?How smart can we be
34 views
Skip to first unread message
ilan10x
Jun 21, 2011, 5:34:08 AM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Hi I'm new here
And I want to know how software can dual n back really affect the
average person I mean that if the software really raises the IQ of the
IQ So
The maximum to which the average person can get with the program.
.Thank helpers
And I want to know how software can dual n back really affect the
average person I mean that if the software really raises the IQ of the
IQ So
The maximum to which the average person can get with the program.
.Thank helpers
Jelani Sims
Jun 21, 2011, 5:42:24 AM6/21/11
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Assuming english isn't you're first language. No one here knows what the ceiling for this is. We don't even know exactly how it impacts our mentality.
ilan10x
Jun 21, 2011, 11:42:08 AM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
the average person
the average person
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 21, 2011, 11:45:32 AM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I do.
Firstly, DNB is a primary step. The more advanced modes cause further
adaptations that DNB does not. The overall effects are enhanced
cognition, ability to control attention, ability to solve complex
problems and learn complex material, improved short term and medium
term memory, as well as increased verbal fluency.
Firstly, DNB is a primary step. The more advanced modes cause further
adaptations that DNB does not. The overall effects are enhanced
cognition, ability to control attention, ability to solve complex
problems and learn complex material, improved short term and medium
term memory, as well as increased verbal fluency.
Gwern Branwen
Jun 21, 2011, 11:51:11 AM6/21/11
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, ilan10x <ila...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> the average person
> Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> the average person
I don't know what you're asking - few people here are average, almost
by definition. See http://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#reading-this-faq
If you want what the n-back studies say, see
http://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#support and
http://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#criticism
If you want what random people have had to say about the effects, see
http://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#benefits
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 21, 2011, 4:23:16 PM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If you want support, look at what happens to the brain after WM
training.
On Jun 21, 10:51 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you want what the n-back studies say, seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#supportandhttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#criticism
training.
On Jun 21, 10:51 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, ilan10x <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> > the average person
>
> I don't know what you're asking - few people here are average, almost
> by definition. Seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#reading-this-faq
> > Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> > the average person
>
> I don't know what you're asking - few people here are average, almost
>
> If you want what the n-back studies say, seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#supportandhttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#criticism
ao
Jun 21, 2011, 5:50:05 PM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
And _whose_ brain would that be, exactly?
argumzio
On Jun 21, 3:23 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
argumzio
On Jun 21, 3:23 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If you want support, look at what happens to the brain after WM
> training.
>
> On Jun 21, 10:51 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, ilan10x <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> > > the average person
>
> > I don't know what you're asking - few people here are average, almost
> > by definition. Seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#reading-this-faq
>
> > If you want what the n-back studies say, seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#supportandhttp://www.gwern.net/N-ba...
> training.
>
> On Jun 21, 10:51 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, ilan10x <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Okay so I can please have a case where it had a noticeable effect on
> > > the average person
>
> > I don't know what you're asking - few people here are average, almost
> > by definition. Seehttp://www.gwern.net/N-back%20FAQ#reading-this-faq
>
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 21, 2011, 7:48:36 PM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Use yours to google "brain after WM training"?
ao
Jun 21, 2011, 8:06:48 PM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I'd invite you to do the same. There is no such thing as "the brain"
but many brains. Take a closer look at the studies you're not
referring to here and then see if you're correct in generalizing
therefrom (which you aren't).
argumzio
On Jun 21, 6:48 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
but many brains. Take a closer look at the studies you're not
referring to here and then see if you're correct in generalizing
therefrom (which you aren't).
argumzio
On Jun 21, 6:48 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ao
Jun 21, 2011, 8:15:19 PM6/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
For those who are too new, too presumptuous, or have simply forgotten
(that this has been discussed before), this is one of the relevant
works on the subject: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/Westerberg2007b.pdf
.
As anyone familiar with the mathematics knows, three subjects does not
provide much grounds for generalization. The precise mechanisms which
underlie the task-related gains are still not particularly clear
(Jaeggi 2010).
Yes, the rhetorical, but pertinent, question remains.
argumzio, using his brain so much he doesn't have to try
(that this has been discussed before), this is one of the relevant
works on the subject: http://www.klingberglab.se/pub/Westerberg2007b.pdf
.
As anyone familiar with the mathematics knows, three subjects does not
provide much grounds for generalization. The precise mechanisms which
underlie the task-related gains are still not particularly clear
(Jaeggi 2010).
Yes, the rhetorical, but pertinent, question remains.
argumzio, using his brain so much he doesn't have to try
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 12:11:15 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Despite the fact that the process is not understood, the point remains
that people are experiencing gains after WM training, in a wide
variety of locations and across wide geographic domains. skeptics
assertions are rapidly dispatched by a google search.
