Syllogimous v3 - part 2

[Fredo Corleone]

Sorry guys for this new thread but the other one is cluttered and it takes A LOT of time to load for me.
Anyway I just pushed a fix for the issue that Leonardo noticed: the bug was that the conclusion often contained a permutation of a premise or a flipped premise. I realized that it might be an issue as it offers a shortcut on a lot of questions, therefore I enforced the conclusion to only contain indirect relations between subjects of premises.
Give it a try and tell me if you think something is off!
Thanks for you help

[Leonardo]

Thank you, Fredo! 

Last two things I talked about in the previous thread:

- Can you make analogies inside binary?

- Can you put syllogisms inside binary? I would like to combine the relational training with the boolean and the syllogistic one. 

Since I think that binary is the best method, it would be neat to have everything inside of it. If you have analogies inside of binary, you have to keep track of 4 basic relations, 2 meta-relations, and the boolean logic meta-meta-relation over it, for a total of 7; instead of the 3 that you would normally had to take into account. Given that 7 comes closer to the average working memory, I find it more promising than the current limit. 

[Nicholas Wild]

COPIED AND PASTED! Heh and no worries completely understood, good lateral thinking! (if you're wondering about a lateral thinking game, I've already included it in the way that I've shared with you I play with this variant ha).

"Not sure if the "reply to author" option has been working (you'd let me know), thank you again by the way for BEFORE and AFTER hey, I'm enjoying that!

I wanted to inspire your opinion when it comes to getting your perspective on adding an n-back mode to the RR exercise as was achieved with Robert Chalean's version? 

Because I run on a treadmill I would like the option of playing the exercise without having to press any buttons. That's one reason. So an alternative is to adding in an interval presentation where one relational pair is presented every X number of seconds pre-selected in the SETTINGS option. 

Peace out brother!"

Thanks again for your time Fredo!

[Nicholas Wild]

Just relinking this so I have quick access to it in case in the future I don't have it recorded and need it haha - https://4skinskywalker.github.io/Syllogimous-v3/

(what I did with the previous thread that may get "lost" in the future")

[Leonardo]

Oh, Almighty Fredo, don't turn your back against us. Can you at least tell us if you find feasible including syllogisms and analogies inside of binary? 

[Leonardo]

By the way. In the original RaiseYourIQ, the True and False buttons exchanged places randomly. You weren't a fan of this, because you regarded it as noise, but now I believe that we have proof that says otherwise. It is possible that it was a fundamental part of the training: 

Intelligence IS Cognitive Flexibility: Why Multilevel Models of Within-Individual Processes Are Needed to Realise This

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397005/

[Fredo Corleone]

Let's put to the votes!
I vote for not introducing this as I think it's useless: it's not the important part of the RFT.

[Grey Bach]

I propose adding a 3D direction option for those that want to train 3D mental manipulation. So we would have directions like above-north-west or below-east.

[Bo T]

Guys, I don't mean to dismiss anyone's opinion, but Fredo is obviously the most well read on the topic of RFT within this group. He probably knows what's important and what's useless. My humble opinion is that we should trust his judgement on the matter. 

[Bo T]

Obviously I was not aware of that, I thought Fredo was the mind behind the training since he created the thread and the software for it. You also said that Fredo shouldn't implement a feature if he thinks it's useless, so you also regard him as some sort of an authority on the matter, which was the point of my post.  Despite mentioning that it was just my opinion and that it wasn't meant to dismiss anyone else's, your ego has seemingly taken a hit after which you started citing your credentials. Relax bro. 

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 10:32:16 PM UTC+3 Leonardo wrote:

Are you aware that I have read every single book and paper about RFT and that I do research on RFT with college students and with the foundation for gifted children in which I'm vice president, and that I have a degree in linguistics and I specialized in RFT? 

Do you think that I pull my suggestions out of my ass? 

[Grey Bach]

Lol. I'm not opposed to your idea man. I'm no expert on RFT, but I think that anything we can do to promote holding, shifting through and manipulating multiple layers of representation is probably good. I would also like to play binary with directions and syllogisms myself.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-6 Leonardo wrote:

Are you aware that I have read every single book and paper about RFT and that I do research on RFT with college students and with the foundation for gifted children in which I'm vice president, and that I have a degree in linguistics and I specialized in RFT? 

