has
> probably been one of the factors that has lead to the improvement in
> my studies" does not make it in, its silly. Here comes my
> 'confirmation bias' (just a joke):
>
> Ashirgo
Seems reasonable anecdotes to me. The first one is almost negative, even.
> chinmi04
I like chinmi's blogging example. Ties into the dopamine speculation.
Like Ashirgo, chinmi remembers the weakness of anecdotes.
> John
John points to specific productivity improvements; I imagine he could
even graph his words per day.
> karnautrahl - what a joke!
Valuable, among other things, for being an anecdote that long breaks
don't damage DNB performance much. But I am quoting too much, I agree
- the last one can definitely go. With no objective measures of
textbook comprehension like grades or tests...
> negatron
Similarly.
> astriaos - highly related to the 'induction' in question
Excessive, yes, but there's nothing I can really ding it on. He says
the improvements are in the same class with the same teacher etc.
> iwan tulijef - the guys nearly off his meds!
Very droll, but again, very objective. He's either taking 500mg of
Ritalin or not - either taking the meds or not.
> Also, some of the anecdotes are
> in relation to pre and post IQ score improvements, which make them
> highly separable from the previous heading mentioned ("pixie fairy
> anecdotes").
The IQ scores are already broken out into a different section and put
well ahead of the anecdotes.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
A.Four.Sigma
anecdotal evidence; it's strange to me that people in a thread very
concerned about research don't remember the "anecdotes" (data) of the
individuals involved in the original Jaeggi study, reporting improved
memory, etc. If you had read the originator's post more closely, you
would see that he reported an increased ability to _memorize_
information which has helped his academic performance. This is not
inconsistent with the benefits of Nbacking that have been reported by
members of this forum and members of the original Jaeggi study. This
important caveat seems to have been overlooked by our forum's
authoritative/expert intellects.
To emphasize: the originator noted _improved memory_. I defy someone
here to say that DNB does not improve memory or brain function. If
they did anyways, I would point them to fMRI studies that show
increased neuron density/and or activity in PFC areas of subjects who
undergo WM training, which proves that something does indeed occur.
Such research suggests that WM training causes plasticity in key
areas of the brain related to logic and reasoning, among others. In
short, the post originator put forth that his increased ability to
memorize large chunks of information has improved, which is entirely
consistent with what we would predict from documented benefits of WM
training such as DNB. Not only that, but he says that this increased
ability to memorize has improved his ability to study and thus,
improved ability to memorize and study naturally would lead to better
grades (less forgetting of formulae, facts, etc during exam time).
This is rather simple, and honestly, unremarkable (although definitely
laudable), given that it is consistent with what we would predict from
past studies.
What is inconsistent about _improved memory_ after doing WM training?
And what is inconsistent about reporting that improved memory
subsequently improves study efficiency, and thus academic performance?
Yes, I understand that many of us here are very smart (or smart
sounding), but we should avoid stumbling over our own intellects:
improvement in memory is not an outlandish claim. Go read the original
Jaeggi et al and watch the video by ScienceCentral; you will see that
improved memory was reported long before Gwern's authoritative FAQ was
made and anyone of us even began the training.
On Oct 20, 9:54 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
wzeller
On Oct 20, 2010, at 4:24 PM, A.Four.Sigma wrote:
> Given how skeptical many here seem to be, it's a wonder that they even
> use DNB software at all, in some cases for a year or more. One is
> forced to question the intelligence of someone who uses something
> while simultaneously postulating that it has no real usefulness. It
> doesn't seem entirely logical; that is, unless the skeptics here don't
> fully trust their own skepticism...
>>> gwernhttp://www.gwern.net/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
A.Four.Sigma
good evidence anyone needs. Higher GF is only part of the benefits
conferred by DNB training, as well. I agree that skeptics might have
some rationale behind training , while all the while postulating that
it does nothing. However, that says a lot about how much they believe
their own skepticism.
Second, since you bring probability in, what is the probability that
several individuals in a random sample would report the exact same,
very specific effect of DNB training, that is, improved dream recall
(something I've noticed as well). Not only this, an individual which I
told about DNB training has reported to me essentially the same
benefits that individuals here have noted, even though he doesn't know
about the group, let alone follow the research.
Now, as I mentioned before, it seems likely that certain in this group
are biased against the possibility that DNB does something, so they
aren't willing to accept possibilities that it does what individuals
report. In other words, we will continue to train, while they sit on
the sidelines depicting all the reasons that the training probably
doesn't work. As for the originator of this post, he should know that
I'm quite in tune with my mental faculties, scoring at the fourth
standard deviation on the WAIS test; I'm quite adept at noticing
slight shifts in cognitive abilities due to changes in diet,
concussion, etc; the originator should note that I experienced
similarly marked improvements in recall to his own, as have several
others. The post's originator shouldn't be surprised about his extreme
improvement in recall, since this is a commonly noted result of
prolonged DNB training, despite skeptics concern that DNB has no
useful carryover.
The originator should also keep in mind that the brain becomes more
capable at performing acitivities it is repeatedly made to do. It is
not surprising that DNB, being a recall-centric activity that requires
memorization of very specific information, should improve your ability
to recall specific information in other domains, similar to the way
cab drivers brains become more adept at navigation, ETC. Your results
are in keeping with Jaeggi et al and several other studies done which
examine the effects of brain training on cognition.
It is true that every generation has its skeptics; this is not
surprising, as it is said that said science only advances from funeral
to funeral.