YET ANOTHER study showing changes:
http://www.brainanddevelopmentlab.nl/files/Torkel_Klingberg.pdf
in other news, it's a wonder that any person claiming that the brain
does not exist expects to be taken seriously by people who have access
to the internet and running water. i am deeply worried that reading
your posts has nullified the effects of my last 20 DNB sessions.
that people are experiencing gains after WM training, in a wide
variety of locations and across wide geographic domains. skeptics
assertions are rapidly dispatched by a google search.
YET ANOTHER study showing changes:
http://www.brainanddevelopmentlab.nl/files/Torkel_Klingberg.pdf
in other news, it's a wonder that any person claiming that the brain
does not exist expects to be taken seriously by people who have access
to the internet and running water. i am deeply worried that reading
your posts has nullified the effects of my last 20 DNB sessions.
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 12:21:01 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Even more damaging to the [nearly extinct] skeptics, a post on this
board, from within the past day or 2, discussed how mild electro-
shocks delivered to PFC regions of the brain caused essentially
identical results as WM training, which relies on that region of "the
brain" (which argumzio politely reminds us, does not exist).
So electro stim and WM training have similar effects? well, skeptics,
the proof is in the pudding.
On Jun 21, 11:11 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
board, from within the past day or 2, discussed how mild electro-
shocks delivered to PFC regions of the brain caused essentially
identical results as WM training, which relies on that region of "the
brain" (which argumzio politely reminds us, does not exist).
So electro stim and WM training have similar effects? well, skeptics,
the proof is in the pudding.
On Jun 21, 11:11 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ilan10x
Jun 22, 2011, 8:38:57 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Well, I investigated a little on the issue with the software's maximum
ability to affect the IQ and found that it affects fewer people with
high IQ (around 145-150), can be programmed to affect only certain
levels?
ability to affect the IQ and found that it affects fewer people with
high IQ (around 145-150), can be programmed to affect only certain
levels?
On 21 יוני, 12:42, Jelani Sims <gouki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> בהנחה אנגלית אינה השפה הראשונה שאתה. אף אחד כאן לא יודע מה
> התקרה עבור זה. אנחנו אפילו לא יודעים בדיוק איך זה משפיע שלנו
> המנטליות.
D. K. Ohms
Jun 22, 2011, 9:04:44 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
In your case I think we can say that the effects of training were
placebo.
Ohms
placebo.
Ohms
ao
Jun 22, 2011, 8:47:06 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
David, it is small wonder you can't understand the simple distinction
I made. When you're better prepared to meet a level of argument that
actually takes into account others' statements instead of using straw-
men attacks, let me know. I'd be delighted to witness it.
As for electric conduction to the brain: that most certainly doesn't
prove squat about brain training, let alone that that would be a safe
procedure over extended periods of time.
Furthermore, if you believe 14 children are a prime example to draw
upon for the statement you made above, then you are more thoroughly
corrupted in your critical thinking than one hitherto considered
possible.
Scepticism for the sake of scepticism is unhealthy; but when the
reality doesn't call for absolute statements on the efficacy of x, y,
and z, then those who make them must be prepared to be confronted with
the gray, blurry reality that besets them.
argumzio
I made. When you're better prepared to meet a level of argument that
actually takes into account others' statements instead of using straw-
men attacks, let me know. I'd be delighted to witness it.
As for electric conduction to the brain: that most certainly doesn't
prove squat about brain training, let alone that that would be a safe
procedure over extended periods of time.
Furthermore, if you believe 14 children are a prime example to draw
upon for the statement you made above, then you are more thoroughly
corrupted in your critical thinking than one hitherto considered
possible.
Scepticism for the sake of scepticism is unhealthy; but when the
reality doesn't call for absolute statements on the efficacy of x, y,
and z, then those who make them must be prepared to be confronted with
the gray, blurry reality that besets them.
argumzio
Message has been deleted
ailambris
Jun 22, 2011, 11:16:28 AM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I think that we could be a little bit more civil, don't you?
ao
Jun 22, 2011, 1:19:49 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If only the interlocutor had behave in such a manner. Don't blame the
victim.
I think I was more civil than was deserved.
argumzio
victim.
I think I was more civil than was deserved.
argumzio
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 7:38:11 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Only one study in that PDF, of about 10, had 14 subjects. As smart as
you make yourself out to be, I find your comprehension woefully
lacking. One study in the pdf even had 300 something subjects. You
could do us all the favor of least updating your incessant skepticism
to something realistic and reflective of scientific findings.