Do you think that I pull my suggestions out of my ass? 

El lunes, 24 de octubre de 2022 a las 21:17:09 UTC+2, bora...@gmail.com escribió:

[Grey Bach]

Nah, I didn't think it was directed at me, but wasn't completely sure. Oh, great. I didn't see it in the last thread.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:45:01 PM UTC-6 Leonardo wrote:

I think, Greyson, that you misunderstood my comment. It was directed towards the other user, I'm all in with your suggestion, I also suggested the same in the previous thread. 

[Bo T]

So me thinking that Fredo is the most knowledgeable on the subject (albeit falsely , again , it was just an opinion) makes everyone else unknowledgeable goofs? No honest person would infer this nonsense from a relatively polite post. You are not sly , your ego got bruised, just admit it. 

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 11:45:01 PM UTC+3 Leonardo wrote:

I think, Greyson, that you misunderstood my comment. It was directed towards the other user, I'm all in with your suggestion, I also suggested the same in the previous thread. 

El lunes, 24 de octubre de 2022 a las 22:05:23 UTC+2, greysonb...@gmail.com escribió:

[Bo T]

"Discouraging uneducated opinions"

They have a term for that, it's something like elitist gatekeeping. If you're confident in your knowledge you would have just presented the argument instead of getting defensive and bloviating about university degrees (lmao).

I agree, it's in your best interest to end the conversation here because you would get called out again on your nonsense. 

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 12:06 AM Leonardo <pervertid...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not about the ego, it is about trying to discourage uneducated opinions from people who know nothing about the dynamic of this group. Why don't you read the previous thread before coming here disregarding suggestions based on nothing? Have you even read the study I posted? Because it talks about relational reasoning and cognitive flexibility. 

Having said that, I may have overreacted and exaggerated with my words. I tend to do that, I'm very passionate about this matter, as you can see. But, if you don't accept as proof that it is not a question of ego the fact that I use a fake name to obscure my real name, I don't know what else can I show you that would make you change your mind. 

Anyway, I won't stop this pointless conversation here, and I'm only open to discuss the training and its implementations. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/6ba2bd98-bb82-44c9-b26c-15efee225fcan%40googlegroups.com.

[Leonardo]

I don't want to clutter the thread with pointless discussions. I have erased my comments that are off-topic. 

I would like to see syllogisms inside binary and all modes (included syllogisms) converted into analogies inside binary, so we can practice two degrees of meta-relations, which are essential for reasoning.

I would also like to see the True and False buttons switching places, given that, as showed previously, this is related to cognitive flexibility and relational ability. 

The 3D version of directions would be pretty cool if it is possible that can be done.  

Finally, implementing conditional reasoning and NOT modifiers is essential in my opinion, given that the research commonly uses statements like A is not different to B. C is not the same as B. Is A not different to C? 

That is all that I feel that it is interesting going forward, I will abstain for derailing the thread as I use to do. Sorry for that. 

El lunes, 24 de octubre de 2022 a las 22:59:28 UTC+2, bora...@gmail.com escribió:

[Grey Bach]

I'll also throw out the idea of 4+D if you guys haven't already and think it would be worthwhile. It could basically be like ABC is (1,0,-1,1) to DEF. Of course, the player would probably want to rely solely on visual abstraction rather than the mental math of assigning coordinates to each location in their head. I assume it wouldn't be too hard to add, but it's ultimately up to you, Fredo.

[Leonardo]

Yeah, Fredo and I talked about 4D on a phone call some time ago, he is really good at visualizing higher dimensions. I bet that he has really cool ideas about this. 

[Bo T]

I did not know that you are an expert on RFT, so I apologize if my original post sounded dismissive of your knowledge. Disregarding that though, what is the current stance on RFT brain training in academic circles? Is it now established as a legitimate brain training program? (as opposed to dual n back) 

Also I wanted to ask you about the reason you keep training if not for intelligence, since you mentioned that your IQ unchanged. What other gains do you drive from training?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/01334226-b97f-49fa-8708-94135ee04424n%40googlegroups.com.