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
A.Four.Sigma
noted as a benefit of training for several hours per day with BW. I am
a proponent of extreme training; I often do 2x per day/ 3x per day
training sessions at the gym. Despite that fact that others say it
will cause more harm than good, I seem to be in much better shape than
they are (ignoring the skeptics). I think that there is something to
be said for division I collegiate sports teams that train multiple
times per day. I also think that there is probably an interesting
benefit from multiple hours of Nbacking per day, vis a vis an extreme
overload illiciting an extreme adaptive response. I hypothesize that
several hours of DNB would elicit such an extreme response or cause
some type of improvement over a 20 minute session, just as 1 hour of
cardio does more than 20 minutes of cardio, though 20 minutes is often
the medically prescribed amount, an individual training for an Ironman
would not restrict himself to such short training periods.
Curious about likeprestige's experience with long training sessions
A4S
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
A.Four.Sigma
Do you have thoughts about the differences with long vs short training
sessions?
On Oct 20, 8:21 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Hey Gwern,
>
> Some of these anecdotes I have no problem with, however, I just
> struggle to understand as to why they are put ahead of the anecdote in
> question, hence they are discussed. As already noted, yes C-A is a big
> steak to swallow, but we don't have to eat it all. One can just choose
> to take a small bite and say "N-back may or was one of the
> contributing factors to my increase in school performance".
>
> Ashirgo
> - "To be honest, I do not feel any obvious difference. There are
> moments in which I perceive a significant improvement, though, as well
> as particulars task which are much easier now."
>
> - Self contradictory, making the entire thing irrelevant.
>
> "I have also experienced better dream recalling, with all these
> reveries and other hallucinations included ;) I am more happier now
> than ever. I did doubt it would be ever possible! I am also more prone
> to get excited...Now people in my motherland are just boring to listen
> to. "
>
> - Dream recalling I suppose is worth mentioning, considering it has
> been mentioned by a few people. An experience that I myself can
> acknowledge. In relation to the "tetris effect", I think it only
> becomes a close relative if someone starts dreaming about certain n-
> back modes. My dreams have just become more vivid. But I see what you
> mean.
>
> - Reveries and other hallucinations included? Well, this is similar to
> the "tetris effect". Perhaps he had hallucinations to begin with and
> just once to point at n-back as a cause.
> - He is more happier more than ever = Could be due to the
> hallucinations
> - People in his motherland are now boring to listen = Self-delusion
> seems to part of this anecdotes framework
>
> Why is all of this mentioned in the anecdote? Is this anecdote really
> 'fit' to stand trial?
>
> Chinmi04 -
>
> I personally have nothing wrong this particular anecdote. However, I
> thought it was good to mention it because I think it is related to
> DNbacker's anecdote, considering mental aptitude is correlated with
> educational performance. DNbacker's anecdote, however is received with
> less revere because of the extreme surface that it takes on (Jumpting
> from C to A). But it isn't about what the argument looks like, it's
> about whats inside the arguments heart. Thus, detailing the account,
> as already noted, should be done with cautionary steps, to ensure
> that's its scary appearance does not ruin the chance for us to see
> what beauty it holds inside.
>
> This anecdote postulates the following:
>
> - Taught him how to focus
> - Improved:
> 1. creativity
> 2. mental reasoning
> 3. speaking fluency
> And as a consequence of such -
> 4. rate of blog entries per month (well, it doesn't mean they were
> good blog entries or entries with more mental potence)
>
> However, all of this is acknowledged with the undertone that n-back
> may not be responsible or is not the sole contributor to his knewly
> acquired mental arsenal of action man like intellectual prowess.
> DNbacker admits this also.
>
> Finally, the anecdote that cannot walk down the redcarpet actually has
> _weak_ evidence to suggest that n-back may have been one of
> contributing factors that aided his strive to become more of an
> intellectual action man. The above anecdotes actually seem less tamed.
> Implying that one's mental faculties have improved in several ways is
> more immoderate than simply saying that your grades have improved. One
> claim is asserting that it _CAN_ fight a lion, without any results to
> vouch bar the communication that it has through the steel bars (_blog
> entries_), the other is saying that its results on the training
> program entitled "how to tame a lion" have improved. This I see as
> quite a big difference.
> > John
>
> John points to specific productivity improvements; I imagine he could
> even graph his words per day.
>
>
> 1. n-back has increased his mental sharpness
> 2. productivity is much higher these days
> 3. Insinuates that he has a higher working memory capacity and fluid
> intelligence
> 4. Illustrates a before an after in his writing material
> 5. simultaneously learning several languages, helping him learn faster
>
> I also do not have no problem with this anecdote, I just don't know
> why it's put ahead of the anecdote in question. This anecdote once
> again seems less tamed.
>
> karnautrahl -
> Valuable, among other things, for being an anecdote that long breaks
> don't damage DNB performance much. But I am quoting too much, I agree
> - the last one can definitely go. With no objective measures of
> textbook comprehension like grades or tests...
>
> that his performance on DNB was unwavering even with lapses of time
> between training.
> Spending a $1000 on technical books and saying that n-back has
> improved your ability to comprehend these books, is not relevant. Just
> sounds like a bad financial decision, perhaps if he had of continued
> his n-back training he may have realized such or perhaps I'm wrong and
> he just gives more money to the homeless guy on the street (has more
> money) more than I. One could say that his aptitude to comprehend
> certain literature has not improved but rather his confidence. I
> realize however that you have recognized this.
>
> > negatron
>
> Similarly.
>
> - Dream recollection. Let's tick that. In regards to the the
> "advanced" literature, well, the same conclusion as I drew before.
> Perhaps he always had the capacity and the __distant__ interest but
> did not have the confidence to challenge Isaac Newton to a duel. Once
> again, I think you already acknoledge this.
>
> astriaos -
> "Excessive, yes, but there's nothing I can really ding it on. He says
> the improvements are in the same class with the same teacher etc. "
>
> question. First of all, he posts no improvement in his test scores as
> DNbacker has already done. Secondly, another explanation for
> stupifying his physics teacher.
