My library doesn't have this. It seems a little suspicious to me: just
10 training sessions? And since when does the IEEE cover this sort of
thing?
But the real question is, does it improve on Jaeggi 2008 with full
time allotted for the Raven's, or is the time drastically curtailed?
If the latter, then the study would tell us nothing.
--
gwern
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~perlin/experiments/gabor/gabor2d.jpg
Jonathan
On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:25 PM, cev wrote:
> What are Gabor stimuli?
>
> --
> 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
> .
>
They don't mention a control group in the abstract. If there's no
control group, this study is worthless—all it would mean then is that
people who take the Raven's twice do slightly better the second time.
These are just conference proceedings. Until they publish their
findings in a peer-reviewed journal, I'm going to ignore this.
- KD
I just spent two hours trying every back door I could find, attempting
to figure out what sort of task they were using.
Nothing.
But, it was somewhat educational for my little hick brain. With
regard to related studies the number of references to terms related to
"visuospatial" work (hence gabor stimuli) was astounding - even when I
stopped drilling with "gabor" and searched more directly toward
"intelligence."
It's incredible to me how related fields are touching each other now,
even having started out aware of the convergences. I'm very thankful
I have people who actually know something (y'all) to point this stuff
out.
On Jul 27, 12:38 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If fraudulent authors are
> less likely to reply than non-fraudulent authors, then no reply must
> be some degree of evidence for fraud; similarly for poorly done.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that: if there is no reply, then the
authors are more likely to be fraudulent than non-fraudulent. Please
do not affirm the consequent here.
In the future, it would be helpful for you not to make claims not
justified by the evidence. And negative evidence is the least
worthwhile candidate to meet a positive measure of something.
i love how argumzio is so critical its almost out of this worldlike a lawyer.
do you really feel so much need to be so critical about everything because it can be quite time consuming.
i hope you are critical to things that actually really matter and not towards everything thats gets in the way .
care to tell me more how you got in such a position?
can you clarify this for me you: have add, don't you? it's a neutral observation, no pun intended.
On Friday, July 27, 2012 9:29:14 PM UTC+2, ☉ wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:38 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course arguments from silence are valid.
It may be argued that they are in some cases, but validity here should
mean "in all cases"; and you're far from even demonstrating that any
given argument from silence (a well-known fallacy) is valid in all
cases based on this single instance, let alone "of course" (as if it
were valid a priori).
> If fraudulent authors are
> less likely to reply than non-fraudulent authors, then no reply must
> be some degree of evidence for fraud; similarly for poorly done.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that: if there is no reply, then the
authors are more likely to be fraudulent than non-fraudulent. Please
do not affirm the consequent here.
> Qiu's 4 authors are the only ones to not reply at all (with the
> exception of Norbert Jaušovec, who I contacted for literature
> suggestions & have not followed up on yet because his paper provided
> all the necessary data in the first place).
An exception does not provide evidence of fraud in this case.
> A drop of 10 or more points, overcoming testing effects and other
> things, in any sort of sample size, is very suspicious even under the
> null hypothesis.
"Suspicious" is very different from saying "poorly done" or
"fraudulent".
Please, I'm asking for serious logical grounds for your claim, not
circumstantial (inadequate) inductive evidence which can be molded
however one pleases. Note: I am not saying that this isn't a case of
fraud; I'm asking you if you have positive proof (evidence) that this
is a case of fraud, deliberate misconduct, or incompetence (the third
which you seem to neglect as a viable possibility – indicative of a
false dichotomy).
argumzio
Well, yes, that's the whole point: if you grant a correlation in one
direction, you must grant a correlation in the other. -_-
If we grant
honest researchers are more likely than dishonest researchers to reply
to an inquiry about problems in their papers & for their data, then we
must also grant that dishonest researchers are more likely to not
reply.
If a reply => ~fraud, then the contrapositive is fraud =>
~reply.
And from there, we make the additional assumption that fraud
is the only sufficient reason for ~reply
, and then we can affirm the
consequent and conclude from ~reply, fraud.
The generalization to a
statistical interpretation where there are multiple sufficient reasons
for ~reply (some reasons innocent, like no longer using the email
addresses) is pretty straightforward.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/93JNFI39u6wJ.