[CLJACKSON04]

I’m a little late here but I second any concerns about Leonardo and his credentials. He is bad apple in this group-his MO is to try to kiss up and kick down. He puts forth suggestions reflecting his preferences almost weekly- we are now talking about syllogisms in binary. Where is the research on that? But let someone else request a feature and watch him try to browbeat them just for asking.

At this point, this guy needs to leave.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/01334226-b97f-49fa-8708-94135ee04424n%40googlegroups.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CAKeOt2Pig_-47mqsVxBZvPTuh%2B9ZuPH4d9Z4Tw8cqwnd_BU0hA%40mail.gmail.com.

[성문규]

I said this before, but Leonardo you should learn to program and help us understand your viewpoints on optimal brain training, by experience. That way you get what you want, everyone else gets what they want too.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/01334226-b97f-49fa-8708-94135ee04424n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CAKeOt2Pig_-47mqsVxBZvPTuh%2B9ZuPH4d9Z4Tw8cqwnd_BU0hA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CACezZ7O8DgYfgky_DvTOk%2BYZ0ALg13oBxd643866Qc%3DS533cGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Leonardo]

In academic circles, at least here in Spain, we are the only ones trying to advance RFT training and practice. At least to the best of my knowledge. We have 126 gifted college students and around 140 university professors and we are working to implement some of the advances of RAI+; being as a quick procedure to test IQ or as a training to improve cognition. Dual-n-Back and its variants are regarded as completely useless at this point in time. 

Training working memory for two years-No evidence of transfer to intelligence

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35389698/

This was the nail in the coffin for many people here. Nobody wants to touch working memory training anymore after this. 

I don't think that the training in its current state does much to people 3 standard deviations above the mean, that is why I'm always thinking in ways of making it more difficult. I have the hypothesis that neuronal networks are a hardware capable of supporting the execution of a singularity. I would like to test what is the limit. 

I know how to program in assembly and I made a course on parallel processing. I have only educated myself in low-level programming and circuitry. I can build you a rudimentary CPU and an even more rudimentary OS if you give me the resources, I did a course that was similar to NAND to Tetris, but with the purpose of building up an OS capable of executing the tools we needed for low-level programming. This is why we have analogies and Boolean gates in the form of Binary Mode, I became obsessed with gates after that, and I found this:

A Boolean logic view of analogical proportions (a basic form of analogical statements of the form "a is to b as c is to d") has been recently proposed and extended to another logical proportion, namely paralogical proportion (stating that "what a and b have in common, c and d have it also"). When used in combination, these 2 proportions provide an enhanced power to complete IQ tests.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221203575_Analogy-Making_for_Solving_IQ_Tests_A_Logical_View

My suggestion is literally the way of training the thinking that IQ tests measure. I have more research on the other thread that you all can read. 

And, yes, I must learn how to program in JavaScript by myself, yes; so I can finally work on my own and not endure any more insults and aggression here. I have two programmers looking at developing a proprietary software for our foundation, but that is going terribly slow, in part for my own tendency to induce feature creep. 

And I don't kiss up to Fredo nor Robert, I admire them because they are the only two adding something of value to this community. And sometimes Gwern. I remember when we did a WhatsApp group and the rest of the users here were crazy Indians who wrote me daily and cried over how little mental capacities and social success they had. 

All my suggestions are backed up by research, as you can see in the previous thread, where I shared the reason why the combination of Boolean and relational logic was important to IQ and much more. And as you can see here, where I shown the relationship between relational abilities, cognitive flexibility and intelligence. I have brought a lot of research along the years, you just need to take the time to read it before stating that I suggest things without back up or just guided by preference. For example:

Leonardo

3 jun 2022, 20:29:45

Such a development should improve the utility of a relational abilities index in providing a more sensitive and nuanced differentiation of performances, in particular at the higher end of the performance spectrum (Colbert et al., 2017; Gore, Barnes-Holmes, & Murphy, 2010). As such, the Relational Abilities Index+ (RAI+) has been developed for this purpose, and assesses performance across five modules of relational responding (Same/Opposite, More/Less, Same/Different, Before/After, and Analogy) in comparison to the two modules assessed by the original RAI (Same/Opposite and More/Less).

This is the reason why we have Before/After and the reason why I asked for Same/Different in this thread. 

