My IQ results from Dual N-back

[Tofu]

Hi, I'm new to this group and this is my first post so I'm going to
try to add some useful information by giving a detailed testimonial
for the dual n-back. I approached dual n-back training with a lot
skepticism at first because there is nothing out there I've seen that
actually improves IQ to a significant degree. So I took an IQ test
before I started training about 3 months ago and I recently just took
another IQ test from the same book. I've purposely not been doing
anything to practice for the tests or anything else I thought could
increase my score so I wouldn't have to factor other things into an
improvement in iq, which makes improvements more likely attributable
to dual n-back. Before I took the test I scored at 117, a score about
1 in about 8 people can get (7.78 to be exact), and yesterday I scored
at 127 (a score that 1 in 28 people would get). Its a pretty big
difference I would say.

Let me explain the iq test format. The tests I took were from "Self-
Scoring IQ Tests" by Victor Serebriakoff (President of Mensa). I
realize take home tests are not as reliable as a professional IQ test,
but its affiliated with Mensa so its seems better than most online iq
tests or books out there. There are two tests in the booklet which
are nearly identical in their problems and each take an hour and a
half to complete. The test is broken up into 3 sections: Verbal,
Number (arithmatic-related problems), and Spatial. The verbal section
is weighted 3 times as heavily as the other sections when calculated
into the final iq score. The maximum score you can get on the test is
144 (which about 1 out of 600 people get).

Here's is the breakdown of my individual scores before and after the
test (scores are out of 50 questions):

Before After
Verbal 27/50 37/50
Number 25/50 40/50
Spatial 40/50 35/40

IQ 117 127


So I did way better on the verbal test which surprised me, and the
number test went way up for me too. The verbal portion is weighted 3
times as heavily as the other tests as I said before, so that must be
what really brought my iq score up. My spatial score decreased
surprisingly, maybe because I was fatigued by the last test, but even
if I had gotten a 40/50 like I did the first time I calculated that I
would have just scored an iq of 128 instead of 127. It makes sense
that there would be only a small increase because IQ follows a normal
distribution, so for those of you that don't know that means each
point increase in IQ requires an exponentially higher increase in
intelligence.

I kept a journal of my dual n-back progress. My first day I got up to
dual 3-back with a 30%. I did dual n-back for about two months and
then I switched to triple n-back for a month. I like triple n-back a
little more because its harder, which I think may be better training
than dual n-back but I'm not sure at all. After a certain point I
also switched my strategy during dual n-back. I used to try and count
back in between each new stimulus, but I heard that only works to a
certain level, and then you have to just start letting your mind
unconsciously remember without trying in that sort of way. I'm not
sure if its helped or not now that I don't count back, but I'm still
improving at about the same rate as before. The highest I've ever
gotten is triple 4-back at 75% which if you count the number of things
you have to remember its the same as getting a 75% on dual 6-back.

As far as real world results, I think the dual n-back has actually
helped in several ways. I think I understand things in general a
little better and I actually think it makes you better socially. It
seems to make me think a little faster and its helped me solve day to
day problems a little easier. My outlook on life has changed a bit
since I started dual n-back, although its hard for me to say thats the
reason why since I started living halfway across the world from where
I lived before, which would change anyone's perspective a bit. I
don't think triple n-back has caused a complete transformation, but I
do think its benefited me significantly, enough that I will continue
triple n-back training. My next goal is to reach triple 8-back and
then get a professional stanford-binet iq test done when it happens.
I'll report back how that goes.

[Ashirgo]

It is great news! Thanks for your testimonial!

Your IQ test result seems to be significantly improved since the last
time. It would be great if more numerous n-back performers took tests
before training n-back.

It could be encouraged on the main site, with links to some most
reliable IQ tests on the Net; and, consequently, we would get
informative data from around the world!

I am quite convinced that I will take a professional test (third in my
life) within another two months, I grow anxious to know....

I also wonder how much of the improvement can be attributed to the
more demanding triple n-back.

All in all, only more questions, but thanks again;)

[Toto]

I'm sceptical. Are you shure that you didn't in any other way train
for the test? Didn't you look at the explanations of the answers after
the first test? Didn't you take the other tests in the book? I'm sure
I
would. And since the problems in this kind of books are usually
identical, you probably became familiar with them . I also have a book
of IQ tests, by two members of the British Mensa. My scores increased
with every test I took, and were lowest on the first test. Beisdes,
the tests in such books are not normed.