> - simply become more confident in using his "innate" abilities and n-
> back is not related to this increased proclivity and instead more
> related to placing him in a false sense of security.
> - has simply said something very stupid and the physics teacher does
> not want to ridicule him in-front of others
>
> Why is all of this information included in the anecdote? By reading
> this am i to assume that I will potentially have increased ability to
> stupefy my physics teacher if I n-back for a few months?
>
> iwan tulijef -
> Very droll, but again, very objective. He's either taking 500mg of
> Ritalin or not - either taking the meds or not.
>
> an enumerable amount of variables that could account to such. Perhaps
> you could say that he was wrongly prescribed in the first place. I
> know that its unlikely, however, I just see it as silly that this
> extreme notion is accepted without much inquiry and DNbacker's account
> is bombarded with bows and arrows. If these two accounts were to
> battle it out I'm pretty sure iwan tulijef has brought a knife to a
> gun fight.
> > The IQ scores are already broken out into a different section and put
> > well ahead of the anecdotes.
>
>
> likeprestige
>
> On Oct 21, 1:54 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
A.Four.Sigma
You're correct, thus my _extreme_ interest in the effect of
extraordinary dosages.
This is all very fascinating.
A4S
On Oct 20, 8:52 pm, Book Alcohol <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Hey A.Four.Sigma,
>
> I think Jaeggi (2008) said that improvements were dosage dependent. But this is from recollection, could be wrong.
>
> likeprestige
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:36:26 -0700
> > Subject: Re: From "C" student to "A" student
> > From: davidsky...@gmail.com
> > To: brain-t...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > John points to specific productivity improvements; I imagine he could
> > > even graph his words per day.
>
>
> > > 1. n-back has increased his mental sharpness
> > > 2. productivity is much higher these days
> > > 3. Insinuates that he has a higher working memory capacity and fluid
> > > intelligence
> > > 4. Illustrates a before an after in his writing material
> > > 5. simultaneously learning several languages, helping him learn faster
>
> > > I also do not have no problem with this anecdote, I just don't know
> > > why it's put ahead of the anecdote in question. This anecdote once
> > > again seems less tamed.
>
> > > karnautrahl -
>
> > > don't damage DNB performance much. But I am quoting too much, I agree
> > > - the last one can definitely go. With no objective measures of
> > > textbook comprehension like grades or tests...
>
> > > that his performance on DNB was unwavering even with lapses of time
> > > between training.
> > > Spending a $1000 on technical books and saying that n-back has
> > > improved your ability to comprehend these books, is not relevant. Just
> > > sounds like a bad financial decision, perhaps if he had of continued
> > > his n-back training he may have realized such or perhaps I'm wrong and
> > > he just gives more money to the homeless guy on the street (has more
> > > money) more than I. One could say that his aptitude to comprehend
> > > certain literature has not improved but rather his confidence. I
> > > realize however that you have recognized this.
>
> > > > negatron
>
> > > Similarly.
>
> > > - Dream recollection. Let's tick that. In regards to the the
> > > "advanced" literature, well, the same conclusion as I drew before.
> > > Perhaps he always had the capacity and the __distant__ interest but
> > > did not have the confidence to challenge Isaac Newton to a duel. Once
> > > again, I think you already acknoledge this.
>
> > > astriaos -
>
> > > the improvements are in the same class with the same teacher etc. "
>
> > > question. First of all, he posts no improvement in his test scores as
> > > DNbacker has already done. Secondly, another explanation for
> > > stupifying his physics teacher.
> > > - simply become more confident in using his "innate" abilities and n-
> > > back is not related to this increased proclivity and instead more
> > > related to placing him in a false sense of security.
> > > - has simply said something very stupid and the physics teacher does
> > > not want to ridicule him in-front of others
>
> > > Why is all of this information included in the anecdote? By reading
> > > this am i to assume that I will potentially have increased ability to
> > > stupefy my physics teacher if I n-back for a few months?
>
> > > iwan tulijef -
>
> > > Ritalin or not - either taking the meds or not.
>
> > > an enumerable amount of variables that could account to such. Perhaps
> > > you could say that he was wrongly prescribed in the first place. I
> > > know that its unlikely, however, I just see it as silly that this
> > > extreme notion is accepted without much inquiry and DNbacker's account
> > > is bombarded with bows and arrows. If these two accounts were to
> > > battle it out I'm pretty sure iwan tulijef has brought a knife to a
> > > gun fight.
>
> > > > well ahead of the anecdotes.
>
>
> > > likeprestige
>
> > > On Oct 21, 1:54 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> read more »
Jelani Sims
Rarely do I ever post but I feel like I have to say this. 4sigma physical training multiple times per day is indeed prohibitive to future gains. Also, saying that because you are more muscular than others who are opposing you, your method is more effective is silly. Genetic variation among other things is most likely the cause of that. Stick to the research. To get a little bit back on topic, I am also really interested to see what comes out of what I'm going to call the prestige dnb SUPER training module ;p
On Oct 20, 2010 10:13 PM, "likeprestige" <plast...@live.com.au> wrote:
Settle down cow-boy, keep the gun in its holster before you scare some
people with that thing! Seriously...
likeprestige
On Oct 21, 1:07 pm, "A.Four.Sigma" <davidsky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Book,
> You're correct, thus my...
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups...
A.Four.Sigma
Olympic and Division I collegiate coaches who actually use this
methodology would have just as big a laugh as I did if they ever
happened upon your post; maybe you should write them all a letter
telling them they should scrap their current programs, to which they
will respond with a pair of tickets to their next meet so that you can
despair over the poor physical condition of their athletes.