Neither syllogistic or first order sentential logic is particularly clarifying in this situation.
Perhaps if we were attempting to deductively demonstrate "positive proof" it would be. But we're not. We're talking about evidence.
Seems to me Gwern is arguing from a Bayesian perspective.
As such, he'd be correct in claiming that arguments from silence are valid.
From I, we conclude "a (absence of evidence) is evidence of b (absence)"QED
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/esQG5QltckMJ.
1. The simple fact is that outside the orbit of Vulcan most arguments which are rationally compelling are not deductively valid.This is painfully obvious. To say it's "tantamount to obscurantism" is patently untrue. Going back to Aristotle's Rhetorics, it's well known in the philosophical literature that deductive logic is of qualified utility when trying to account for inductive inference and scientific reasoning. Recognition of this is why we have an entire discipline called Defeasible Reasoning to assist with problems not amenable to deductive analysis. If non-deductive (aka deductively invalid) modes of reasoning like "inference to the best explanation, abduction, analogical reasoning, and scientific induction" have any merit--and they manifestly do--"positive proof" should hardly be our exclusive concern.
2. Since when does Gwern have to explicitly claim he's arguing from a Bayesian perspective for me to legitimately say it is such? It's bloody obvious if you attend to the evidence. You might as well claim he must preface all cosmological claims with the gravitational constant and relevant Newtonian formulae in order to conclude he believes in gravity. What's more, he's welcome to take exception to my formalization of his reasoning. Ironically, I take the lack of evidence of his disagreement as evidence of the absence of disagreement! And even if he weren't consciously Bayesian, I can without loss of generality--and did--make an equivalent argument in Bayesian terms and thus it can rightly be termed a Bayesian perspective. Criteria 2 and 3 are also completely unnecessarily for this argument to be justifiably termed as coming from a general Bayesian perspective.
3. Validity here "certainly doesn't apply to anything pertaining to Bayesianism"? Wrong again. Valid means exactly what it normally means. If you grant the truth premises 1, 2, & 3, the truth of the conclusion necessarily follows. If you wish to not assent to any premises---stated or implied (like the consistency or coherency of Bayesianism, arithmetic, probability theory, etc)--that's of course your prerogative. My point was simply to give a formal and consistent account of someone's reasoning. That's all. I'm quite serenely agnostic on the ultimate truth of the argument. But my prima facie opinion is that while silence is evidence, it's very weak evidence. Where the rubber meets the road, we are in broad agreement.
4. "By the way, what you just proved (that is, that which you've put forward prior to any given refutation), as noted within the quotation marks, has nothing to do with the notion that absented evidence is positive evidence of something else (besides the absence w.r.t. the evidence)." On one interpretation, this is exactly wrong. The proof is not tautologous. It does not say "absence of evidence is absence of evidence". But I'm not sure how you're using the term "positive evidence" or "something else". (E.g. "Absence of evidence for the Yeti is evidence for his (existential) absence." I'm afraid existential absence (nonexistence) is indeed quite "something else" than mere evidentiary absence.) Or what exactly you mean by "absence w.r.t to the evidence". If by the latter you mean my conclusion is contingent on the premise of a defeasible claim, viz. the absence of evidence, then, yes. But that's perfectly obvious and non-fatal...Saying "absence of evidence is evidence of absence (conditioned on the absence of the evidence)" is just needlessly appending the premise to the conclusion with a pretense to insight.
5. Perhaps you'd like to give us a positive proof of the Divinity via Bayesianism as well? :)"I'm not even sure it's coherent to talk of "positive proof" via Bayesianism.
You have to be careful how you deploy "evidence" "positive evidence" and "proof". Bayesian claims are always subject to defeaters. It doesn't axiomatically define, declare and deduce unassailable "positive proofs". That's much of the point I've been trying to get across...
That said, if a proof of the Original Mind were forthcoming, I'd hope you'd have the humility to accede regardless of its humble provenance."..good tidings may yet come from [utterly worthless] Nazareth."
There is a God. And Allan Carl Jackson III is his prophet.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/vMJuV-AT1w8J.