Leonardo

29 ago 2022, 10:42:04

Relational, syllogistic and conditional are the three modes of reasoning. We need to add a conditional option to have a training that encompasses all:

Deduction allows us to draw consequences from previous knowledge. Deductive reasoning can be applied to several types of problem, for example, conditional, syllogistic, and relational. It has been assumed that the same cognitive operations underlie solutions to them all; however, this hypothesis remains to be tested empirically. We used event‐related fMRI, in the same group of subjects, to compare reasoning‐related activity associated with conditional and syllogistic deductive problems. Furthermore, we assessed reasoning‐related activity for the two main stages of deduction, namely encoding of premises and their integration. Encoding syllogistic premises for reasoning was associated with activation of BA 44/45 more than encoding them for literal recall. During integration, left fronto‐lateral cortex (BA 44/45, 6) and basal ganglia activated with both conditional and syllogistic reasoning. Besides that, integration of syllogistic problems additionally was associated with activation of left parietal (BA 7) and left ventro‐lateral frontal cortex (BA 47). This difference suggests a dissociation between conditional and syllogistic reasoning at the integration stage. Our finding indicates that the integration of conditional and syllogistic reasoning is carried out by means of different, but partly overlapping, sets of anatomical regions and by inference, cognitive processes. The involvement of BA 44/45 during both encoding (syllogisms) and premise integration (syllogisms and conditionals) suggests a central role in deductive reasoning for syntactic manipulations and formal/linguistic representations. 

Hum Brain Mapp, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

(A) propositional reasoning problems using logical connectives such as “if…then” (i.e. conditional problems), “either…or” (i.e. disjunctive problems), “and,” “not,” whose logic is best described by propositional calculus; (B) reasoning problems using quantified predicative statements, such as “all X are Y” or “no X are Y,” whose logic is best described by predicate calculus; this sort of problem is typically referred to as an “Aristotelian” or “categorical” syllogism; (C) a large class of relational problems, some involving linguistic and others pictorial premises all of which involve descriptions of extra‐logic relationships between terms (e.g., spatial relationships, temporal relationships, quantities, etc.).

We have either/or, and/not, all/no/some, and extra-logic relationships... But we don't have any if/then, despite it being the most important mechanism in reasoning:

Conditionals and quantifiers are involved in most deductive arguments, both in formal settings and in everyday reasoning. Their importance is mirrored by the interest they have aroused both in logic and in psychology. The use and meaning of “if” is probably the most debated issue in the history of logic [Woods et al., 1997].

This is the reason why I ask about conditional reasoning. I don't guide myself by preference and whim. I dedicate multiple hours a day at researching and studying things related to this. What is the rationale behind other's suggestions? Commonly there isn't any, and that is what I point out. If someone regards this as intellectual gatekeeping; well, it is. Just educate yourself and you will pass the gate. All the research is on this group, you can become educated in this topic if you want, it is just a matter of a little effort. 

“There is a cult of ignorance [...], and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” — Isaac Asimov. 

[Fredo Corleone]

The conversation got heated, calm down! :)

I can introduce 4D with above/below as a new kind of question, and for the buttons to switch position at random.

Any other major feature you can think of won't be introduced in v3, those features will be introduced in Syllogimous v4 which will use some form of modular composition.

[Leonardo]

I got so hyped with your comment, Fredo. You are the best. I can't wait to see what are you working on. Sorry for heating your thread. I will behave.

[Bo T]

I agree with you. DnB now seems like a waste of time. To my knowledge, relational training has been proven to increase scores on all subtests of an IQ test, which includes working memory and processing speed. I found that to be odd mainly because this type of training, on the surface, would seemingly only affect verbal intelligence instead of nonverbal components like WM and PS; which means relational ability is more fundamental than the abilities measured on an IQ test. Do you think that relational ability is synonymous with the G-factor? 

[Leonardo]

If you read the study I posted, you will find that it seems now that the fundamental aspect of intelligence is cognitive flexibility, and by doing relational training we are just exercising our flexibility at assigning values.

the cognitive notion of relational integration extends quite naturally to meaning making from adaptive contingencies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397005/

Apparently intelligence is mainly the ability to adapt to new rules, create new meanings and infer inner workings and systematize on the go. That is why training must be unpredictable and diverse, with constant changes of rules. 