Second, electro-stim produced similar effects to WM training when
centered on regions of the brain used during WM training. This is
important and also rather intuitive, as electro-stim on muscle groups
produces similar effects to weight lifting. The relevance and
intriguing nature of the finding is evident at first glance.
you make yourself out to be, I find your comprehension woefully
lacking. One study in the pdf even had 300 something subjects. You
could do us all the favor of least updating your incessant skepticism
to something realistic and reflective of scientific findings.
Second, electro-stim produced similar effects to WM training when
centered on regions of the brain used during WM training. This is
important and also rather intuitive, as electro-stim on muscle groups
produces similar effects to weight lifting. The relevance and
intriguing nature of the finding is evident at first glance.
whoisbambam
Jun 22, 2011, 8:03:42 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
whoisbambam
Jun 22, 2011, 8:15:48 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
not sure what was meant by the 'civil' post.
It is true that we must be very careful about making conclusions from
studies.
First, many studies are done on animals like rats, and yet we take
these supplements hoping they will benefit us (i think this is also
the case with magnesium l-threonate, and i am a victim of that
myself).
Second, a study of 3 ppl, or 14ppl, absolutely is not enough.
Unfortunately, this is very common with the supplement market, amongst
others. It is my feeling that a broad range of ppl (different ages,
genders, races) with a pool of at least 25 needs to be done,
repeatedly, and then a meta-analysis on at least a pool of 150 total
ppl, needs to be taken into consideration before we can 'begin' to
assume it is absolute fact.
We do get excited and make conclusions when we find 1 or 2 human
studies of a total of 50ppl or less, and we sometimes assume this MUST
be absolute in its effect. This is not true, however (absolute fact).
As for the tDCS--absolutely. We do NOT know if it is safe to do long-
term, for example, some guy/gal who decides to do it 5days a week, for
6months, at 1.5mv with a current density of 70 or so, on the same
brain regions, NTM if stimulating multiple different areas within a
short period of time is safe.
It is also VERY important to understand that the EEG caps do NOT
necessarily accurately identify the underlaying brain regions of the
'average'. This is why it is imperative that left-handed ppl be
eliminated from the study OR true mapping of the underlaying
structures identified.
If I put on a brainet (eeg cap-like device) and place the electrodes
at the hole-areas where the rdlpfc and ldlpfc are 'supposed' to be, i
may indeed by stimulating OTHER, different brain areas that do not
include those areas (dlpfc), as my brain may be 'built' just a little
diffeent than 'the average'.
We must always be 'open' to the possibility that something may work,
and the possibility that something may not work. This quality is the
true sign of discriminating intelligence.
I have basically been 'experimenting' on myself many instances with
the different supplements i take that have show efficacy either in
animals or in vitro, or some small population of humans--and this
group needs to keep these issues in mind always.
It is true that we must be very careful about making conclusions from
studies.
First, many studies are done on animals like rats, and yet we take
these supplements hoping they will benefit us (i think this is also
the case with magnesium l-threonate, and i am a victim of that
myself).
Second, a study of 3 ppl, or 14ppl, absolutely is not enough.
Unfortunately, this is very common with the supplement market, amongst
others. It is my feeling that a broad range of ppl (different ages,
genders, races) with a pool of at least 25 needs to be done,
repeatedly, and then a meta-analysis on at least a pool of 150 total
ppl, needs to be taken into consideration before we can 'begin' to
assume it is absolute fact.
We do get excited and make conclusions when we find 1 or 2 human
studies of a total of 50ppl or less, and we sometimes assume this MUST
be absolute in its effect. This is not true, however (absolute fact).
As for the tDCS--absolutely. We do NOT know if it is safe to do long-
term, for example, some guy/gal who decides to do it 5days a week, for
6months, at 1.5mv with a current density of 70 or so, on the same
brain regions, NTM if stimulating multiple different areas within a
short period of time is safe.
It is also VERY important to understand that the EEG caps do NOT
necessarily accurately identify the underlaying brain regions of the
'average'. This is why it is imperative that left-handed ppl be
eliminated from the study OR true mapping of the underlaying
structures identified.
If I put on a brainet (eeg cap-like device) and place the electrodes
at the hole-areas where the rdlpfc and ldlpfc are 'supposed' to be, i
may indeed by stimulating OTHER, different brain areas that do not
include those areas (dlpfc), as my brain may be 'built' just a little
diffeent than 'the average'.
We must always be 'open' to the possibility that something may work,
and the possibility that something may not work. This quality is the
true sign of discriminating intelligence.
I have basically been 'experimenting' on myself many instances with
the different supplements i take that have show efficacy either in
animals or in vitro, or some small population of humans--and this
group needs to keep these issues in mind always.