By the way, I also took a culture-free IQ test 3 weeks ago. I had been
training with dual n-back for a month at that time, and I had already
taken that test about a year ago. My score was absolutely the same.
Maybe the test wasn't g-loaded or perhaps the improvement was less
then 4 points (my score would have been 4 points higher if I had
answered one more item correctly). But it is the kind of test on which
it is more likely to score higher after training with dnb.
I beleieve dnb is a very useful exercise. It has signifficantly
improved my memory and ability to concentrate. However, it is not
panacea. And if it increases IQ, the improvement will probably be be
within several points for most people, and much slower after the first
two or three months, so I don't believe any one can
become a genius by training with it.

[Tofu]

>Are you shure that you didn't in any other way train
>for the test? Didn't you look at the explanations of the answers after
>the first test?

I intentionally didn't look at the explanations for the answers I got
wrong on the test. I took the tests 3 months apart so I thought that
might eliminate some practice effect, but I can't say really. I've
had hardly any practice with IQ tests. I had a professional one taken
in high school (because I was in special ed- I scored a 137 on that
one btw), and I took an online test once before. I can say I've never
purposely practiced for an IQ test in my life though.

>And if it increases IQ, the improvement will probably be be
> within several points for most people, and much slower after the first
> two or three months

How do you know? I don't think we have an answer to that yet, but you
could be right. My guess is that as long as you are increasing your
dual n-back score you are improving your fluid intelligence. I know
Jaeggi said in the study that you improve your fluid intelligence so
long as you keep training, regardless of what level you reach on dual
n-back, but I still think that the level you reach is at least
somewhat of an indicator.

[Toto]

If you scored 137 on a professional IQ test (sd 15?), it seems that
you didn't know what to do the first time you took a test from that
book, and your second score was just closer to your real IQ. This also
makes it obvious that the tests are not normed, which may explain at
least part of the increase in your score - neither of the two is
accurate.

> Jaeggi said in the study that you improve your fluid intelligence so
> long as you keep training, regardless of what level you reach on dual
> n-back, but I still think that the level you reach is at least
> somewhat of an indicator.

"Finally, they did not explore how much improvement would be seen with
further training" . http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/guest-column-can-we-increa...
I think what Jaeggi meant is just that participants who trained 20
days improved more than those who trained 8 or 15 days, not that one
can improve infinitely. But you are right, I don't know.

Let's make an experiment. I've taken all the good g-tests that can be
found on the internet, so I can't tell whether my IQ is now higher,
but you haven't, so if you want, try these two:

http://iqtest.dk/main.swf
http://mensa.no/olavtesten/#

I believe they are pretty acurate, but your results on them may be 5
points higher or lower than your real IQ, that's why I think the
average score will be closer to it. If it is higher than 140, maybe it
is due to the training.

[Denis Gorodetskiy]

Thank you for sharing your experience!
This does inspire!

[Toto]

I feel as if I'm in a sect - so many believers and miracles
happening. Just think : his IQ was 137 in high school, on a
professional test. Then he had nothing to do for several years, so he
hit his head against the wall every day. His IQ decreased to 117, but
now DNB is healing him, and after 3 moths of training it has increased
by 10 points.
As I said, it is obvious that the tests in the book were not normed -
we don't know if the second one is exactly as difficult as the first.
DNB is supposed to increase his score on the spatial part, and it has
decreased - maybe he was tired, but it could be that the items were
more difficult.

[Curtis Warren]

I prefer to say that they're using the placebo effect to their advantage.

[misternils]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5915/800

You can't read the whole article with out paying for it, but this has
a summery.

I don't know what any of this actually means, but i think it is saying
there is actual physical change in your brain with this kind of
training.

Which could mean its more than a placebo.

[Tofu]

>If you scored 137 on a professional IQ test (sd 15?), it seems that
>you didn't know what to do the first time you took a test from that
>book, and your second score was just closer to your real IQ.

I knew what I was doing the first test because the give practice
problems for each type of problem on the test that you are supposed to
take before the test, probably just to make you understand the
instructions since the problems aren't very challenging.

>I think what Jaeggi meant is just that participants who trained 20
>days improved more than those who trained 8 or 15 days, not that one
>can improve infinitely.

Improvement in g probably do plateau eventually, but there isn't
evidence to support that claim yet. What Jaeggi found was that
increases in g increase at a fairly constant rate up to 20 days of
training.

>I feel as if I'm in a sect - so many believers and miracles
>happening.

