Mensa and IQ-training!
Kolmogorov
is anyway of training your intelligence (on their forum), and Etienne
says that there is no way to significantly increase your IQ! He doesnt
even mention the DNB-study to the person asking the question. Since I
am banned I cannot answer his question (I am using a proxy to read the
forum). But still what do you think? Is the dnb study so bad that it
doesnt should be considered valid and have no scientific value?
Shouldnt people even be open to the fact that the brain is plastic?
Any thoughts?
jttoto
the idea comes from the fact that in twin studies intelligence is
remarkably close, but this doesn't disprove that IQ can't be improved
(but it could prove that genetics prompts a person to engage in IQ
enhancing activities, or simply makes one smarter, or both)
Dual n-back does open the door on the idea that perhaps intelligence
if malleable, but it is hardly conclusive. Even if it can be chalked
up to a placebo effect, it is still an incredible finding, which
produces measurable changes in the brain, and shows that IQ can be
changed in some.
That being said, when I first heard of dual n-back, and told most of
my friends and family about it and its potential benefits. Do you
know how many played? Zero. Not one even gave it a try. The truth is
that most people aren't motivated to improve their intelligence This
could be part of the reasons, outside of genes, that intelligence
differences will continue to persist.
Pontus Granström
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8Lz5vFds&feature=related
--
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.
Pontus Granström
Reece
those who likely stand to benefit most from cognitive enhancement seem
to be the ones least interested in it. I've observed something similar
in the math courses I've taken in college, where the students with a
weaker math background tend to put in less effort than stronger
students when they should be putting in more.
Mensa has always come across as both pretentious and
pseudointellectual to me.. Mensa having recently started admitting
"high IQ" toddlers makes me question how it can even be considered a
high IQ society. Convincing the masses that they are somehow "special"
and that they should pay for the privilege of being able to tell
everyone how special they are... Genius. It's interesting to note that
Mensa has much higher member dues than most of the High IQ societies
with higher requirements. You'd think economies of scale would be
working in Mensa's favor.
On 23 déc, 00:03, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plasticity is the name of the game. The question is to what degree
> this plasticity prevails among persons and in what ways this
> plasticity differs between them. To state it in bolder terms, I don't
> think everyone has the capability to attain scores 3 sigma and above
> (and practice effects, lightly hinted at in that last video shared by
> Pontus,—in which a study "showed" individuals with IQ scores of 102
> leaped to scores of 145 (whatever those scores mean),—simply seem to
> be ignored in a most erroneous manner), because there indeed are
> differences between individuals. Denying differences amounts to
> denying evidence that is available to us. Therefore, it becomes
> imperative for us to better understand those differences, such that a
> broad array of characteristics can be described and systematically
> controlled in order to perfect and to clarify our understanding of the
> nature of learning and of understanding.
>
> That said, I am not surprised by at least one Mensa bouncer simply
> strong-arming the situation by denying suggestive access to
> information. Mensa is by far one of the easiest intelligence societies
> to enter with a very low—depending on to whom you're talking—bar of
> entry (98%ile: 131sd15 or 133sd16 IQ scores). Seeing that they may be
> more inclined to restrict their already large population from
> enlarging further, it is possible that they would be inclined to
> obstruct discussion on the very question of intelligence and what
> exactly it is in any rigorous manner (beyond the tests for admission).
> After all, these aren't exactly the shining stars of intelligence
> among high-IQ communities, and the all-pervasive idea taken for
> granted among many of their members (otherwise they would have little
> motivation for existing... or enlisting) is that their "high
> intelligence" distinguishes and separates them from the common herd of
> normative people. DNB training could very well be viewed as a threat,
> if it proves to aid those who are very close to attaining 98%ile
> scores already from entering (which amounts to a large number of
> people). In sum, for an intelligence community of this sort to exist,
> it must hope to maintain a stable level of entry, and IQ boosting
> would be counter to such stabilizing efforts. (I will not attempt to
> delve any further into Etienne's, or anybody's, individual psychology
> of personal worth simply because I don't have adequate access to that
> information right now.)
>
> DNB training, while in the early stages of investigation, seems to me
> to be a very strong case for augmentation of cognition. Even though it
> may not elicit 2sd IQ improvements (but this may depend on who the
> trainer is and any number of other variables), I think the Jaeggi
> study is not to be underestimated. It is only one piece in a larger
> picture of increasing human intelligence.
>
> In any case, it is widely know that just going to college for four
> years increases any given person's intelligence by a not insignificant
> margin. (This may not only be due to information, but being given some
> of the skills, tools, and motivation for gaining more information on
> one's own, depending on the individual, of course.) The g factor has
> many facets that would be well kept in mind; in fact, it is the only
> postulate of intelligence that has scientifically grounded support
> going for it. (Gardner and the opiate fairytale of "multiple
> intelligences" be damned!)
>
> In closing, I think jttoto makes a very interesting point that I have
> seen be raised elsewhere. Many people do not take their cognition (or
> lack thereof) into their own hands. This is perhaps the key element to
> higher intelligence, for without the kind of self-assessment to
> determine where one's faults are, there is practically a zero chance
> that the individual in question has the capabilities required for
> cognitive enhancement. The people I've told about this, excepting one,
> didn't particularly care about DNB or at least didn't try it. And I
> was hoping to see them improve themselves, in all honesty!
>
> But not everyone has a high need for cognition, do they? Some find it
> a most pleasant thing to veg out, imbibing Coke after Coke, eating the
> occasioned burger & fries, argue with their television, and be
> thankful for each paycheck—all without a significant care in the world
> or even a truly meaningful understanding of it. There is no arguing
> against taste, in the end.
>
> So is Etienne justified? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At minimum, his actions
> seem understandable. Besides, those asking at the Mensa forum are
> likely able to find their answers through, say, Google search, if they
> became a little daring about it.
>
> argumzio
polar
be), but interesting is, that's what people think. But did you ever
met even one of these "prototype-mensan" in person, who was arrogant
about his intellectual achievements (i'm not speaking here about
internet "legends" like paul coojimans or chris langan)? I didnt. If
you did, chances are they hardly got over the limit. My experience is
that people there are humble, not arrogant.
When somebody is standing out in something (be it beauty, money,
intelligence, art, whatever), people automatically think that he is
arrogant, or at least self-importatnt about it. Well, it depends! Some
definitely are, but I thinks most of them really dont. Intelligence is
a sensitive social topic, and people are quick here to hide behind
black and white barricades.
Regarding DNB, I'm still doing my 15 minutes per day, the same amount
I do physical exercise. It's not too much, but I'm quite regular about
it. Usually I still have to overcome some laziness, but the strain is
a sign for me that it makes difference. Well, thanks for movies and
opinions, and merry christmass to everyone! :)
Pontus Granström
People including mensa claim that IQ just like height or eyevision (which btw can be improved by playing computer games) cannot be altered due to it's genetic nature. Still they havent found ONE single gene that support this claim. Etiennes statement that there is no scientific proven way to boost IQ which in practice means that he discards the PNAS study is a little bit too much for me. There is no scientific study claiming that you cannot alter IQ, since it would demand that you need to have certain genes in order to complete a certain problem, which in practice means a certain protein causing a special structure of the brain that causes higher IQ or whatever.
Even people with genetical disadvantages for math can improve their ability alot by training (lumosity.com). London cab drivers have larger "longterm memory centers" (hippocampus), and the brain seem to be able to adapt to the enviroment it's in, which maybe isnt so strange, since it is somewhat the point of having a brain. Imagine that we would have to mutate everytime we wanted to learn something or change our thinking! We wouldnt have come far.