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 8:25:55 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
What's more interesting is that the results are replicated time and
again. And again. Put all of the studies together and you have a
sample size of probably a thousand or more...
again. And again. Put all of the studies together and you have a
sample size of probably a thousand or more...
whoisbambam
Jun 22, 2011, 8:31:20 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If we have at least 3 independent, double-blind, placebo-controlled
studies of a populace of 300ppl in equitable groups, published in peer-
reviewed literature, then it would be much more accurate to draw
conclusions from this rather than the more limited 1 or 2 small
studies of a dozen or less.
I have not researched the subject matter myself to know just how many
ppl in total were involved, nor do i understand how to interpret what
is or is not a 'good study' design, but it is important for us to keep
these facts in mind.
I feel that both ao and the.fourth.deviation have something to offer
here, and i am hopeful that you both continue to do so, and refrain
from too much distraction.
it is ok to disagree. It is also beneficial to lay out the details
logically and clearly.
If there are 5 independent studies with good-quality research design
employing a total of 500ppl in reasonably divided groups (ie a study
of 50ppl, a study of 150ppl, another study of 75ppl, etc), then that
argument should be laid out to support their respective point of
views.
otherwise one should defer from aggressive/assertive 'fact'-throwing.
We tend to be 'ahead of the pack' here in this forum, trying things
that truly may not be very effective or proven, and that is ok.
I personally think that DNB training is beneficial--to be frank, i
dont think i have found anything as beneficial. I think i mentioned it
before. I am sure it is something more than placebo, but this is
purely speculation and anectdotal.
I also personally think that tDCS can be beneficial under certain
limited circumstances.
i have tried special formulations of mg, bacopa, various fish oils,
huperzine and other commercial anticholinesterase inhibitors, nicotine
patches, piracetam, cdp-choline, alpha gpc, dmae, dhea, phosphatidyl
serine, caffeine, cardiovascular exercise, etc etc etc.
None of it has seemed to do anything that i can perceive. It seems to
be DNB training bests them all combined.
I am not sure if ao is saying that dnb is relatively useless or not.
I think ao made some recommendations in the past, but i cant seem to
remember what they were (in relation to cognitive enhancement)
There are some that have turned to drugs to help, but i havent seen
much groundwork on that either (hydergine, l-deprenl etc)
It seems to me that nothing other than dnb seems to have an effect on
'normal' 40y/o males.
:)
On Jun 22, 6:38 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
studies of a populace of 300ppl in equitable groups, published in peer-
reviewed literature, then it would be much more accurate to draw
conclusions from this rather than the more limited 1 or 2 small
studies of a dozen or less.
I have not researched the subject matter myself to know just how many
ppl in total were involved, nor do i understand how to interpret what
is or is not a 'good study' design, but it is important for us to keep
these facts in mind.
I feel that both ao and the.fourth.deviation have something to offer
here, and i am hopeful that you both continue to do so, and refrain
from too much distraction.
it is ok to disagree. It is also beneficial to lay out the details
logically and clearly.
If there are 5 independent studies with good-quality research design
employing a total of 500ppl in reasonably divided groups (ie a study
of 50ppl, a study of 150ppl, another study of 75ppl, etc), then that
argument should be laid out to support their respective point of
views.
otherwise one should defer from aggressive/assertive 'fact'-throwing.
We tend to be 'ahead of the pack' here in this forum, trying things
that truly may not be very effective or proven, and that is ok.
I personally think that DNB training is beneficial--to be frank, i
dont think i have found anything as beneficial. I think i mentioned it
before. I am sure it is something more than placebo, but this is
purely speculation and anectdotal.
I also personally think that tDCS can be beneficial under certain
limited circumstances.
i have tried special formulations of mg, bacopa, various fish oils,
huperzine and other commercial anticholinesterase inhibitors, nicotine
patches, piracetam, cdp-choline, alpha gpc, dmae, dhea, phosphatidyl
serine, caffeine, cardiovascular exercise, etc etc etc.
None of it has seemed to do anything that i can perceive. It seems to
be DNB training bests them all combined.
I am not sure if ao is saying that dnb is relatively useless or not.
I think ao made some recommendations in the past, but i cant seem to
remember what they were (in relation to cognitive enhancement)
There are some that have turned to drugs to help, but i havent seen
much groundwork on that either (hydergine, l-deprenl etc)
It seems to me that nothing other than dnb seems to have an effect on
'normal' 40y/o males.