A4S (in defense of extreme training regimes)
On Oct 21, 8:56 am, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rarely do I ever post but I feel like I have to say this. 4sigma physical
> training multiple times per day is indeed prohibitive to future gains. Also,
> saying that because you are more muscular than others who are opposing you,
> your method is more effective is silly. Genetic variation among other things
> is most likely the cause of that. Stick to the research. To get a little bit
> back on topic, I am also really interested to see what comes out of what I'm
> going to call the prestige dnb SUPER training module ;p
>
Jelani Sims
Just like the pope is likely to laugh when I say evolution is fact. Who cares who or what laughs at me, the evidence will always speak for itself. I'm not willing to have a drawn out debate with you on this, as it is unlikely to change either of our positions.
On Oct 21, 2010 2:42 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sims,
Olympic and Division I collegiate coaches who actually use this
methodology would have just as big a laugh as I did if they ever
happened upon your post; maybe you should write them all a letter
telling them they should scrap their current programs, to which they
will respond with a pair of tickets to their next meet so that you can
despair over the poor physical condition of their athletes.
A4S (in defense of extreme training regimes)
On Oct 21, 8:56 am, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rarely do I ever post but I feel like...
> On Oct 20, 2010 10:13 PM, "likeprestige" <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
>
> Settle down cow-boy, ...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Traini...
A.Four.Sigma
might one day be able to compete at the international level (.....). I
think it's abundantly clear that individuals who are renowned for
performance in something (Olympians, musicians, chess players etc)
spend several hours per day training. This is often much more than the
normal population, and obviously reflects in their performance
(observe the benefits of total immersion language training, multi-hour
training as well). I hazard to guess that the same applies to Nback
training; that is, maximal exposure for maximum response.
likeprestige seems to be on the right track as for what such a program
would look like. Now this all has nothing to do with going from C's to
A's, but we can say that the comparative results of extreme Nback
training regimes has implications for those students looking for the
best schedule to improve cognitive performance, and ultimately
scholastic performance.
Addendum: I postulate that if it is shown that DNB improves memory, it
should, ceteris paribus, improve school performance, since much of
school is based on recall of key facts.
On Oct 21, 2:08 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just like the pope is likely to laugh when I say evolution is fact. Who
> cares who or what laughs at me, the evidence will always speak for itself.
> I'm not willing to have a drawn out debate with you on this, as it is
> unlikely to change either of our positions.
>
Jelani Sims
Obviously I'm aware of Deep practice, which you just so eloquently made a case for by mentioning chess etc. What I was talking about is muscle, not skill. I suggest you read body by science, it is a great synthesis of the most applicable studies on exercise.
On Oct 21, 2010 4:06 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're right, if Olympic athletes reduced their training load, they
might one day be able to compete at the international level (.....). I
think it's abundantly clear that individuals who are renowned for
performance in something (Olympians, musicians, chess players etc)
spend several hours per day training. This is often much more than the
normal population, and obviously reflects in their performance
(observe the benefits of total immersion language training, multi-hour
training as well). I hazard to guess that the same applies to Nback
training; that is, maximal exposure for maximum response.
likeprestige seems to be on the right track as for what such a program
would look like. Now this all has nothing to do with going from C's to
A's, but we can say that the comparative results of extreme Nback
training regimes has implications for those students looking for the
best schedule to improve cognitive performance, and ultimately
scholastic performance.
Addendum: I postulate that if it is shown that DNB improves memory, it
should, ceteris paribus, improve school performance, since much of
school is based on recall of key facts.
On Oct 21, 2:08 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just like the pope is likely to laugh...
> On Oct 21, 2010 2:42 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <davidsky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sims,
> Olympic and Div...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Tr...
Jelani Sims
Regarding dnb I would guess that the more time one puts into it the more one would gain. But I could be completely wrong about that. Ilikeprestige is doing everyone on this board a favor by offering himself up as a guinea pig :)
On Oct 21, 2010 4:06 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're right, if Olympic athletes reduced their training load, they
might one day be able to compete at the international level (.....). I
think it's abundantly clear that individuals who are renowned for
performance in something (Olympians, musicians, chess players etc)
spend several hours per day training. This is often much more than the
normal population, and obviously reflects in their performance
(observe the benefits of total immersion language training, multi-hour
training as well). I hazard to guess that the same applies to Nback
training; that is, maximal exposure for maximum response.
likeprestige seems to be on the right track as for what such a program
would look like. Now this all has nothing to do with going from C's to
A's, but we can say that the comparative results of extreme Nback
training regimes has implications for those students looking for the
best schedule to improve cognitive performance, and ultimately
scholastic performance.
Addendum: I postulate that if it is shown that DNB improves memory, it
should, ceteris paribus, improve school performance, since much of
school is based on recall of key facts.
On Oct 21, 2:08 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just like the pope is likely to laugh...
> On Oct 21, 2010 2:42 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <davidsky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sims,
> Olympic and Div...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Tr...
A.Four.Sigma
inform your studies and the ones that oversee the Olympic Training
Center producing the world's best athletes. Maybe you should make your
own Olympics (SimOlympics) with athletes who only train once per day,
and have them compete against real Olympians to see who wins. I'm sure
it would put your name on the map...
=\
On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding dnb I would guess that the more time one puts into it the more one
> would gain. But I could be completely wrong about that. Ilikeprestige is
> doing everyone on this board a favor by offering himself up as a guinea pig
> :)
>
Jelani Sims
Lay off the ad hominem and actually read the studies. What is required for skill training is not the same for strength training. Which is what you seem to be suggesting.