Every time that you are able to assign a value to A, as in "A is bigger than B", you are showing your cognitive flexibility at creating meaning. This also explain why training synesthesia dramatically increases IQ. 

I think that the reason why working memory training is useless despite improving working memory per se[1], which should increase fluid intelligence, but it doesn't, it is because there is no cognitive flexibility involvement, in fact, it is quite the opposite, the training is always the same, so you specialise at it without developing any kind of transfer whatsoever; given that disregarding your cognitive flexibility is advantageous for improving at n-back, you want to reason and think as little as possible as to not interfere with your memory, there is no hope in improving your ability to reason and think by playing n-back. 

I would bet that training working memory in high variable environments that make you exert your cognitive flexibility increases fluid intelligence. The main limitation of training today is how little diverse it is and how it is always governed by a limited and immutable set of rules. 

[1]  We found substantial and reliable training effects on the practiced WM tasks, as well as on a latent WM factor constituted by them. However, no transfer of training effects to fluid or crystallized intelligence were observed. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35389698/

[Bo T]

I see, thanks for the clarification. I have one last question since you seem to be an expert on the subject, is there a particular way that one should train with this program? Are there any strategies that we should avoid while training and are there any that are necessary? I personally use meaningless words mode, where I subvocalize each word using my auditory WM , and place each word in a mental map using visual WM, and I keep refreshing the map in my mind before each update. 

[Leonardo]

I don't know. I have those questions myself. Meaningless words are there to work against visualization, which makes too easy to visualize things on a mental map. Is visualizing the topology the optimum way of doing this training? Should you focus more on the sign of the relations themselves? I don't really know. 

[Fredo Corleone]

I see you guys are disregarding N-back as a way to cultivate intelligence, tell me if I'm mistaken, but I believe N-back can improve one's efficiency in using intelligence, by training attention. Attention tells intelligence what to reason about and gives the limits for how long you can do it.

[Grey Bach]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I am curious what you guys make of the meta-analyses on n-back that find a small but positive effect of wm training on Gf. Aside from methodological concerns, one could certainly argue that any global transfer is simply a product of attention augmentation rather than anything specific to the exercise. While I have my doubts about efficacy, I am still experimenting with quad n-back myself (I tried dual for months a few years ago and the only notable effects I felt were increased attention and verbal fluency).

Also, interesting paper, Leonardo. I have not read it in detail, but plan on doing so. So for training to be transferable it must in a sense always "fool" the intuitions of the trainee? Are there any modes in Brain Workshop you would recommend or would you say they all fall too short of this criterion to be useful for very long? I am also experimenting with synesthesia training, by the way.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 8:30:43 AM UTC-6 robert...@gmail.com wrote:

I am using my read NBAack app for a month I am much better I was no energy for study guitar now a study guitar 2 hour a day since 3 weeks no more intelligent but more focus with less effort not all is augment iq

[Leonardo]

I have been training with pentuple-n-back with the variable mode activated. Variable is at least something that requires some flexibility, but I don't think that it is enough. I have also been training at the 3D versions of Fredo, switching between Brain Workshop and the different 3D versions in order to maximize variability, mainly v0 and v2, which allows 9-n-back (never went beyond 2). I don't think that this has made me any smarter, but I seem to have better memory and perhaps better ability to mentally rotate. All of this may just be placebo, though. 

[Leonardo]

Would it be possible to put premises inside one window and conclusion inside another? It gets really difficult to use beyond 8 premises or so, and the scroll bar and mouse wheel are unreliable for reasons unknown. 

[Leonardo]

One must admit that, if this training was enough to increase IQ, I would be Christopher Langan right now. 

[Bo T]

Leo, your progress on Syllogimous is amazing. You said earlier that you had taken the WAIS in the past, can you remember your WMI and PSI scores? If you do, would you mind taking a 10 minute test so we can compare before and after training? 

[Leonardo]

Sorry, I don't remember them. I may ask for the results, but it was almost a decade ago. It is probably lost by now. The other reference I have is a 137 in WISC when I was 7 years old or so. Nothing too spectacular back then, but it allowed me to skip a grade. 

[Leonardo]

You can see that it was not a fluke. I very rarely fail. I don't find this training particularly hard, it is more inconvenient than anything; by that I mean that the main difficulty comes from navigating the app and reading carefully to distinguish and locate words. I would rate the relational component as a 2 out of 10 in terms of difficulty. That is the reason why I'm always asking for more, I don't think that this can do much to people who already score high on IQ tests. 

[Grey Bach]

If you use it, how long do you set the timer for? Just 30 seconds?

[Leonardo]

I don't use the timer because, as I commented in the previous thread, it works really bad for me. It keeps counting when the RIGHT or WRONG message is on display and makes me fail unjustly. This and an issue I have with double clicks are the cause of +90% of my mistakes. The rest is just me being tired and reading something incorrectly, lol.

[Bo T]

To Leo: 

I would appreciate it if you can take these two short tests (WM and PS), and report back your scores. You're a veteran in relational training, that's why i'm interested in seeing how well you score.

WM : https://wais-iv-digit-span-00667a.netlify.app/

PS : https://wais-iv-symbol-search-f568d4.netlify.app/

[Leonardo]

Also, another issue with the timer is that directions take much longer than any other mode, at least for me. They are the hardest relation in my experience. Syllogisms are also harder than the rest, but I only play binary, because I don't want 10 premise syllogisms randomly appearing while I play binary, that was why I wanted them included inside binary. And the general easiness of everything is why I asked for an additional layer of analogy. 

[Leonardo]

Apparently, my IQ is not high enough to even make the test play. 

It doesn't work on any of my browsers. 

[Grey Bach]

Yeah, I too feel I need more challenging training. That's why I would like to see 3+D.

[Bo T]

That is odd. It works normal on my end. 

https://www.memorylosstest.com/corsi-block-tapping-test/

This one will do as well. It is a visual working memory test. It has forward and backward modes. In both modes, start at level 3 and go up from there. do each level twice correctly before moving up a level. if you fail the same level twice, then your score is the one before it. for example: if you reach 7 but fail it twice, then your score would be 6. Please report both your forward and backward scores.

[Leonardo]

You send me really weird things. This also works really bad. It shows some items a second, another items 0.001 second, so I cannot seem them... I reached 10 before getting annoyed. Do you have something that works correctly? 

[Leonardo]

This one works great, I failed twice at 9, but I got a phone call that distracted me: https://new.cognitivefun.net/task/cogfun-27-corsi-forward

[Leonardo]

In reverse I got stuck at 9 too. But I'm in a very noisy environment right now, people are talking over the phone, and I'm tired after working all morning. 

https://new.cognitivefun.net/task/cogfun-28-corsi-reverse

I would do much better in the morning for sure. 

[Leonardo]

Proof of me doing 8 without issues:

[Bo T]

Amazing scores , Leo!  You're a machine. Your working memory IQ is at least 140, then. Too bad we have no baseline to compare it to in order to determine the efficacy of Syllogimous. 

[Leonardo]

I got 17 in this one, which is a little different: https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/sequence

I failed because someone drop something and I got startled and I miss-clicked. 

The ones from CognitiveFun are very difficult because my monitor is giant and I have a hard time at watching everything at once. I prefer the one from HumanBenchmark. 

[Leonardo]

I begun the Chimp Test, but I saw what the scores were and I got demotivated before failing. How smart is people online? Do they cheat or there are plenty of geniuses out there? 

https://humanbenchmark.com/tests/chimp

I thought that the average for humans was something like 7 or so. But the average at this website is around 10. 

[Leonardo]

This is already making my head hurt, and look how far I am from the top ones:

Either people cheat, or I'm an idiot. 

[Leonardo]

This is stroke inducing material.

[Leonardo]

I cleared 9 at Corsi after giving up on the Chimp test. 

[Bo T]

Your scores are astronomical, but the statistics are heavily skewed on Humanbenchmark because people who use it train for months on end to get better scores. That's why the distribution isn't normal. 

[Bo T]

Do you think that your working memory was always this high or would you say that training has contributed to it? 

[Leonardo]

I was able to make the symbol test work on my PC, as you can see, my monitor is way to big to play this comfortably. I think that I would have done much better on a display not as big. I'm somewhat disappointed at my performance. 

[Leonardo]

Seeing my scores, I firmly believe now that I have not increase my IQ in the sightless since I got tested 8 or 9 years ago. It is very disappointing, I have experienced the slow decline that one can expect. I have not improved despite training very hard. 