I was skeptical like you were. I still am skeptical of someone
becoming a genius through dual n-back, but I haven't heard conclusive
evidence that its not possible. There was one poster on here who
actually did reach a genius level iq, raising his iq at least 20
points as well. There don't seem to be any ulterior motives in saying
dual n-back works, since its free software so I tend to believe these
testimonials to some degree.

>DNB is supposed to increase his score on the spatial part

Where did you hear this? I'm just curious cause I haven't heard
anywhere saying which parts of fluid intelligence are improved by dual
n-back.

[William Zeller]

>DNB is supposed to increase his score on the spatial part

Where did you hear this?  I'm just curious cause I haven't heard
anywhere saying which parts of fluid intelligence are improved by dual
n-back.

                 Before                After
Verbal         27/50                 37/50
Number       25/50                 40/50

Spatial        40/50 (80%)        35/40  (87.5%)

IQ              117                    127

It actually looks like DNB's Spatial score did improve.

[dualnback]

Toto,

You are in a sect. Why are you here?

[dualnback]

Hi William,

I think 35/40 was a typo. He meant to write 35/50.

[Dennis Peterson]

Also, if it were placebo then you would think that other forms of
mental training would also have shown improvements in fluid
intelligence. The opposite is the case.

[Toto]

If you scored 137 on a professional test, how come you don't question
the accuracy of these tests?

I can't post a link to the video, but I remember Jaeggi said that
those with lowest scores on the IQ test s benefited most from the
training. It could be partially because the difficulty of the items
gradually increases, but it makes me think that one could not improve
infinitely. I also think that intelligence tests are not just another
kind of memory test.

> There was one poster on here who
> actually did reach a genius level iq, raising his iq at least 20
> points as well.

I read the post too. In the second test he took there was a working
memory section, and in the Mensa test there is no such section. He
probably trained for quite a long time before he took the test. There
is no doubt that DNB improves memory, the question is to what extent
it increases intelligence, and we can't judge by his score. Another
possible explanation is measurement error.

>I know Jaeggi said in the study that you improve your fluid

intelligence so
long as you keep training, regardless of what level you reach on dual
n-back, but I still think that the level you reach is at least
somewhat of an indicator.

I agree it is an indicator. It took me 2 weeks to reach 5, and almost
2 months later I'm still struggling with 6. That's one of the things
which make me think that if progress is possible after a time, it
would be much slower.

>I know Jaeggi said in the study that you improve your fluid intelligence so

long as you keep training, regardless of what level you reach on dual
n-back

That's because you can improve your memory even within one level -
there is difference between 50 % and 70 %.

> >DNB is supposed to increase his score on the spatial part
>
> Where did you hear this? I'm just curious cause I haven't heard
> anywhere saying which parts of fluid intelligence are improved by dual
> n-back.

In the book I have there is a spatial part of the tests too, but the
problems are 2D and I think they resemble those in Raven's test (in
some of the items there is rotation too), which makes the part a fluid
intelligence test. Here is an example of a type of the spatial
problems:
http://www.knowl.demon.co.uk/page111.html

> >I feel as if I'm in a sect - so many believers and miracles
> >happening.

What I meant is that we'd better not go crazy. Your story is not very
feasible. You said your score was high before DNB, and it is much more
likely that there was something wrong with the tests, rather than your
IQ decreased by 20 points and then increased by 10. And I have my own
experience to judge from.

[Ron Williams]

I think I may have said at one stage here that even if DNB does
increase intelligence, you won't show improvement on the usual run of
IQ tests after a certain point because of the ceiling effect - i.e.
most IQ tests have reliable norming up to a certain point, and then
drop off dramatically after that. The items simply aren't difficult
enough to predict how you'd go on truly difficult real-world items as
well.

Having a lot of easy items isn't the same thing as having one
supremely difficult item, like constructing a Grand Unified Theory of
physical forces.

So I'm a bit leery of using just any old test to measure progress.

Something like Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices could be the go.
I think Jaeggi used the lower end version (RPM)?

If the subjects showed as much improvement as they were said to have
done, they must have started low, or else they'd have been bumping the
ceiling of the test.

[Vlado]

hello toto,

thanks for the norwegian test! :) And regarding dnb influence on IQ,
few threads ago I named questions which are still open (of course
there's plenty space for scepticism). But for optimism too - let's not
judge dnb by one or two discussion post, but rather along with the
controlled study, or the next one which will hopefully follow. Btw I
did iqtest.dk test before and after DNB (drumnbass:), and gained few
points. And it wasnt that I didnt knew how it works the first time - I
had plenty of time for last questions, but after training I just made
more - I felt I have more overview and tested my hypothesises easier.
And there were real world improvements too. my experience.