On Oct 21, 2010 8:54 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <david...@gmail.com> wrote:offtopic@Sims I wonder what the difference is between the doctors that
inform your studies and the ones that oversee the Olympic Training
Center producing the world's best athletes. Maybe you should make your
own Olympics (SimOlympics) with athletes who only train once per day,
and have them compete against real Olympians to see who wins. I'm sure
it would put your name on the map...
=\
On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding dnb I would guess that the ...
> On Oct 21, 2010 4:06 PM, "A.Four.Sigma" <davidsky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're right, if Olympi...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Traini...
Pontus Granström
the fact that brain training works.
*We got three studies on n-back.
*We got fmri scans comparing n-back activity with g-activity.
*We got studies showing that WMC and G overlap
*We got studies that show that n-back is g-loaded.
*We got numerous articles on speed RAPM and it's correlation with speed.
There's no evidence/data what so ever that speed RAPM correlates with
speed in any form. It's just an intuitive way of thinking about it. I
got at least two articles
that support this claim. The latest one (uploaded yesterday) shows no
greater correlation with speed tasks (like stroop) with RAPM 10-min.
The 20 min version
correlates with speed just as much as the untimed!!
*We got numerous studies on the role of WMC in G.
*We got numerous studies on biological effects on the brain from n-backing.
*We got numerous studies indicating that we can't lump things together
just because
we label them as WMC. Just as we can't really lump all strength
training together.
*We got data on the levels of difficulties on RAPM it is not as Moody claims.
*We got studies that shows that 10-min RAPM correlates higher with G
than picking 12 problems.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Jelani Sims
You are always going to have skeptics no matter how severe the evidence for something is imo. Look at evolution and how many people attempt to knock it down. I think some people just really don't like the idea of people raising their intelligence for some reason, and they see dual n back as a threat. Just an idea.
> Lay off the ad homin...
Arkanj3l
I have nothing against n-back or else I wouldn't be here. But we are
subjective observers of experience, and just because studies call n-
back a prime improver of intelligence it doesn't mean that n-back
actually played the greatest role in DNBacker's improvement in grades.
He could be wrong, but I agree, it's more likely that he's right.
I'm skeptical not because I don't want n-back to work, I'm skeptical
because for the most part we don't.
On Oct 22, 6:04 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are always going to have skeptics no matter how severe the evidence for
> something is imo. Look at evolution and how many people attempt to knock it
> down. I think some people just really don't like the idea of people raising
> their intelligence for some reason, and they see dual n back as a threat.
> Just an idea.
>
Jelani Sims
I was making a statement concerning why "some" skeptics "might" be so overly skeptical. Its just a random thought, people need to stop getting so defensive.
On Oct 22, 2010 7:07 AM, "Arkanj3l" <kenneth.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
And thank god that it is, because it's a poor one.
I have nothing against n-back or else I wouldn't be here. But we are
subjective observers of experience, and just because studies call n-
back a prime improver of intelligence it doesn't mean that n-back
actually played the greatest role in DNBacker's improvement in grades.
He could be wrong, but I agree, it's more likely that he's right.
I'm skeptical not because I don't want n-back to work, I'm skeptical
because for the most part we don't.
On Oct 22, 6:04 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are always going to have skeptics...
> On Oct 22, 2010 5:55 AM, "Pontus Granström" <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also wonder about th...
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lay off the ad homin....
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Traini...
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
result is some novel "speed construct" that yet has to be defined and
measured.
> "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
A.Four.Sigma
"Science advances from funeral to funeral"
On Oct 22, 6:16 am, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was making a statement concerning why "some" skeptics "might" be so overly
> skeptical. Its just a random thought, people need to stop getting so
> defensive.
>
>
> And thank god that it is, because it's a poor one.
>
> I have nothing against n-back or else I wouldn't be here. But we are
> subjective observers of experience, and just because studies call n-
> back a prime improver of intelligence it doesn't mean that n-back
> actually played the greatest role in DNBacker's improvement in grades.
> He could be wrong, but I agree, it's more likely that he's right.
>
> I'm skeptical not because I don't want n-back to work, I'm skeptical
> because for the most part we don't.
>
> On Oct 22, 6:04 pm, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are always going to have skeptics...
> > On Oct 22, 2010 5:55 AM, "Pontus Granström" <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I also wonder about th...
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Lay off the ad homin....
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Dual N-Back, Brain Traini...
>
> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> .
Gwern Branwen
> Given how skeptical many here seem to be, it's a wonder that they even
> use DNB software at all, in some cases for a year or more. One is
> forced to question the intelligence of someone who uses something
> while simultaneously postulating that it has no real usefulness.
If you are talking about me, that is already addressed in the FAQ...
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/
A.Four.Sigma
On Oct 25, 5:28 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pontus Granström
data/research negative to training. Like claiming that n-back is a
WMC-task although there's really no data that supports n-back being a
WMC-task in the "ordinary sense". Moody's article is quoted in full
while the data to support jaeggis viewpoint is not even mentioned.
It's just given a little link, not even mentioning what it says. It
would make it somewhat more serious if they linked to studies in
support of the claims. Besides we got pretty much data on speed rapm
and difficulties of the test, which would put his statement in a
different light.
By just ignoring/minimize her respond it makes seem like Moody is
right. At least add a comment on her statement on the issue and
provide links to studies mentioned in her study as well as the studies
I uploaded on the 10-min RAPM. Because they will discuss the
implications of a speed increase. Like that a 30% increase would have
to correspond to
an increase in speed with a factor 3-4 and so on.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM, likeprestige <plast...@live.com.au> wrote:
> AFS, give Gwern a break.
>
> Just my personal opinion but I think it's risky __not__ to be
> skeptical. It's silly to stand with full support on something when all
> the subtleties and or mechanisms are yet to be revealed or understood
> fully.