While many people have no problem with accepting that a relative easy task like taking a 20 minute IQ-test can tap into the ability we call G it seems harder for them to accept that a relative easy task like dnb actually could tap into the same ability and even strengthen it. First of all, IQ-tests that measure G, must be definition load the same amount of cognitive process. That is, even though the questions are different they have to load the brain in the same way. Perhaps IQ-questions takes alot of attentional control, working memory capacity and so on and this is what we call G. They cannot understand it so they call it G. Probaly because they lack the neurological foundation for understanding intelligence.
To me it seems a bit bold to call the study totally unscientific and stating that this doesnt prove that you can train intelligence. First of all the study has been published in PNAS, which according me must mean that is has been peer reviewed etc. Why I highly doubt that the article should have no scientific value. None of the authors he links to have ever been published at PNAS, many including Jensen is considered a bit obscure.
Etienne claimed a couple things that were wrong. His first criticism is that if you shorten the time on the test (from 20 to 10min) you will get a correlation with workning memory. Which I do not understand at all, do IQ-test questions demand more working memory if you can complete less of them? If he had said speed I would somewhat reconsider! Second thing is about the correlation with timed vs untimed tests. 20 minute version has a 0.75 correlation, a 10 minute probaly around 0.5, but this is only for the RAPM. Still 50% of the gain must have been in G. He also claimed that it was only one point making it sound that it was the maximum level that they've reached, but this is not true either, it was rather the lowest significant result and inline with the linear dependency with training time. He doesnt even comment on the BOMAT probaly because he thinks it is a unvalid test. I do not know why.
To summarize it he/they claim that 1 point was the maximum increase, and the correlation between dnb and IQ points is that of working memory capacity because less time means more WM?. I do not know if he has any science to back him up, because I would really like to see it. Besides many of his points are totally unvalid especially the 1 point gain.
Toto
As to Mensa members, and high iq people in general, I have very
similar experience to polar's.
Having higher abilities than 99, or 98 % of the population seems a lot
to me, but whether the difference is big enough for one to need to be
in a special group, I don't know. Anyway, 98% is just the minimum for
membership.
The DNB study really has little scientific value :) Intelligence was
practically not measured, and I can think of only one reason for
that :) I have hopes, however, that TNB or image-position DNB may be
more useful, because CF tests include shapes... nevermind :)
> Etienne claimed a couple things that were wrong.
Etienne Forstrom is a test-creator , he must have made a lot of
research on such topics. His IQ is above 4 sigmas, which means it is
practically immeasurable :)
His first criticism is that
> if you shorten the time on the test (from 20 to 10min) you will get a
> correlation with workning memory.
Second thing is
> about the correlation with timed vs untimed tests. 20 minute version has a
> 0.75 correlation, a 10 minute probaly around 0.5
Problems are usually arranged in ascending order, and a person with
better wm would solve them faster, I guess. I don't know, the two may
be different things (speed and memory).
But, though you were banned from the forum, you can still take the
admission test, can't you? (If the tax is not too big, I don't know
how it is in your country...) This will be a definitive confirmation/
confutation of what you say. It doesn't have to be Mensa's test, of
course, any CF supervised test will do.
I sincerely hope you are right, and not I :) And even if I am, there
certainly are other benefits from DNB, and I will continue using it :)
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
I put more faite in the airforce since that IQ-test is developed by a professor in psychology and normed on a group known to be of above average capability. Etienne on the other claimed that this what not the case (which it is). Overall I think he is somewhat of a bully just because of the IQ, even if he has been obviously wrong in many ways.
Pontus Granström
Toto
Which would make my
> potential IQ even higher than etiennes since the G correlation is highest
> for series (according to the manual with 0.01 units).
4 sigmas means 160+(sd15) (i.e. 1 in 10 000 people, I think, or
0.001% ) and I only said that because his tests' ceiling is 164
(there is a rule among the high IQ communities, something like the 1st
commendment "Do not attempt to measure abilities higher than yours" :)
I don't understand what you say about your scores. Do you know what
the sd of the test was? Can you tell them in percentiles?
>Having a high IQ doesnt imply that you are always right
and do not backup your statements.
I agree with you :) But being a test-creator probably does :)
> I put more faith in the airforce since that IQ-test is developed by a
> professor in psychology and normed on a group known to be of above average
> capability. Etienne on the other claimed that this what not the case (which
> it is).
Supervised tests, and FRT(the Mensa admission test) are not developped
by amateurs either :) Each test psycologists use has to be normed, on
thousands of people.
It also the variance
> that interests me, and make me believe that is plasticity and training has a
> tremendous effect.
The variance may simply mean you are good at some things and not so
good at others :)
On Dec 23, 3:02 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have already taken an IQ-test when applying for the airforce and score 123
> in total, with upto 150 on number series (going from 115 on RAPM) The lowest
> score I obtained was 115 on bongard and 130 on visual reasoning. I am bit
> unclear on the score of G which stated 7 on stanine on the group applying
> for the airforce I think that it might infact be over 140 since my total
> score was 15% higher than required which is 125. Which would make my
> potential IQ even higher than etiennes since the G correlation is highest
> for series (according to the manual with 0.01 units). It also the variance
> that interests me, and make me believe that is plasticity and training has a
> tremendous effect.
> I put more faite in the airforce since that IQ-test is developed by a
> professor in psychology and normed on a group known to be of above average
> capability. Etienne on the other claimed that this what not the case (which
> it is). Overall I think he is somewhat of a bully just because of the IQ,
> even if he has been obviously wrong in many ways.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
Gwern Branwen
> People including mensa claim that IQ just like height or eyevision (which
> btw can be improved by playing computer games) cannot be altered due to it's
> genetic nature. Still they havent found ONE single gene that support this
> claim. Etiennes statement that there is no scientific proven way to boost IQ
> which in practice means that he discards the PNAS study is a little bit too
> much for me. There is no scientific study claiming that you cannot alter IQ,
> since it would demand that you need to have certain genes in order to
> complete a certain problem, which in practice means a certain protein
> causing a special structure of the brain that causes higher IQ or whatever.
Why would it matter whether IQ is influenced by one gene or many?
Either way, it is still set or not set.
(A man is imprisoned in a cell with hundreds of bars; each bar is
small and its removal insufficient to free him, yet he is still
imprisoned.)
> Even people with genetical disadvantages for math can improve their ability
> alot by training (lumosity.com). London cab drivers have larger "longterm
> memory centers" (hippocampus), and the brain seem to be able to adapt to the
> enviroment it's in, which maybe isnt so strange, since it is somewhat the
> point of having a brain. Imagine that we would have to mutate everytime we
> wanted to learn something or change our thinking! We wouldnt have come far.
IIRC, do not the taxi and music and blindness studies also show that
the growth in certain regions comes at the expense of other regions?
> Etienne claimed a couple things that were wrong. His first criticism is that
> if you shorten the time on the test (from 20 to 10min) you will get a
> correlation with workning memory. Which I do not understand at all, do
> IQ-test questions demand more working memory if you can complete less of
> them? If he had said speed I would somewhat reconsider! Second thing is
> about the correlation with timed vs untimed tests. 20 minute version has a
> 0.75 correlation, a 10 minute probaly around 0.5, but this is only for the
> RAPM. Still 50% of the gain must have been in G. He also claimed that it was
> only one point making it sound that it was the maximum level that they've
> reached, but this is not true either, it was rather the lowest significant
> result and inline with the linear dependency with training time. He doesnt
> even comment on the BOMAT probaly because he thinks it is a unvalid test. I
> do not know why.
Did you read Moody's criticism? I quote it at length in the FAQ and
made sure to upload it in addition to the previous discussions here of
it.
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
Toto
> that high.
There indeed are VERY few tests which measure intelligence at that
level. I know about Wechsler's and Cattell's.
Etienne Forsstrom is not at all a puzzles creator. His tests show very
strong correlation with timed supervised tests (I've talked to people
who have taken them). If he says that reducing time will increase
correlation with wm and decrease g-correlation, I would believe him.
On Dec 23, 3:50 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt that his score is 160, since I do not know of any test measuring
> that high. It would take millions of people to norm such a test and confirm
> that it takes a 160 IQ to solve it. As in many areas researchers have wrong.
> Jaeggi has probaly a better scientific understanding of the limitations and
> biological nature of intelligence than etienne how studied design. Who would
> you put your money on? A person creating IQ-puzzles or a scientist?
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
fear that g-variation depends on wm-variation which wouldnt be that surprising. Since I know how memory demanding and concentration demanding solving 130+ questions is.
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
On Dec 23, 10:03 am, Toto <a.mench...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I doubt that his score is 160, since I do not know of any test measuring
> > that high.
>
> There indeed are VERY few tests which measure intelligence at that
> level. I know about Wechsler's and Cattell's.
This is flat out misleading. The Wechsler's ceiling is 160sd15 and
Cattell B's is 161sd16. The two are not commensurate to each other
based on the numerical similarity. The first would place one at >/
=99.9968%ile and the second >/=99.993%ile (both are higher because
hitting the ceiling does not indicate with any certainty that that is
in fact the testee's IQ).What is more, ceiling/floor effects reduce
the reliability of any test near its ceiling and its floor (not merely
counting the nature of norming the tests for such measurements). Here
is a list of tests: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/tests.htm
IQ tests, like Wechsler's and Cattell B, are designed to measure
people near the mean, not at the extremes. For tests ostensibly
designed to measure at remarkably high levels (4 sigma+), see this
website: http://www.iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/
And by my lights (I may be wrong), Cooijman himself doesn't have an IQ
at which his tests are able to measure. Does this alone count against
his tests? No, of course not. If the test is designed well and
measures what it intends to measure, then no one has the right to
decry it, at the end of the day.
argumzio
Pontus Granström
At note this is the minimum number of genes. How they then structure the brain to a 160 or 80 IQ brain is something else, it also requires that the brain becomes static (which it isnt). This is what most hold for the gausscurve to hold. Otherwise we would have to abandon the genetics at least the 100% genetical explanation.
Still a 0.88 correlation with G for backward digit span is quite interesting. Meaning that if you boost your forward digit span with say 1.5sd your will boost your G with 0.5 sd or 7 points. For backwards it becomes ~1.3sd.
Remember that digit span also was thought to be immutable.
No test to date has been shown to have 100% validity. So on those
ground alone one should doubt all tests, not just "at X level, IQ
tests are invalid". In addition to that, there are means of assessing
such tests, such as analysis of correlations between other tests
testees have taken. Any number of ways can be posited by which one
could measure at the high level. Admittedly, based on population, it
is impossible to measure beyond 6 sigma with any worthwhile
reliability. IQ testing is only an indicator for something else
(presumably g). It is to this end that people are tested.
But I like how Cooijmans states his case:
Note it is not a priori certain high-range tests measure g , as from
regular research it is known the general factor is most important
(that is, accounts for the largest proportion of the variance) at low
I.Q. levels, and plays an ever smaller role the higher you go. Also,
inheritance of I.Q., correlation of I.Q. with elementary cognitive
tasks (chronometrics), and the Flynn effect all go down as I.Q. goes
up. We do not know if g is still operating at the levels where high-
range tests operate. With high-range tests are meant here: tests
created specifically for the very highest intelligence levels, taken
by self-selected volunteers who on average score somewhat above the
99th centile of the adult Western population. Purposely, tests of
highly diverse nature and contents are used to reveal whether a common
factor still expresses itself across that great diversity of item
types.
As for digit-span, I find it questionable to put one's money on that
bet. g is more complicated that just recounting a string of digits
(which has been shown to be dependent on phonological encoding, where
one's language plays a role in how many digits one can in general
successfully parrot). Other data have shown that digit span is merely
indicative of encoding speed and little else (however it is correlated
with other tests seems rather irrelevant or unhelpful).
It's all rather questionable, though.
argumzio
On Dec 23, 10:45 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still to validate the test it would require millions or even billions of
> people. If they havent come up with a way of analyze the problem on some
> measurable scale and place the load at the 1/10000 level. Since I do not
> know of any such measurement I doubt that his test is valid. Digit span
> tasks are highly correlated with the ability to learn a new language.
> Backward digitspan has double the G-load compared to forward (due to memory
> operations) why couldnt DNB g-load? If you increase your backward digitspan
> so will you increase your total g-points on a test, the same thing must hold
> for dnb. It would be interesting if mensa or someone else could measure the
> g-load on dnb! I would guess it is pretty high!
>
christopher lines
performance.
2. IQ test score improves with practise( intelligence may not)
3. What is a significant improvement in IQ test score?
4. I did one IQ test scored 126 and a few (dnb) weeks later retook it
and scored 133. Second score is significant because it opens doors to
mensa.(lol) so sound slike a significant improvement to me.
Pontus Granström
Reece
ranks, even if everyone started using DNB tomorrow and everyone
experience measurable benefits, it would merely require that IQ tests
be renormed. It's not unlike what has already happened many times over
the past century and, once renormed, I highly doubt many people not
currently scoring at the 2,3,4 SD suddenly would be. It might level
the playing field a bit for people with ADHD or memory/concentration
problems by better reflecting their true level of ability.
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsubscribe@go oglegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
One could also question if it's important that people belong to a certain percentile based on old views of the brain or a de facto intellectual level, and why this 98 percentile is so important for social relationships. Mensa also states that their goal is to benefit human intelligence, is it really so smart to deny the effects of dnb on the only thing they value? That is the performance on IQ-tests. Still I consider the critics of dnb invalid based on data and their own definitions (such as digit span i g-loaded and backward is more g-loaded due to complex memory operations).
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
Kenyans have lighter bones than westeners, which causes 2 min advantages over a 10km run, which on the professional level is very much. To see that a protein causes a lighter bone might be easy to understand, but for example that the third arrows pattern is the top pattern of the second arrow (just taking from their own IQ -test, www.mensa.se click provtest) has anything to do with a protein seems ridiculous. In fact it depends on a strong WM and the ability to go back thru the sequence in order to remember what was show in earlier picutre, some people call this "G", I call it memory operations.
Still I consider the dnb study totally valid based on all modern studies and knowledge even though many people here seem to forget what IQ-test is all about and is in some sort of state of denial!
There is no valid criticism of the Jaeggi study and that's the reason why it for example got a prize from pfizer.
By the way, Merry Christmas everyone and a happy new year! Dont destroy too many brain cells ;)
/Pontus
Here's an example in sciencedaily on the nature of brain size (one
factor of intelligence, to be sure): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221212732.htm
But this isn't even to scratch the surface.
argumzio
On Dec 23, 2:01 pm, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since others are now raising points that I have already made, I guess
> I would like to probe your mention about genetics, briefly.
>
> The nature versus nurture debate is a trumped up falsehood that has
> gone on for far too long thanks to the likes of media spin and
> eugenicists marketing their ideologically grounded presumptions. No
> one is a walking bundle of a genetic elan vital, and one is not
> immersed in a pure sea of environs. Neither are the case, just as
> light isn't a particle nor a wave. The systems approach (championed by
> Denis Noble among others), as I have probably said before in this
> place, is providing some useful answers to the complexity of
> biological systems.
>
> In sum, there are differences between individuals in intelligence.
> It's just that those differences are harder to pin down than on any
> one gene. Rather it is the collection of genes, proteins, environment,
> development, culture, etc., that all come together that allows
> varieties of intelligence (which should be reinterpreted as g at
> present, since it is one of the more useful interpretations) to
> emerge.
>
> argumzio
>
> On Dec 23, 11:15 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well you who believe in large genetical components immutable to enviroment
> > would probaly have to put your limit to IQ somewhere. For example people do
> > rarely become taller than 2.x cm, some freaks due to diseases get as long as
> > 2.7 but it ends there, and it is not a part of the natural variation. The
> > same thing must go with IQ, even though they cannot find genes that separate
> > a 160 individual from a 80 IQ it would require that they identify about 7
> > genes each one having 2 variations inorder to explain 160 points due to
> > nature 2^7 = 128 so actually the next step would be 256. Clearly proof that
> > genetic variation cannot explain the 160 IQ level. Actually IQ levels become
> > multiples of 2. 2,4,8 etc. 0.5^8=0.003. Assuming you got a 50/50 chance of
> > getting any allel.
> > At note this is the minimum number of genes. How they then structure the
> > brain to a 160 or 80 IQ brain is something else, it also requires that the
> > brain becomes static (which it isnt). This is what most hold for the
> > gausscurve to hold. Otherwise we would have to abandon the genetics at least
> > the 100% genetical explanation.
>
> > Still a 0.88 correlation with G for backward digit span is quite
> > interesting. Meaning that if you boost your forward digit span with say
> > 1.5sd your will boost your G with 0.5 sd or 7 points. For backwards it
> > becomes ~1.3sd.
> > Remember that digit span also was thought to be immutable.
>
Pontus Granström
Let's take it one step futher. The mensa IQ-test (provtest) must be completed in TAH-DA 10 minutes, you are required to solve TAH-DA 18 questions. Many can't complete the test due to lack of time (as reported on their forum). Shouldnt you object that the time limit isnt long enough to manage to get to the harder ones? And the test is invalid just for this cause, because gotten more time he might have completed them. No one seems to do this, since it's a internet test why even bother with a time limit? Many people actually consider speed to be a part of intelligenc. But when it comes to RAPM and BOMAT all of sudden this valid, and they with absolute confidence that all people are intelligent enough to solve the questions just they had gotten more time and not solve the harder ones, the 4 point increase as measured in BOMAT is only a matter of getting higher working memory although the WM load is constant no matter what speed you process it with. If you can say 10 digits fast doesnt give you a better WM than repeating them let's say 20% slower.
This is my respond to all criticism of Jaeggi, why shouldnt mensa for starters live what they learn? Or is there something magical with FRT matrices that makes them suitable to solve in 30 seconds?
What I find ridiculous is the reductionist enterprise that dominates
most of scientific research, but that is slowly beginning to change.
In any case, my argument is not for one item that would explain
performance on IQ tests; as I have stated already, it is a complex sum
of variables, which isn't as ridiculous as some people may think.
Intelligence isn't a magical sauce that cannot be explained in
biological, sociological, neurological, developmental, and
psychological terms. If that were so, then there would be no way to
establish a basic idea of intelligence (some have tried to claim this
is so, but this smells like an exaggeration).
I believe, at any rate, that TheQ17 mentioned something or other
regarding a number of his genes that he had looked over, receiving a
report from a service on their influences for individual intelligence.
I'm sure this is not to be ignored by those who remember the details
of that discussion, because a number of genes brought together easily
accumulate a sigma on IQ tests. Hopefully he will chime in to jog our
memory.
argumzio
On Dec 23, 2:36 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very interesting I happen to know that is what a mutation somewhere near the
> jaw that dropped a bone that made it possible for our brain to grow (with
> help from omega-3 fishoils). But nowhere have I seen a mutation causing a 5
> point increase in IQ, or a 11 point or a 20 point like someone reported. In
> fact WAIS is highly correlated with IQ way too much to explained by
> different g-loadings.
>
> Kenyans have lighter bones than westeners, which causes 2 min advantages
> over a 10km run, which on the professional level is very much. To see that a
> protein causes a lighter bone might be easy to understand, but for example
> that the third arrows pattern is the top pattern of the second arrow (just
> taking from their own IQ -test,www.mensa.seclick provtest) has anything to
> do with a protein seems ridiculous. In fact it depends on a strong WM and
> the ability to go back thru the sequence in order to remember what was show
> in earlier picutre, some people call this "G", I call it memory operations.
>
> Still I consider the dnb study totally valid based on all modern studies and
> knowledge even though many people here seem to forget what IQ-test is all
> about and is in some sort of state of denial!
>
> There is no valid criticism of the Jaeggi study and that's the reason why it
> for example got a prize from pfizer.
>
> By the way, Merry Christmas everyone and a happy new year! Dont destroy too
> many brain cells ;)
>
> /Pontus
>
> ...
>
> read more »
deech
First time poster, long time lurker, and brain training newbie. I have
a few questions which may sound rhetorical but are not.
Why is the ultimate test of any brain-training exercise an increase in
IQ? I don't know the ins and outs of the IQ metric but it seems to be
a source of a lot of confusion. Why is increasing IQ is a worthy goal
in and of itself? Isn't the purpose of mental training to live a more
fulfilling intellectual life - does an increase in IQ give you that?
Wouldn't we be better served by setting more concrete goals?
Whenever I try to learn something challenging there are obstacles that
I enjoy tackling and ones that make the process less pleasurable. The
latter form my personal goals for mental fitness.
For example, high up on that list is to hold a longer chain of
information in my head. This, for me, is the most challenging aspect
of reading and understanding non-trivial computer programs that have a
lot of abstraction. Like all complex systems, the more the levels of
indirection, the harder it is to jump in and understand how something
works. If I could get better at that my life (and career) would be
measurably better.
And I am not sure an increase in IQ would help me.
-deech
On Dec 23, 11:42 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point! Those who score 128 might infact boost to 133. I would guess
> that is equal to 1 rawpoint on RAPM for example. What according to etienne
> is "nothing to be astounded by" might infact be the straw that broke the
> camel's back. How will they treat a person who "dual-n-backed" his into
> mensa? Interesting philosophical question.
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, christopher lines <
>
> christopherli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. IQ tests dont measure intelligence they measure IQ test
> > performance.
> > 2. IQ test score improves with practise( intelligence may not)
> > 3. What is a significant improvement in IQ test score?
> > 4. I did one IQ test scored 126 and a few (dnb) weeks later retook it
> > and scored 133. Second score is significant because it opens doors to
> > mensa.(lol) so sound slike a significant improvement to me.
>
> > On Dec 22, 12:11 pm, Kolmogorov <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Remember when I was banned from Mensa?! Today a person asked if there
> > > is anyway of training your intelligence (on their forum), and Etienne
> > > says that there is no way to significantly increase your IQ! He doesnt
> > > even mention the DNB-study to the person asking the question. Since I
> > > am banned I cannot answer his question (I am using a proxy to read the
> > > forum). But still what do you think? Is the dnb study so bad that it
> > > doesnt should be considered valid and have no scientific value?
> > > Shouldnt people even be open to the fact that the brain is plastic?
> > > Any thoughts?
>
> > --
>
> > 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<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Reece
You're 100% right. IQ itself is meaningless without a context. As has
been said on here previously, the choice of 100 IQ as being "normal"
is purely arbitrary and there's no good reason for choosing it (or a
standard deviation of 15 for that matter) over any other numbers.
What we're interested in is how the ability (or lack thereof) to solve
a bunch of silly, seemingly meaningless problems is correlated with
factors we do care about (eg. scholastic success, job performance). IQ
is a fairly robust measure of general intelligence in that it is
relatively rare for someone to increase their score substantially.
Scores tend to be fairly consistent both from IQ test to IQ test
(provided they are properly designed and normed) and when taken at
different stages of the lifecycle.
At the end of the day, IQ tests are correlated with many measures of
what we may call "success", however correlation doesn't imply
causation and there are many other factors out there (eg. motivation)
which research would suggest are every bit as correlated with success
as is IQ.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for the application of
intelligence than intelligence perse. Without the motivation to
actually *do something*, no amount of intelligence is going to do
someone much good.
Pontus Granström
I've given many examples of real world IQ-problems that indeed discriminate among IQ, clearly having a very easy "principle", but people might not be able to solve them due deficient memory operations/memory capacity.
To me it is clear that complex AC/WMC indeed can make someone score a few points higher on a IQ-test.
While some conider these problems to be G-measures (something holy, a mystical factor in the background) they perhaps find it provoking that G consists to large parts of what we would call WMC. That people find it strange that working memory operations are a big part of intelligence comes a bit surprising since it is so obvious. It's like saying that the power of computers has nothing todo with instructions and memory operations.
Still it would be interesting if people reading this group could take the mensa test with a limit of 5 min (that is stop answering questions at 5 min) and then complete the whole 10 minutes test (a day or two after), it would be interesting to see the correlation (or if the correlation disappears and starts correlate with WMC).
Anyone up to it? www.mensa.se "GÖR VÅRT PROVTEST"
--
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.
Toto
the
> mensa test with a limit of 5 min (that is stop answering questions at 5 min)
> and then complete the whole 10 minutes test (a day or two after), it would
> be interesting to see the correlation (or if the correlation disappears and
> starts correlate with WMC).
This is insane! The test is so easy that taking it afterwards is
meaningless! The second time you won't have to think at all, till you
reach the new questions.
And there is no point in this experiment. What is interesting? Seeing
you could answer more questions if you have more time? Or you are
going to play a psycometrician and try to measure whether the
correlation with WM increases? How exactly?
Taking a test at that level of dificulty a second time is absurd, even
after a year, but, after a few days... its ridiculous!
> Anyone up to it?www.mensa.se"GÖR VÅRT PROVTEST"
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
critics who should prove their objections. the test is constructed by
etienne btw. i am writing from a mobile so forgive my language.
> brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
maybe we could use another test? like the danish one? it would also be
of interest to get the g loading for bomat.
On 12/24/09, argumzio <argu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Per
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZIiAkbUhNwtZGduZzk2ZnpfMjRnZDczc2dmdA&hl=en
> I agree with Toto. (Note: this is the result of my first and only
> attempt. I should also add that I had only slept for 5 hours before
> the day, so I was more sluggish than I thought I would be.)
>
> argumzio
> brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
Toto
minutes, which is NOT the case with either Raven's nor BOMAT.
On Dec 25, 3:56 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://etienne.se/mensa/utv_provtest-d.pdfit is in swedish but as you can
> see provtest D correlates highly with other known tests, so a 10 minute test
> even though they are subjectivley felt as simple might in fact be valid.
> Something very important to keep in mind.
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > i scored the same however the test is according to etienne valid.
> > maybe we could use another test? like the danish one? it would also be
> > of interest to get the g loading for bomat.
>
> > On 12/24/09, argumzio <argum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Per
>
> >http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZIiAkbUhNwtZGduZzk2ZnpfMjRnZDczc2d...
> > <brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
"Five hundred and six first-year university students completed Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices. Scores on Set II ranged from 6 to 35 (M= 22.17, SD = 5.60). The first 12 items of Set II were found to add little to the discriminative power of the test. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses failed to confirm Dillon et al.'s two-factor solution and suggested that a single-factor best represented performance on Set II. A short-form of Set II, consisting of 12 items extracted from the original 36, was developed and found to possess acceptable psychometric properties. Although this short form differed considerably in content from the short form previously devised by Arthur and Day, the two short forms did not differ with respect to concurrent validity and predictive power."
I supports my idea that they didnt use the 12 first but rather questions that did indeed differntiate among individuals.
Toto
discussing. The number of items doesn't matter so much (i.e. a rough
estimation probably is possible with less items, but this test should
be normed too - it must be measured how many items could be solved FOR
A CERTAIN TIME by people at a given intellectual level. If a group is
given , for example, 10 min, and another 20, how could intelligence be
measured objectively?
As for the study, they divided the test by two, and did not use some
12 items that supposedly discriminate better , if that's what you are
saying. I'm not sure I understand you.
On Dec 25, 6:07 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is interesting:
>
> "Five hundred and six first-year university students completed Raven's
> Advanced Progressive Matrices. Scores on Set II ranged from 6 to 35 *(M=*22.17,
> *SD* = 5.60). The first 12 items of Set II were found to add little to the
> discriminative power of the test. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
> analyses failed to confirm Dillon et al.'s two-factor solution and suggested
> that a single-factor best represented performance on Set II. A short-form of
> Set II, consisting of 12 items extracted from the original 36, was developed
> and found to possess acceptable psychometric properties. Although this short
> form differed considerably in content from the short form previously devised
> by Arthur and Day, the two short forms did not differ with respect to
> concurrent validity and predictive power."
>
> I supports my idea that they didnt use the 12 first but rather questions
> that did indeed differntiate among individuals.
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Well true, but still. Why not try it for for 2 minutes and see the
> > correlation or if it disappears.
>
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Toto <a.mench...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You forget that this test was normed for 10 min, it is scored after 10
> >> minutes, which is NOT the case with either Raven's nor BOMAT.
>
> >> On Dec 25, 3:56 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://etienne.se/mensa/utv_provtest-d.pdfitis in swedish but as you
> >> > > <brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
> >> <brain-training%252Buns...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%25252Bun...@googlegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
Quote from the report
"The results also demonstrated that item variations in memory load do not account for the shared
variance between the two tasks. As memory load increased, the correlations between Ospan and solution
accuracy actually decreased somewhat, resulting in a non-significant correlation for problems with the
largest memory loads. These results are contrary to what would be predicted if the shared variance
between the two tasks was due to differences in the number of items that could be held in memory. By
such a view, one would expect an increase in the correlations. However, the results suggest that, for the
most part, the correlations are fairly constant and do not vary systematically with variations in memory
load. These results are compatible with the work of Verguts and De Boeck (2002, their Experiment 1)
who demonstrated that the correlation between a working memory task and a modified version of Raven
occurred even when all of the items had a low memory load."
Pontus Granström
of fluid abilities (Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices) was examined. Specifically, performance on Raven
problems was decomposed by difficulty, memory load, and rule type. The results suggest that the relation
between Operation Span and Raven is fairly constant across levels of difficulty, memory load, and rule type.
Thus, it appears something other than the number of things that can be held memory is important for the
shared variance between these two tasks. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of attention
control as a possible link between working memory capacity and fluid abilities
jttoto
At least one study shows that academic success correlates more
strongly with WM than IQ. We should be looking giving more emphasis
on the former than the latter, no?
http://tracyalloway.com/index.php/working-memory/working-memory-is-more-important-than-iq/
Many studies have already shown that WM is trainable (and not just
with Dual-n-back) and one has shown changes in the brain. It seems
reasonable to assume that simply training your WM will produce
tangible benefits in the real world. IMO, its correlation with Gf is
not as important. Its correlation with academic and job success is.
It would be interesting if these improvements show real world results
in the work related world, and not simply the brain adapting
specifically to the task at hand.
Keep this in mind: people with better academic success have better
working memories, but this doesn't prove with a 100% certainty that
their success is due to their WM, and not some 3rd variable. Remember
this when you see the many claims that success can be summed up to
short-term memory. It is not conclusive.
On Dec 22, 9:08 am, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> There is no hard evidence that you can't increase your IQ. Much of
> the idea comes from the fact that in twin studies intelligence is
> remarkably close, but this doesn't disprove that IQ can't be improved
> (but it could prove that genetics prompts a person to engage in IQ
> enhancing activities, or simply makes one smarter, or both)
>
> Dual n-back does open the door on the idea that perhaps intelligence
> if malleable, but it is hardly conclusive. Even if it can be chalked
> up to a placebo effect, it is still an incredible finding, which
> produces measurable changes in the brain, and shows that IQ can be
> changed in some.
>
> That being said, when I first heard of dual n-back, and told most of
> my friends and family about it and its potential benefits. Do you
> know how many played? Zero. Not one even gave it a try. The truth is
> that most people aren't motivated to improve their intelligence This
> could be part of the reasons, outside of genes, that intelligence
> differences will continue to persist.
milestones
> strongly with WM than IQ. We should be looking giving more emphasis
It depends how you define "IQ." IQ is not traditionally defined by
fluid intelligence alone. Those on the web selling brain training
products obviously will emphasize fluid IQ as the raw potential that
differentiates ability between individuals. Yet it's just one facet of
IQ. Here, I'd say the media and brain training industry are not
necessarily misrepresenting facts, but they are (on purpose) not
providing complete information/explanations on the matter. The topic
of "IQ" is no different than how journalists are handling any other
story. The facts must squeeze themselves into the headline and ergo
people are often misled by the smoke and mirrors that draw them in. So
some
background knowledge (domain specific) on the part of the reader is
required for any intelligent dissection of the presented assertions.
"Working memory more important than IQ!"
-- I've also seen laughable headlines such as:
"Executive functions -- the new IQ!?"
Or here's another one: "Hidden Smarts: Abstract thought trumps IQ in
autism!" --- http://www.autism-pdd.net/testdump/test17590.htm
In these cases, journalists are having fun with the idea that IQ is
amorphously defined (at least in verbal terms). This makes for eye
grabbing headlines. An intelligent person without knowledge of the G
factor or IQ models is left to question assumptions gleaned from the
web and to do their own research. But this requires having some idea
about what the different models of intelligence are. If one stumbles
on the CHC (Cattel-Horn-Carroll) model, one will see G exists but that
there are a lot of factors (both highly general and highly specific)
that comprise what we call intelligence and that it is both a multiple
and unified phenomenon. This is obvious to most of us who post here,
but people who are uninterested in intelligece research (most of the 6
billiion people in the world) have no clue about this.
The Wechsler scales, for instance, have 4 factors, one of which is a
WM factor and it is weighted with perceptual, verbal, and processing
speed. IQ (or G) subumes WM. The WAIS also subsumes matrix reasoning.
These are factors of G. This knowledge obviates the aforementioned
omigod! headlines that are bandied about for mass consumption.
(Journalists seem to be aware that their readers would prefer IQ to be
dethroned, for whatever reason, thus smacking "IQ" around makes sense;
no matter that their readers don't even know what the hell IQ is, even
remotely).
I think reading journalism is a great way to improve critical thinking
because the journalist has done some research on the topic and their
assertion is usually found in the headline or opening paragraph. They
are trying to convince you of something by the points they make, and,
more importantly, by data that they choose to omit. It is fascinating
to see how they spin their wheels and direct their angles but it
requires "due diligence" on the part of the reader to research the
basis of the journalist's story -- whether on human intelligence or
any other topic.
Pontus Granström
WM (not surprisingly) seem to explain variation in academic success more than IQ (Gf) (although WM and IQ actually correlate due to shared resources which s AC). How you present test scores and what they actually meausre is something really hard but. But still IQ to me is the measure of G (something that explain the positive intercorrelation between IQ-tests). While WM tasks are easy to define as harder or easier while for Gf tests this can be a bit harder. Read the article of raven norms and find that many problems of RAPM although presented later in the problem sequence actually are easier, they even suggest new orderings (probaly based on answering percentage). That being said doesnt mean that there are subjects where Gf might be more important. However here in Sweden even though Gf has increased math scores tend to drop.
When someone says Executive function the new IQ, they probaly mean that EF explains to larger degree performance in school than your score on an abstract reasoning test like ravens, as you've seen in my earlier post: beyond IQ.
That is if someone wants it child to perform better in school especially during the early years it might be wise to strengthen the EF and WM capability. (an Increase in IQ that accompanies it, is something he/she has to live with).
Pontus
Gwern Branwen
Is this a general summary of your views and those 17 papers? I've had
trouble following exactly what you mean (such as your response to me
about correlations).
--
gwern
Pontus Granström
Since their argument is that less time means more WM but since WM scores and high memory loads scores negative it would have to be the other way around.
Moreover that WM and Gf is highly connected seems to be very accepted in the intelligence research far from being controversial.
The criticism that they only was presented easier questions also is pretty much false! First of all we do not which questions they got but in the original format they would have to rearrange the probelms to reflect the progessivley harder questions here is the suggested order from the study on first year university students:
11,4,10,12,14,15,16,17,19,13,18,21,20,23,22,25,26,24,27,30,28,31,29,32,33,34,35,36
From the australian study similar rearranging is found although somewhat different. So if a problem is difficult or not depends very much on which group it was used. I myself completed problem 28 easily but not problem 30.
Even though higher number generally corresponds to more difficult problems it is still clear that it is not perfectly linear, it also shows that 12 problems choosen correctly correlates very high with the full time test.
In any case I strongly suggest people reading the articles especially those that investigates WM/RAPM, since I think they are very good and interesting.
Pontus Granström
6,1,11,2,9,3,4,7,10,5,8,14,15,12,16,21,19,17,13,18,20,23,22,24,25,27,26,30,31,28,29,32,34,33,35,36.
As you can see they even dropped some questions in the first study I posted results from. While it's clear that this study consider both 30,31 being harder than 28 but only 30 in the first study and so on. Quite interesting!
jttoto
point of yours.
If WM memory predicted success better than IQ it would do little to
improve my ego, since I tend to do well on both. My main point is
that perhaps a simple memory test can predict success better than a
more complicated IQ test, but my intention was never to invalidate
IQ.
Even then, I am also against the assertion that somehow if we improve
WM we will improve every aspect of intelligence, as some have implied
on this forum. It partially boils down to people wanting a quick fix,
like n-back improving their social skills, long-term memory, episodic
memory, articulation, and so on. I think there is more going on with
intelligence that can't be reduced to WM.
On Dec 26, 1:18 am, milestones <wgweathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At least one study shows that academic success correlates more
> > strongly with WM than IQ. We should be looking giving more emphasis
> > on the former than the latter, no?http://tracyalloway.com/index.php/working-memory/working-memory-is-mo...
>
> It depends how you define "IQ." IQ is not traditionally defined by
> fluid intelligence alone. Those on the web selling brain training
> products obviously will emphasize fluid IQ as the raw potential that
> differentiates ability between individuals. Yet it's just one facet of
> IQ. Here, I'd say the media and brain training industry are not
> necessarily misrepresenting facts, but they are (on purpose) not
> providing complete information/explanations on the matter. The topic
> of "IQ" is no different than how journalists are handling any other
> story. The facts must squeeze themselves into the headline and ergo
> people are often misled by the smoke and mirrors that draw them in. So
> some
> background knowledge (domain specific) on the part of the reader is
> required for any intelligent dissection of the presented assertions.
>
> "Working memory more important than IQ!"
>
> -- I've also seen laughable headlines such as:
>
> "Executive functions -- the new IQ!?"
>
> Or here's another one: "Hidden Smarts: Abstract thought trumps IQ in
> autism!" ---http://www.autism-pdd.net/testdump/test17590.htm
jttoto
sleep. I mean, c'mon. I too would love it if a simple game can
improve every aspect of my life. But so far it is all chalked up to
wishful thinking. I'm just waiting for someone to post that n-backing
could cure cancer.
milestones
that EF
> explains to larger degree performance in school than your score on an
> abstract reasoning test like ravens, as you've seen in my earlier post:
> beyond IQ.
> That is if someone wants it child to perform better in school especially
> during the early years it might be wise to strengthen the EF and WM
> capability. (an Increase in IQ that accompanies it, is something he/she has
> to live with).
That's right. I suppose, though, the problem I have with the dichotomy
of "executive function" versus "IQ" is that IQ itself seems to be
built upon executive functions such as mental speed and working
memory. What processes accounts for "abstract reasoning" if not
working memory and processing speed? I Would argue that, along with
"fluid" aspects such as mental speed and wm, inductive and deductive
reasoning are crystallized abilities that help contribute to what is
considered "fluid" intelligence. In other words, I'm arguing that
learning the rules of logic is essentially a crystallized activity
that helps one see correlates between items. Thus, there is no such
thing as fluid intelligence as a measure of pure reasoning. Fluid
intelligence, as I see it, is executive functions plus crystallized
intelligence related to rules of logical relations. That is, there is
no such thing as natural "reasoning ability." Obviously, reasoning
ability differs between individuals. What constrains one's ability is
WM and speed of information processing. In some cases, though, it is
merely lack of education about how logic works that causes one to
underperform below one's potential. This can be rectified; in some
cases, vastly so. True "fluid" intelligence imo is a matter of
"executive functions." A test like the Raven's is going to tap visual
mental speed and wm (EF's), but it will also tap learned crystallized
abilities from previous pattern recognition activities one has engaged
in. Those who have built up a
proper understanding of how items relate to one another and how rules
operate will likely perform better than someone who has not paid
attention to such things. My contention is that this "attention" paid
to figuring such things out is based largely on WM. However, the
experience of figuring things out successfully is a habit that is
learned and becomes crystallized. Obviously, the faster one's mental
speed, the quicker they'll be able to move on and learn new things.
Strangely enough, elementary cognitive tasks of executive functions,
when taken together as a battery, have the same G loading as a
standard IQ test, which is why "IQ" is so difficult to define: it is
not problem solving, or memory, any one thing. My aim is not to
subvert the notion of "fluid intelligence" as it is commonly defined
by matrix reasoning or analogy tests, but I think it's misleading to
think of fluid intelligence as something apart from EF and
crystallized intelligence. In my view, it's a hybrid.
Pontus Granström
Article the nature of psychometric g unitary process or a number of independent processes.pdf
As for the improvements people feel, like better sleep, more emotional stability (like myself) and other things could in many cases be true. Take the example of jogging and all it's benefits to sleep and emotional stability (stress reductions etc). The ability to have a sharp focus and feel centered might very well lead for some people to effects within other areas, or that they perhaps feel thinks going easier reduces stress and therefore they sleep better. Someone here mentioned theta brainwaves during memory training which is a kind "sleepiness". It is also known that theta brainwaves are higher in children and therefore they for example have a ability to learn new languages. The digit span score is highly statistiscally linked to the ability to learn new languages and so on.
Researchers know that WM,speed (also an article in the files section) and gf are connected, all require AC. Is this really so surprising since G is supposed to explain a covariance between "different" tests. AC/WM might in fact be a common network/process that all these functions demands. Would it be so strange?
Pontus Granström
jttoto
true, but so far there is no evidence outside of anecdotes. The
connection between WM and sleep is tricky (insomniacs perform just as
well on WM tasks as controls), and there is no reason to suggest that
improving WM will improve sleep. ( I'm open to the idea, considering
I'm a sufferer of insomnia myself. But lets see harder evidence
please.)
Again, showing correlations between A and B doesn't prove that
improving A will improve B. A moderate correlation between emotional
stability and WM in the general population, that doesn't mean the two
share a direct relation. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Here
is an example, some people with a certain gene will have increased WM,
but also increased level of anxiety. If a majority of the population
carried this gene, we could easily say that increased WM equals
increased anxiety, and a correlation will exist. Of course this isn't
the case. This is why you have to be careful when looking at
correlations. Don't automatically assume the two are related.
If we wanted to see that improving WM will improve emotional
stability, we will need a study showing that WM training improves
mood. It will also need to control for the placebo effect, which has
a strong effect on mood already. (wishing something will improve mood
will improve mood, such as sham acupuncture, a sugar pill, or maybe n-
back...)
On Dec 27, 6:16 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you and this is also discussed in an article I've uploaded,
> that discuss wheter G is unitary or a sum of different processes. If G was a
> single process then you would either have it or not, it would be hard to say
> that someone has "more G" than another for example. What I wanted to point
> out that supports your claim that analytical intelligence is something
> cultural and not something that monotonical increases is that different
> groups although scoring the same average get different answering percentages
> on the questions, sometimes with huge differences. So there might indeed be
> a culture (crystallized factor) involved. I myself have taken 6 Gf tests
> with ranges from 115-150. Numbers and mathematical connections seems easier
> to me than visual problems like ravens and bongard, visual reasoning with 2
> kinds of objects fall exactly in between. 115-130-150.Which made me question
> the "more g" statement. The highest g-load according to the manual has
> number series with 0.01 units. Bongard etc loads a bit higher on the visual
> factor so does RAPM.
>
> Article the nature of psychometric g unitary process or a number of
> independent processes.pdf<http://brain-training.googlegroups.com/web/the+nature+of+psychometric...>
>
> As for the improvements people feel, like better sleep, more emotional
> stability (like myself) and other things could in many cases be true. Take
> the example of jogging and all it's benefits to sleep and emotional
> stability (stress reductions etc). The ability to have a sharp focus and
> feel centered might very well lead for some people to effects within other
> areas, or that they perhaps feel thinks going easier reduces stress and
> therefore they sleep better. Someone here mentioned theta brainwaves during
> memory training which is a kind "sleepiness". It is also known that theta
> brainwaves are higher in children and therefore they for example have a
> ability to learn new languages. The digit span score is highly
> statistiscally linked to the ability to learn new languages and so on.
>
> Researchers know that WM,speed (also an article in the files section) and gf
> are connected, all require AC. Is this really so surprising since G is
> supposed to explain a covariance between "different" tests. AC/WM might in
> fact be a common network/process that all these functions demands. Would it
> be so strange?
>
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
jttoto
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/10/the.genetics.fear.study.suggests.specific.genetic.variations.contribute.anxiety.disorders
Pontus Granström
Having a single gene that boosts WM seems unlikley but might be true. Take the example of the mutation that caused a jawbone to drop, this with increase of omega-3 oils made the brain grow. Omega-3 increases mental speed, mental speed is correlated with IQ.So it might be a lack of gene rather than the existence of one that causes something. As I've also stated I am not saying the dual-n-back is a miracle cure for all kind of mental problems. Just saying that for some people it might make a difference.