On 17. Mar., 18:31 h., Toto <a.mench...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you scored 137 on a professional IQ test (sd 15?), it seems that
> you didn't know what to do the first time you took a test from that
> book, and your second score was just closer to your real IQ. This also
> makes it obvious that the tests are not normed, which may explain at
> least part of the increase in your score - neither of the two is
> accurate.
>
> > Jaeggi said in the study that you improve your fluid intelligence so
> > long as you keep training, regardless of what level you reach on dual
> > n-back, but I still think that the level you reach is at least
> > somewhat of an indicator.
>
> "Finally, they did not explore how much improvement would be seen with

> further training" .http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/guest-column-can-we-increa...

> I think what Jaeggi meant is just that participants who trained  20
> days improved more than those who trained 8 or 15 days, not that one
> can improve infinitely. But you are right, I don't know.
>
> Let's make an experiment. I've taken all the good g-tests that can be
> found on the internet, so I can't tell whether my IQ is now higher,
> but you haven't, so if you want, try these two:
>

>  http://iqtest.dk/main.swfhttp://mensa.no/olavtesten/#

[Toto]

Ron,
I'm not sure I understand you... The subjects in the experiment did
not reach the "ceiling". RAPM was used (actually, it was divided into
two parts) and another test of the same kind, BOMAT. The subjects' IQ
was not measured, just the number of correct answers they could give
within 10 minutes. I think the group that trained 19 days took the
BOMAT test, and it is said in the original study paper that it is more
difficult than Raven's test, so it should measure even IQ higher than
135. It could not be a 10 minutes test.

Vlado,
I'm glad you liked the test. :) I'd like to warn people who took it -
it probably is a bit easier than Dutch test (I scored 5 points higher
on it), so don't get too "inspired".
I consider myself an optimist. I wouldn't be using DNB if I didn't
think I could benefit from it. But we must not believe blindly in
anything and we should look for other possible explanations, otherwise
we won't know what's the real use and what's just another myth.
The second time I took the iqtest.dk my result was 8 points higher. :)
And no, I hadn't even heard of DNB at that time. Almost everything
could influence your performance - even what you ate that day and how
much sleep you got the night before. And you had seen the test
already. But it could be a result of the training too. I agree it
gives more time. Maybe it eliminates the mistakes out of inattention,
and you don't have to check again if certain elements should appear in
the correct answer... I'm just guessing... :)

[pontus Granström]

It might be the case that "IQ-test thinking" is a complex task that combines many parts of cognition and that dual-n-back strengthens many of these parts.
I have no problem accepting that memory and focus is a big part of scoring high on IQ-tests besides the logical ideas often are simple what usually makes the problems
hard is to keep all the information in memory and trying diffrent hypthesis hence training on dual-n-back would increase your IQ-score. 

[Toto]

Maybe it depends on what kind of test you are taking. It could be that
most intelligence tests are attention and memory tests (or at least up
to a level) after all. I think that intelligence consists of some
other ability besides WM and attention. I'm not sure what it is and
whether it is trainable. But ,if untrained, there is correlation
between these abilities - if you measure one of them, it's the same as
measuring all (at least that must be the case with most people).
That's why the scores on easier test which require less time and hard
tests with longer time-limit or untimed are usually very close. But I
think they measure intelligence in a different way (for example, if
you give someone twice the time that is usually given for an easy
test, many more problems will be solved, but on an untimed test , or a
test like RAPM, it is likely that the result will be the same as it
would be if the testee had less time.
I don't think that DNB could train many parts of cognition - first of
all, it is a simple task and , secondly , it was designed to train
working memory alone. If the researchers thought it could train
something else, they wouldn't use it, or the research would be on
cognitive training, not on WM.

[pontus Granström]

Yes but still it might be a very important constraint, I would also say that the DNB trains far more things then working memory.
You have to focus,update, shift attention recount, and keep several processes in your head, working memory is a clear "container" of information
and the executive process and focus is a clear "general computing skill".

[Toto]

It doesnot train far more things than working memory. Yes, it improves
focus, but it was said that better focus probably is the result of
better WM. You have to update, i.e. to remember new things, otherwise
you wouldn't be training working memory. As to remembering two things
simultaniously, this is simply the ability to pay attention to more
than one thing, so WM and the two forms of attention are trained /
improved.