:)
On Jun 22, 6:38 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ao
Jun 22, 2011, 8:15:39 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
You find my comprehension "woefully lacking" but I'm afraid it is you
who failed to point it out to me in the first place. Unlike yourself,
I don't have time to wage empty verbal battles with for-the-nonce
emotionally laden verbiage and senseless rhetorical one-ups over
people every step of the way with innuendo and outright
mischaracterization. One would also be wise to consider the
repercussions of such behavior as this takes place in the _real world_
where the rule of law is to be expected. This isn't a fairy tale video
game, Mr. Sky.
So if you care to make specific claims with specific evidence, please
do so without wasting my time in ad hominem attacks that seriously
undermine your supposed aims to provide information to others for
thoughtful discussion. That is, insofar as you meet the standard of
scholarly rigor (providing citations as well as the relevant passages
which is a reasonable expectation that others here willingly meet),
then you might actually get the kind of responses you desire from
others.
In any case, the electro-stim deal has little to do with what was
originally stated by you. Besides, any number of external electrical
interventions (e.g., TMS) on the brain result in a panoply of improved
capabilities for the duration of stimulation. This isn't new at all
and seems to serve no real point.
By the way, I don't have to make myself out to be smart. I am so based
on objective criteria and don't make any effort to show as much. It
doesn't even require torrents of bluster from the likes of you for me
to prove it. Though I must say we're not in a locker room, so I
suggest you put away the jock-talk on that matter; I have never been
in need of DNB to be what I am.
argumzio
who failed to point it out to me in the first place. Unlike yourself,
I don't have time to wage empty verbal battles with for-the-nonce
emotionally laden verbiage and senseless rhetorical one-ups over
people every step of the way with innuendo and outright
mischaracterization. One would also be wise to consider the
repercussions of such behavior as this takes place in the _real world_
where the rule of law is to be expected. This isn't a fairy tale video
game, Mr. Sky.
So if you care to make specific claims with specific evidence, please
do so without wasting my time in ad hominem attacks that seriously
undermine your supposed aims to provide information to others for
thoughtful discussion. That is, insofar as you meet the standard of
scholarly rigor (providing citations as well as the relevant passages
which is a reasonable expectation that others here willingly meet),
then you might actually get the kind of responses you desire from
others.
In any case, the electro-stim deal has little to do with what was
originally stated by you. Besides, any number of external electrical
interventions (e.g., TMS) on the brain result in a panoply of improved
capabilities for the duration of stimulation. This isn't new at all
and seems to serve no real point.
By the way, I don't have to make myself out to be smart. I am so based
on objective criteria and don't make any effort to show as much. It
doesn't even require torrents of bluster from the likes of you for me
to prove it. Though I must say we're not in a locker room, so I
suggest you put away the jock-talk on that matter; I have never been
in need of DNB to be what I am.
argumzio
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 9:19:55 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
First you insult the data as inadequate, and then ignore it when it
turns out to be unexpectedly robust. I expected more..tsk.
turns out to be unexpectedly robust. I expected more..tsk.
The.Fourth.Deviation.
Jun 22, 2011, 9:29:54 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
And re the electro stim, your skepticism is heard. And it remains
uselessly myopic, for many reasons, probably the most significant
being that it rejects outright the high likelihood that there is some
similarity between electro-stim to the PFC and stimulating the PFC
through WM training. And your skepticism turns quite the blind eye to
the striking similarities that have already been noted between the
two.
On Jun 22, 8:19 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
uselessly myopic, for many reasons, probably the most significant
being that it rejects outright the high likelihood that there is some
similarity between electro-stim to the PFC and stimulating the PFC
through WM training. And your skepticism turns quite the blind eye to
the striking similarities that have already been noted between the
two.
On Jun 22, 8:19 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
ao
Jun 22, 2011, 9:37:40 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I have not ignored it. You failed to point it out.
argumzio
argumzio
ao
Jun 22, 2011, 9:43:50 PM6/22/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Comprehension error. No scepticism.
It has long been known the the structures most reliant on WM function
are located in the DLPFC (left hemisphere, in particular); lesion
studies have noted this for quite a long time now, I believe. It is
not surprising that this structure would respond positively to a low
AMP circuit, so it is effectively irrelevant to the larger issue of WM
training and its supposed effects in normal, if not high-functioning,
non-ADD persons.
argumzio
On Jun 22, 8:29 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It has long been known the the structures most reliant on WM function
are located in the DLPFC (left hemisphere, in particular); lesion
studies have noted this for quite a long time now, I believe. It is
not surprising that this structure would respond positively to a low
AMP circuit, so it is effectively irrelevant to the larger issue of WM
training and its supposed effects in normal, if not high-functioning,
non-ADD persons.
argumzio
On Jun 22, 8:29 pm, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages