I do not think I understand the game, or it is not functional yet, at this point of development.
I have been thinking in how to improve and increase the transfer of the silogismos game; first, I think that the direction idea would, in fact, help improve everyday orientation, and we can have not only indications on a plane, but in multiple floors as well. Robert already did a 3D-n-back. Thinking of this, I have came to the conclusion that there are multiple elements that would help with resembling everyday reasoning. The first one is to be able to have categories in multiple dimensions; we were thinking about position, but this is not the only thing that we can have: we can have older-newer, hotter-colder, bigger-smaller, richer-poorer, etc. Toro is older, hotter, smaller and poorer than chivo. That would be really difficult to follow after a while. I know that it is the same kind of relationship as more-less with other words, but it will force some complex and detailed visualizations, and it will allow us to have elements with multiple characteristics, as we have in real life.
One thing that comes very unnatural about how this game functions is that the relative positions are always the same. For example: if toro is more than chivo, you already know that toro will always be immediately above chivo, and that no other element will ever be in between them; that limits the potential for actualization of the information. You may say: toro is more than chivo. Toro is more than car. And only then: car is more than chivo. That would be harder and more nuanced, I feel that it is a very organic way of increasing the prevalence of 'if' statements, which are present in our day to day life. The more complex and fluid the network of relationships, the better we are approaching a transferable training.
If one researches about everyday reasoning, one sees that some-all statements, like in the syllogimous app (
https://4skinskywalker.github.io/Syllogimous/) are common place, I think that we must find a coherent and organic way of introducing them into our training. I will think about it.
I also think that transfer is a trainable capacity, and that one must put great effort in things like, as Robert do, anticipating to the script in TV shows, or, hopefully, applying deliberately this hard work to their social relationships, work and studying. I see it as the training being 50% of the deal. One must then apply it consciously and with effort!
I find kind of amusing how much harder is Robert's version compared to the original one. It is kind of nuts how much farther we have got. This is some pioneer stuff. I am really enthusiastic with all of this.