[Martin Syk]

That's a bold statement Toto. Just because it increases working memory
doesn't mean it doesn't improve other functions as well. Until n-back-
training has been researched on behalf of other neurological functions
and concepts we just don't know. It may affect processing speed,
executive functions, long term memory only we don't know how. Moreover
you're talking about these functions as if they exist in vivo; when
they nothing more than words in a theoretic system. There's a lot of
debate of how to actually define concepts like WM, EF; behaviorally,
structurally, biochemically.
/M

[Gwern Branwen]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin Syk <mar...@syk.se> wrote:
>
> That's a bold statement Toto. Just because it increases working memory
> doesn't mean it doesn't improve other functions as well. Until n-back-
> training has been researched on behalf of other neurological functions
> and concepts we just don't know. It may affect processing speed,
> executive functions, long term memory only we don't know how. Moreover
> you're talking about these functions as if they exist in vivo; when
> they nothing more than words in a theoretic system. There's a lot of
> debate of how to actually define concepts like WM, EF; behaviorally,
> structurally, biochemically.
> /M

I believe n-back does affect executive functions; I'm fairly sure I've
uploaded at least 2 studies which used n-back or other working memory
tasks and saw improvement (one for ADHD, and one directly studying
executive functioning, IIRC).

--
gwern

[pontus Granström]

It certainly feels like an "executive function test" since you are forced to update the sequence, it's totally diffrent style of thinking
compared to for example digit span test.

[Toto]

So we agree that DNB trains working memory and not some other
enigmatic brain function. You are just trying to tell me that WM is an
enigmatic brain function. It would be great if you were right, and
greater if it could be expanded infinitely. I hope it is so, but I
still have my doubts.
By the way, has anyone tested their digit span before and after
training? Or taken some other WM test? I did and I am a bit confused.

[Ron Williams]

You mean your digit span hasn't increased?

The thing is, what DNB trains is the ability to recognise a similarity with a presentation of an item N items ago. This isn't quite the same thing as being able to actually _recite_ the items.

[Toto]

It seems it hasn't, but I'm not sure I haven't done something wrong
the first time...

DNB trains WM, no matter how, and the digit span is a way to measure
it.

[Ashirgo]

"our additional analyses show that there is more to
transfer than mere improvement in working memory capacity in
that the increase in Gf was not directly related to either
preexisting individual differences in working memory capacity
or to the gain in working memory capacity as measured by simple
or complex spans, or even, by the specific training effect itself.
Therefore, it seems that the training-related gain on Gf goes
beyond what sheer capacity measures even if working memory
capacity is relevant to both classes of tasks."

From the original research paper. How to interpret that?

[Ashirgo]

I mean that http://www.iapsych.com/articles/jaeggi2008.pdf - of
course:)

[Ron Williams]

Well, your report is a piece of evidence that it doesn't train
whatever the digit span test measures. If DNB trains working memory
then digit span doesn't measure working memory (or your improvement in
DNB was insufficient to jump to the next quantum (a digit) in the
test).

Of course it could be more complicated than that - that there are more
aspects to 'working memory' than we have supposed - i.e. that DNB
trains one function, but that there are other sides to working memory
that it doesn't train.

[Toto]

>(or your improvement in
> DNB was insufficient to jump to the next quantum (a digit) in the
> test).

It occured to me. But it implies that there could be differences which
cannot be measured, at least not by a digit span test. How was the
gain in working memory capacity measured? I wanted to read the
research paper again, but I'm lazy :)
What aspects of WM are there?

>the increase in Gf was not directly related to either
>preexisting individual differences in working memory capacity
>or to the gain in working memory capacity

This means only what we already knew - intelligence is more than
working memory. I still think that if other brain functions are
improved, it is because WM is a basic function which is "used" by
other functions, not because two different WM tasks could train some
other mysterious function ( I've read somewhere, probably in the files
of the group, that the same effect was seen after training with
another task, but I didnot have the patience to read it all...)
I'm sorry I express myself so terribly in English :)

[jtde...@uncc.edu]

On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, Toto <a.mench...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Finally, they did not explore how much improvement would be seen with
> further training" .http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/guest-column-can-we-increa...
> I think what Jaeggi meant is just that participants who trained  20
> days improved more than those who trained 8 or 15 days, not that one
> can improve infinitely. But you are right, I don't know.
>
> Let's make an experiment. I've taken all the good g-tests that can be
> found on the internet, so I can't tell whether my IQ is now higher,
> but you haven't, so if you want, try these two:
>
>  http://iqtest.dk/main.swfhttp://mensa.no/olavtesten/#
>
> I believe they are pretty acurate, but your results on them may be 5
> points higher or lower than your real IQ, that's why I think the
> average score will be closer to it. If it is higher than 140, maybe it
> is due to the training.