>
> I recommend you take off your black and white hat and instead look to
> the middle by trying on the grey. You may find that it is a much more
> comfortable fit. Just a thought...
>
> likeprestige
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
A.Four.Sigma
shades of gray can often prevent themselves from seeing the simpleness
of things by trying [very hard in this case] to make them more complex
than they actually are. Ignoring the research that talks about the
benefits of brain training in general, and WM training in particular,
backed by brain scans, seems unintelligent to me. A break he can have;
just note that for every thousand complexity theorists there is one
who sees the simpleness of it all.
On Oct 6, 5:27 am, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> AFS, give Gwern a break.
>
> Just my personal opinion but I think it's risky __not__ to be
> skeptical. It's silly to stand with full support on something when all
> the subtleties and or mechanisms are yet to be revealed or understood
> fully.
>
> I recommend you take off your black and white hat and instead look to
> the middle by trying on the grey. You may find that it is a much more
> comfortable fit. Just a thought...
>
> likeprestige
>
> On Oct 26, 9:14 pm, "A.Four.Sigma" <davidsky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Gwern Branwen
> I also wonder about the skepticism. There's quite substianal data to
> the fact that brain training works.
>
> *We got three studies on n-back.
> *We got fmri scans comparing n-back activity with g-activity.
> *We got studies showing that WMC and G overlap
> *We got studies that show that n-back is g-loaded.
> *We got numerous articles on speed RAPM and it's correlation with speed.
> There's no evidence/data what so ever that speed RAPM correlates with
> speed in any form. It's just an intuitive way of thinking about it. I
> got at least two articles
> that support this claim. The latest one (uploaded yesterday) shows no
> greater correlation with speed tasks (like stroop) with RAPM 10-min.
> The 20 min version
> correlates with speed just as much as the untimed!!
> *We got numerous studies on the role of WMC in G.
> *We got numerous studies on biological effects on the brain from n-backing.
> *We got numerous studies indicating that we can't lump things together
> just because
> we label them as WMC. Just as we can't really lump all strength
> training together.
> *We got data on the levels of difficulties on RAPM it is not as Moody claims.
> *We got studies that shows that 10-min RAPM correlates higher with G
> than picking 12 problems.
All of which is either irrelevant to the speed objection (but I have
20 studies showing the correlation of vocabulary with IQ and how they
use similar brain regions!), or don't actually refute it. I don't
remember your data on RAPM levels of difficulty, but I suspect that
the Jaeggi studies provide too little information on how subjects
scored to make that a refutation either.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
Pontus Granström
working memory capacity and fluid intelligence abilities. RAPM
consists of 4/5 difficulties and each question is not harder than the
previous. Rather the opposite for problems
close to each other. This undermines Moody somewhat. Second point in
the file wmc: ac, sm or both. You'll find the correlation for the
10-min RAPM with a lot of other tests. Including tests of attentional
control/speed, the correlation never exceeds 0.20. Meaning that if
"speed RAPM" was a test that depended on speed it would mean and
increase of speed with a factor of 2, to a factor of more than eight
for a 30% increase. That is quite much, in fact it's too much.
Pontus Granström
that can be held in memory does not account for the shared variance between working memory span
measures and fluid intelligence. Thus, the results do not support the hypothesis advanced by Carpenter et
al. (1990) that the link between individual differences in working memory capacity and intelligence is due
to differences in the ability to hold a certain number of items in working memory. Note that we are not
arguing that item variations in difficulty and memory load are unimportant in determining performance on
the Raven as suggested by Carpenter et al., but rather we suggest that the reason working memory span
tasks are consistently good predictors of fluid ability is due to something else.
Aman Idle
Pontus Granström
on the 10-min RAPM it's ignored, not relevant. Doesn't change anything. If your FAQ where somewhat neutral you would also include Jaeggis response, and links to the studies she refers to and
the studies we got on the 10-min RAPM. You also use tasks that are not equal to n-back to support a negative view on IQ-training, ignoring all the subtle differences of the tasks. You don't feel
it's important to have any data here either, because as I know you believe that that considering all WMC-tasks not equal is "dogmatic". Don't you think your FAQ is somewhat biased against training
and it's only reason fore being so is your personal/emotional resistance against improving the score on a matrix test?
,
TeCNoYoTTa
I also want to report that after training on DNB I found that I am
dreaming almost every day
I told my friends but a friend of mine told me that every body dreams
every day but they don't remember there dreams
by the way I remember that this effect was not directly after
training .... I think it took a while till I started to remember all
my dreams
unfortunately I stopped using DNB from about 2 months or something
like that and now I dream less
On Oct 21, 3:21 am, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Hey Gwern,
>
> Some of these anecdotes Ihaveno problem with, however, I just
> struggle to understand as to why they are put ahead of the anecdote in
> question, hence they are discussed. As already noted, yes C-A is a big
> steak to swallow, but we don'thaveto eat it all. One can just choose
> to take a small bite and say "N-back may or was one of the
> contributing factors to my increase in school performance".
>
> Ashirgo
> - "To be honest, I do not feel any obvious difference. There are
> moments in which I perceive a significant improvement, though, as well
> as particulars task which are much easier now."
>
> - Self contradictory, making the entire thing irrelevant.
>
> "Ihavealsoexperiencedbetterdreamrecalling, with all these
> reveries and other hallucinations included ;) I am more happier now
> than ever. I did doubt it would be ever possible! I amalsomore prone
> to get excited...Now people inmy motherlandare just boring to listen
> to. "
>
> -DreamrecallingI suppose is worth mentioning, considering it has
> been mentioned by a few people. An experience that I myself can
> acknowledge. In relation to the "tetris effect", I think it only
> becomes a close relative if someone starts dreaming about certain n-
> back modes. My dreamshavejust become more vivid. But I see what you
> mean.