Just like a simple thing like raising your pulse due to training on treadmill will boost your focus and make you sleep better doesnt mean that running by itself has anything to do with neither focus or sleep but rather in an indirect way.
I myself believe that genetics have a very little impact on brain performance once a fully developed brain is in place.
/Pontus
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Pontus Granström
jttoto
post. I was using an example to show a what-if scenario if the
majority of the population carried traits that both high WM and high
anxiety. In this case, there is a correlation between high WM and high
anxiety, but that doesn't prove one causes the other.
And the running analogy is not related to 'correlation isn't
causation'. Running indirectly helps a variety of traits. What I'm
saying is that there is no evidence that n-back improves sleep or
emotional stability, directly or indirectly.
On Dec 27, 8:52 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all genes do not contribute to traits in a direct manner but rather
> indirect due the protein it creates.
> Having a single gene that boosts WM seems unlikley but might be true. Take
> the example of the mutation that caused a jawbone to drop, this with
> increase of omega-3 oils made the brain grow. Omega-3 increases mental
> speed, mental speed is correlated with IQ.So it might be a lack of gene
> rather than the existence of one that causes something. As I've also stated
> I am not saying the dual-n-back is a miracle cure for all kind of mental
> problems. Just saying that for some people it might make a difference.
> Just like a simple thing like raising your pulse due to training on
> treadmill will boost your focus and make you sleep better doesnt mean that
> running by itself has anything to do with neither focus or sleep but rather
> in an indirect way.
>
> I myself believe that genetics have a very little impact on brain
> performance once a fully developed brain is in place.
>
> /Pontus
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
> > I apologize. I forgot to type my source for the post above.
>
> >http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/10/the.genetics.fear.study.s...
> > <brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
>
> > --
>
> > 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<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options,
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
If people sleep better from hey that is good, no matter the reason :)
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
polar
dnb helps slightly with sleep and mood, just like exercise does - at
least it makes you more tired, in a good sense of word.
On 27. Dec., 15:11 h., Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern
> thinking.pdf<http://brain-training.googlegroups.com/web/working+memory%2C+its+exec...>
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > First of all genes do not contribute to traits in a direct manner but
> > rather indirect due the protein it creates.
> > Having a single gene that boosts WM seems unlikley but might be true. Take
> > the example of the mutation that caused a jawbone to drop, this with
> > increase of omega-3 oils made the brain grow. Omega-3 increases mental
> > speed, mental speed is correlated with IQ.So it might be a lack of gene
> > rather than the existence of one that causes something. As I've also stated
> > I am not saying the dual-n-back is a miracle cure for all kind of mental
> > problems. Just saying that for some people it might make a difference.
> > Just like a simple thing like raising your pulse due to training on
> > treadmill will boost your focus and make you sleep better doesnt mean that
> > running by itself has anything to do with neither focus or sleep but rather
> > in an indirect way.
>
> > I myself believe that genetics have a very little impact on brain
> > performance once a fully developed brain is in place.
>
> > /Pontus
>
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM, jttoto <jtdem...@uncc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> I apologize. I forgot to type my source for the post above.
>
> >>http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/10/the.genetics.fear.study.s...
> ...
>
> ďalšie informácie >>
jttoto
coexist (especially among the creative population) makes me question
if WM even helps control emotion at all.
A study of high WM memory students show that WM drops to the level of
low WM students when taking a high-pressure test. If WM directly
helps mood, WM in this situation would lower emotion, not succumb to
emotion.
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
jttoto
if it does help it would have to be a mild effect. There are plenty
of people who are both neurotic and have a high WM. Obviously their
WM isn't helping them out much.
A more proven alternative for lack of sleep, one that has been studied
for years with placebo-controlled studies, is CBT. It works better
than Ambien, and you aren't running the risk of wasting your time on
something that might work. (but probably doesn't)
On Dec 28, 10:40 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well WM training helps you control your attention which might enable you to
> control your emotions. But that's just speculation. It could also be
> dopamine release when accomplishing a difficult level or whatever. Since the
> brain tend to reward positive things with dopamine releases. Everything we
> do depend on dopamine basically.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
frontal and temporal dopamine release during working memory and attention tasks in healthy humans.pdf
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
the correlation between striatal dopamine D2,D3 receptor availability and verbal intelligence quotient in healthy volunteers.pdf
Pontus Granström
polar
exactly the point that reminds me as we debated the dopamine-
schizophernia article ( http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/msg/7aed45252941a7db
), and correlates actually with the ADHD treatments too. DNB (strong
attention / WM tasks respectively) changes dopamine balance slightly.
We can hypotetize that when this is continuing (like antidepressant
treatments), maybe slight structural changes follow too, which could
account for persistent gains.
Many neurotransmitters when in excess can produce
"happiness" (serotonine, endorphine etc.), but dopamine is related to
good feelings too (just watch the movie "awakening" :), and plays a
role in dependency (in good ones too, like running or dnb ;). And
"clearer" thinking, good motivation etc. experienced by DNB trainees
at the beginning would be very appropiate for this dopamine thing. As
it would be mild mood disturbation when you stop at once.
On 28. Dec., 22:02 h., Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Increasing dopamine leads to an improvement in mood and better memory ;)
> Just wanted to point that out to those who do not know about the effects of
> dopamine. Although it is far too simplistic to call dopamine a "happines
> chemical" but it what it leads among other things.
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > This one is really interesting havent read it either though.
>
> > the correlation between striatal dopamine D2,D3 receptor availability and
> > verbal intelligence quotient in healthy volunteers.pdf<http://brain-training.googlegroups.com/web/the+correlation+between+st...>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Well true! WM and anxiety is probaly independent of each other. Here's an
> >> article on the dopamine stuff havent read it though. It is in the files
> >> seconds since 20 seconds ago.
>
> >> frontal and temporal dopamine release during working memory and attention
> >> tasks in healthy humans.pdf<http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/web/frontal%20and%20tem...>
> ...
>
> ďalšie informácie >>
Pontus Granström
mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance.pdf
jttoto
I believe the article focuses on math anxiety, so it is no surprise
that those who do poor at math (low WM) will experience more
frustration during a math test. (and even then the correlations were
not terribly strong, which still suggests other factors at play) I'm
talking about everyday, persistent, and pervasive anxiety outside of
performance, like those experienced with neurosis, OCD,
schizophrenics, insomniacs, or anxious people in general.
Anywho, giving someone dopamine blockers (antipsychotics) works pretty
well against OCD and schizophrenia. Dopamine is interesting, and is
linked to many positive cognitive functions, but you can have too much
of a good thing. ; )
On Dec 29, 4:56 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also found alot of articles that indeed point to a connection between poor
> working and anxiety explaining upto 50% of the variation. In mathematics
> poor working memory is a very strong reason for anxiety. Read it yourselves.
>
> mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in
> performance.pdf<http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training/web/mathematics%20anxie...>
> ...
>
> read more »
Pontus Granström
By the way general intelligence and memory span evidence for a common neuroanatomic framework.pdf
This article is somewhat more interesting, as well as that working memory is almost exactly predicted by G, to me there seems to be a very strong connection (neuranatomically) between the two and far from being independent of each other like some have suggested (mensa).
Very much like when I do pullups I increase my lats strength but I will see improvement in the biceps area since it also requires biceps strength. No one would question such things in "regular anatomy" but when it comes to brain for some people especially the mensa community it seems totally unrealistic even though they can't really motivate why.
Pontus Granström
Here's another article that suggest that the correlation between WMC and reasoning has been underestimated due to wrong assumptions! The correlation between WMC-G is probaly around 0.80-0.70.
Pontus Granström
Updating things in working memory correlates very strongly with Gf,Gc etc.