How accurate is the test above? I took the Weschler IQ test a year
ago from a psychologist and it said I had an IQ of 126. It is good
but certainly no Mensa. I took the German test you had above and it
scored me at a 135 (?!) While I was initially excited, I am now
skeptical. The test felt too easy. I could breeze through the easy
questions, thus giving me more time to do the harder questions. I'm
not sure if that is how its supposed to work. Aren't you supposed to
have an equal amount of time each question? Plus, three of the
really tough questions (near the last 5) I could reduce to about 2
answers, then simply guess. I have a 50% on each of those 3 questions
to inflate my IQ score through pure luck.

I came to the conclusion that:

1) That n-back training really works (I've been playing for 4 days)
2) The test above, even though made by Mensa members, is not normed
3) I was not trying 100% on the test I scored 126 on.

[blacky]

Very interesting, I believe I have an IQ of about 85-95 based on a few test I've taken. I constantly struggle with simple task, forget everything, and no one respects me. I fucking despise having to work so hard just to barely get by in life, which is why I'm semi obsessed with increasing intelligence.

I figure that dual n back is challenging for someone with an IQ of 130 then surely challenging enough to at least get my IQ to 100.

[Brain Train]

1. First of all IQ tests only certain part of our abilities. Creativity, wisdom, empathy are not included in IQ test which are very important for producing great results (in life) !

An American psychologist's opinion is that American schooling system may be producing a society of 'smart fools'. because selection criterion in prestigious schools is analytical skills in key exams, leaving creativity and wisdom out. Such people are good at promoting themselves, can find incremental solutions to problems (the next step) but are incapable of producing industry changing ideas!

2. you can compensate for your IQ by using strategies.

a. What a high IQ guy can do in 10 minutes, low IQ guy can do in 12 minute or 15 or 20 minute.

but it is not impossible for low IQ guy!

b. High IQ doesn't guarantee that the person will make right decisions/choices.

IQ is only one part of our problem solving capabilities. other parts are sincerity, amount of time, focus and persistence.

If you identify some area of opportunity, you can put single minded focus on that. There are good chance that you become successful and chances will improve with longer you stay on your goal.

c. Set long term goals, align your strategy for achieving long term goals.

you may have to sacrifice in short term (consider that as an investment, which will bring much higher rewards in future) to prioritise for long term goals.

With lower IQ you may not be able to compete with others on multiple fronts, but you can choose the most important area that matters to you and target that. 

You can win in this area by putting more effort and focus than others!

Deliberate carefully before discarding this strategy!

brainhq.com, it may help assess which area of your brain hardware needs to be trained. Often there are just few areas of the brain which are weaker than average and may be holding a person back. if those specific areas are trained by targeted exercises, the results are quick and significant. some exercises are free but overall it is a paid service. 

I personally found that tone based auditory exercises were particularly good and had dramatic effect on verbal recall (though no verbal training is involved!). This may be specifically for me. For others, similar dramatic improvement may come from some other exercise.

If you can afford it, I would say it is worth giving a try. 3 month subscription should be enough to see the results.

BT

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:52 AM, blacky <ultimatevisu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting, I believe I have  an IQ of about 85-95 based on a few test I've taken. I constantly struggle with simple task, forget everything, and no one respects me. I fucking despise having to work so  hard just to barely get by in life, which is why I'm semi obsessed with increasing intelligence.

I figure that dual n back is challenging for someone with an IQ of 130 then surely challenging enough to at least get my IQ to 100.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[engel...@gmail.com]

Hi blacky,

How are you doing now? Have you seen improvements? I hope so. I know the struggle of bad working memory. People will think you are stupid because you are slow, but having bad working memory doesn't mean you are stupid!
I have an IQ of 115, but I am severly lacking in working memory, I feel it is holding me back. I will start training n-back.

Op woensdag 20 december 2017 04:22:23 UTC+1 schreef blacky:

[robert chalean]

Hello, Can you describe the tone based game?, I want to do free app with it. Thanks!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.

[Daniel Black]

robert you should do 3d n-back for the relational reasoning instead of just 2D

http://competicionmental.appspot.com/triple3dnback#