>
> - Reveries and other hallucinations included? Well, this is similar to
> the "tetris effect". Perhaps he had hallucinations to begin with and
> just once to point at n-back as a cause.
> - He is more happier more than ever = Could be due to the
> hallucinations
> - People in his motherland are now boring to listen = Self-delusion
> seems to part of this anecdotes framework
>
> Why is all of this mentioned in the anecdote? Is this anecdote really
> 'fit' to stand trial?
>
> Chinmi04 -
>
> I personallyhavenothing wrong this particular anecdote. However, I
> thought it was good to mention it because I think it is related to
> DNbacker's anecdote, considering mental aptitude is correlated with
> educational performance. DNbacker's anecdote, however is received with
> less revere because of the extreme surface that it takes on (Jumpting
> from C to A). But it isn't about what the argument looks like, it's
> about whats inside the arguments heart. Thus, detailing the account,
> as already noted, should be done with cautionary steps, to ensure
> that's its scary appearance does not ruin the chance for us to see
> what beauty it holds inside.
>
> This anecdote postulates the following:
>
> - Taught him how to focus
> - Improved:
> 1. creativity
> 2. mental reasoning
> 3. speaking fluency
> And as a consequence of such -
> 4. rate of blog entries per month (well, it doesn't mean they were
> good blog entries or entries with more mental potence)
>
> However, all of this is acknowledged with the undertone that n-back
> may not be responsible or is not the sole contributor to his knewly
> acquired mentalarsenalof action man like intellectual prowess.
> DNbacker admits thisalso.
>
> Finally, the anecdote that cannot walk down the redcarpet actually has
> _weak_ evidence to suggest that n-back mayhavebeen one of
> contributing factors that aided his strive to become more of an
> intellectual action man. The above anecdotes actually seem less tamed.
> Implying that one's mental facultieshaveimproved in several ways is
> more immoderate than simply saying that your gradeshaveimproved. One
> claim is asserting that it _CAN_ fight a lion, without any results to
> vouch bar the communication that it has through the steel bars (_blog
> entries_), the other is saying that its results on the training
> program entitled "how to tame a lion"haveimproved. This I see as
> quite a big difference.
>
> > John
>
> John points to specific productivity improvements; I imagine he could
> even graph his words per day.
>
> Sure he could graphy his words, but there's no before and after.
>
> 1. n-back has increased his mental sharpness
> 2. productivity is much higher these days
> 3. Insinuates that he has a higher working memory capacity and fluid
> intelligence
> 4. Illustrates a before an after in his writing material
> 5. simultaneously learning several languages, helping him learn faster
>
> Ialsodo nothaveno problem with this anecdote, I just don't know
> why it's put ahead of the anecdote in question. This anecdote once
> again seems less tamed.
>
> karnautrahl -
>
> Valuable, among other things, for being an anecdote that long breaks
> don't damage DNB performance much. But I am quoting too much, I agree
> - the last one can definitely go. With no objective measures of
> textbook comprehension like grades or tests...
>
> The only relevance that one can find out of this anecdote is the fact
> that his performance on DNB was unwavering even with lapses of time
> between training.
> Spending a $1000 on technical books and saying that n-back has
> improved your ability to comprehend these books, is not relevant. Just
> sounds like a bad financial decision, perhaps if he had of continued
> his n-back training he mayhaverealized such or perhaps I'm wrong and
> he just gives more money to the homeless guy on the street (has more
> money) more than I. One could say that his aptitude to comprehend
> certain literature has not improved but rather his confidence. I
> realize however that youhaverecognized this.
>
> >negatron
>
> Similarly.
>
> -Dreamrecollection. Let's tick that. In regards to the the
> "advanced" literature, well, the same conclusion as I drew before.
> Perhaps he always had the capacity and the __distant__ interest but
> did nothavethe confidence to challengeIsaac Newtonto a duel. Once
> again, I think you already acknoledge this.
>
> astriaos -
>
> "Excessive, yes, but there's nothing I can really ding it on. He says
> the improvements are in the same class with the same teacher etc. "
>
> I see this as a joke and not of equal value in relation to anecdote in
> question. First of all, he posts no improvement in his test scores as
> DNbacker has already done. Secondly, another explanation for
> stupifying his physics teacher.
> - simply become more confident in using his "innate" abilities and n-
> back is not related to this increased proclivity and instead more
> related to placing him in a false sense of security.
> - has simply said something very stupid and the physics teacher does
> not want to ridicule him in-front of others
>
> Why is all of this information included in the anecdote? By reading
> this am i to assume that I will potentiallyhaveincreased ability to
> stupefy my physics teacher if I n-back for a few months?
>
> iwan tulijef -
>
> Very droll, but again, very objective. He's either taking 500mg of
> Ritalin or not - either taking the meds or not.
>
> But saying that n-back is the sole contributor is very risky. The are
> an enumerable amount of variables that could account to such. Perhaps
> you could say that he was wrongly prescribed in the first place. I
> know that its unlikely, however, I just see it as silly that this
> extreme notion is accepted without much inquiry and DNbacker's account
> is bombarded withbows and arrows. If these two accounts were to
> battle it out I'm pretty sure iwan tulijef has brought a knife to a
> gun fight.
>
> > The IQ scores are already broken out into a different section and put
> > well ahead of the anecdotes.
>
> Yeah, my bad.
>
> likeprestige
>
> On Oct 21, 1:54 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> > > First of all, I think you deserve credit in regards to reflecting on
> > > your potential bias, if there was any to mention anyway. Secondly,
> > > lol, I can't believe how many anecdotes there are in relation to
> > > increaseddreamrecall. This I find interesting.
>
> > I've noticed it too. Ihavea few theories about it. Could be the
> >Tetris effect(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris%20effect), which
> > seems to often bleed over into dreams. Could be a reaction to learning
> > - sleep (and REM specific IIRC) are heavily associated with learning.
> > Could just be that dreams are much more easily noticed or remembered
> > with more working memory - I believe I mentioned long ago that lucid
> > dreaming research had found a correlation with high WM and ease of
> > noticing that one is in adream.
>
> > > Finally, if "DNB has
> > > probably been one of the factors that has lead to the improvement in
> > > my studies" does not make it in, its silly. Here comes my
> > > 'confirmation bias' (just a joke):
>
> > > Ashirgo
>
> > Seems reasonable anecdotes to me. The first one is almost negative, even.
>
> > > chinmi04
>
> > I like chinmi's blogging example. Ties into the dopamine speculation.
> > Like Ashirgo, chinmi remembers the weakness of anecdotes.
>
> > > John
>
> > John points to specific productivity improvements; I imagine he could
> > even graph his words per day.
>
> > > karnautrahl - what a joke!
>
> > Valuable, among other things, for being an anecdote that long breaks
> > don't damage DNB performance much. But I am quoting too much, I agree
> > - the last one can definitely go. With no objective measures of
> > textbook comprehension like grades or tests...
>
> > >negatron
>
> > Similarly.
>
> > > astriaos - highly related to the 'induction' in question
>
> > Excessive, yes, but there's nothing I can really ding it on. He says
> > the improvements are in the same class with the same teacher etc.
>
> > > iwan tulijef - the guys nearly off his meds!
>
> > Very droll, but again, very objective. He's either taking 500mg of
> > Ritalin or not - either taking the meds or not.
>
> > >Also, some of the anecdotes are
> > > in relation to pre and post IQ score improvements, which make them
> > > highly separable from the previous heading mentioned ("pixie fairy
> > > anecdotes").
>
> > The IQ scores are already broken out into a different section and put
> > well ahead of the anecdotes.
>
> > --
> > gwernhttp://www.gwern.net/
Gwern Branwen
> The study with the frequency for solving RAPM problems is in the file
> working memory capacity and fluid intelligence abilities. RAPM
> consists of 4/5 difficulties and each question is not harder than the
> previous. Rather the opposite for problems
> close to each other.
Really? From your citation;
> The authors’ suggested that the two models only differed in the fact that BETTERAVEN was better at abstract relations and could hold a larger set of goals in WM. The simulations demonstrated that FAIRAVEN could only solve the first half of the test and hence could only solve the easiest problems, whereas BETTERAVEN solved nearly all of the problems.
> As noted previously, Raven is a paper-and-pencil measure of abstract reasoning. The test consists of 36 individual items presented in ascending order of difficulty (i.e., the easiest item is presented first and the hardest item is presented last).
Also, while the authors say that the WM demand seems to go up with the
difficulty of each question, so the WM needed should increase as one
progresses through the test:
> However, as shown in Fig. 2, the correlations between solution accuracy for each item and Ospan, although fluctuating widely, does not appear to increase in any systematic manner as difficulty increases. Indeed, the correlation between Ospan and accuracy on the first problem was as high as with problem 24 (i.e., problem 1 r=0.26, problem 24 r=0.26). These results are strikingly similar to those of Salthouse (1993) who showed roughly the same pattern of correlations between solution accuracy and a WM composite. Both sets of results suggest that there is not a clear relationship between item variations in difficulty on Raven and measures of WM.
Here is another quote I found interesting:
> Although there seems to be adequate variability for quartile 4, this low correlation is probably due to the fact that not as many subjects attempted these problems. Indeed, 80% of participants attempted the first 27 problems, but only 47% of participants finished the test. Thus, only quartiles 1–3 should be interpreted. With this in mind, the results demonstrate that the correlation between solution accuracy and Ospan does not increase as difficulty increases but instead remains fairly constant across increasing levels of difficulty.
Another oddity:
> One reviewer was concerned that only high working memory capacity individuals would finish the test. However, of those participants classified as high working memory (one standard deviation above the mean on Ospan), only 25% of them actually finished the test, whereas 71% of those classified as low working memory (one standard deviation below the mean on Ospan) finished the test. This results in somewhat lower scores for these 76 individuals on the two measures as compared the full sample (i.e. M Ospan=11.12, S.D.=5.90; M Raven=17.50, S.D.=7.59).
So, imagine that that 25% got a speed boost and managed to finish the test...
The authors take a different view on what DNB might be good for:
> Indeed, we have argued elsewhere (Engle et al., 1999; Heitz, Unsworth, & Engle, in press) that the shared variance between working memory capacity and fluid abilities is due to the ability to control attention. This framework suggests that those individuals who score high on a working memory capacity measure are those individuals who are better able to control attention especially in conditions of distraction and interference. This notion is similar to the theory of goal neglect and fluid intelligence put forth by Duncan, Emslie, and Williams (1996).
Speed, concentration... these aren't really what people think of when
they hope DNB can increase IQ. Einstein wasn't Einstein just because
he could think through a great many uncreative problems quickly.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:17 AM, TeCNoYoTTa <tecno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also want to report that after training on DNB I found that I am
> dreaming almost every day
> I told my friends but a friend of mine told me that every body dreams
> every day but they don't remember there dreams
>
> by the way I remember that this effect was not directly after
> training .... I think it took a while till I started to remember all
> my dreams
> unfortunately I stopped using DNB from about 2 months or something
> like that and now I dream less
I'm not sure that really counts as a benefit, but I've added your
anecdote to the FAQ.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