[Bo T]

How so? You maxed out working memory and near maxed out processing speed. What are you using as a reference point? 

Btw, you can use this website to test your full-scale IQ. It has two tests, a verbal IQ test consisting of sentence completion, and non verbal IQ test consisting of patterns. If your FSIQ is the same as it was when it was first tested, then we can say that Syllogimous is not effective.

http://antjuanfinch.com/pdit

[Leonardo]

My issue with those kinds of tests is that English is not my first language, and I think that this can tank my performance. 

[Bo T]

It's fine, you can do the fluid intelligence test only. each of the tests has its own independent scoring.

[Leonardo]

Well, I will try at some point. I have wasted a lot of time today already. On the bright side, processing speed seems to be particularly maleable:

 For participants who attended all 10 initial training sessions and all 8 booster training sessions, a predicted improvement of 2.50 standard deviations is indicated [(10 × -1.72/10) + (8 × -0.98/10)].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3947605/

[Grey Bach]

Any suggestions on programs to use to improve processing speed?

[Leonardo]

Action videogames, maybe? 

I seem to do much better at this one.

https://new.cognitivefun.net/task/cogfun-19-differentiation-task

I'm still not satisfy with my ability to remember numbers. 

https://new.cognitivefun.net/task/cogfun-07-digit-span

I have wasted all day testing myself. 

[Grey Bach]

I was thinking speed combination n-back or something involving a lot of quick manipulation.

[Leonardo]

Oh, I'm sick with influenza or something, I have fever. That explain at least the headaches. 

[Leonardo]

I tried again this morning, as I said I would; well rested and in silence. I don't know if doing it twice is cheating or not. But this score is closer to my last IQ score (which was 143).

[Leonardo]

I still have a little bit of fever. I don't know how that can impact cognitive functioning. 

[Bo T]

Sad to hear. Get better soon, Leo. Regarding your test results, I suggest you take the fluid intelligence test I sent you whenever you  fully recover from your ailment. Given your progress on syllogimous, and if the training indeed increases intelligence, then you should be able to hit the ceiling on it (145). If not, then syllogimous doesn't increase intelligence.

[Leonardo]

I will when I recover a little. I think that it would be really interesting if everyone of us do the tests, so we can have a baseline. 

[Bo T]

That's a good idea. Maybe we can make a new thread for that. 

[Grey Bach]

I recommend taking the tri 52. It has a correlation of 0.77 with the WAIS and 0.88 with the matrix reasoning subtest in the WAIS. I took this, digit span and symbol search a few months ago to use as baselines for fluid reasoning, processing speed and working memory. I plan on waiting probably at least 18 months to take each again to rule out any sort of practice effect. My baselines were 140 tri 52, 143+ digit span and 105 symbol search. I am currently using quad n-back, Syllogimous v3 and synesthesia training. I am also making lifestyle modifications.

[Grey Bach]

The tri 52 is also nice because it has a ceiling in the mid 160s I believe.

[Grey Bach]

Also, for anyone that hasn't seen it:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Assessing-the-Efficacy-of-a-Relational-Skills-in-a-Colbert/2dc56588d5c1fb0f84da78017bfff90933e54a83

[Leonardo]

Basically, this shows that an easy training is completely ineffective for people with high IQ. 

The first study failed to find a significant effect for the training program for Full, Verbal or Performance IQ.   

They only found some correlation in the second study, which just further analyzed (and tweaked, so they had something to publish) the data with no training involved: 

  All participant WAIS and RAI data collected as part of Study 1 was repurposed in the current study to allow a correlational analysis of IQ, RAI and a collection of related statistics (age, number of incorrect responses, training duration etc.)  

This shows that if we don't make the training harder, doing this is a complete waste of time. 

[Leonardo]

My issue with tests like the Tri52 is that I always have multiple equally reasonable answers for any question. For example:

1. Combine the two forms with the same shape. 

2a. The line must not overlap the inside shape. Ergo, answer is 2.

2b. The line must not overlap any circle. Ergo the answer is 4. 

Without more examples is just not possible to infer the correct rules. 

[Leonardo]

When you get tested by a psychologist, you get to explain your answers, and will be considered correct if the logic is completely sound, even if they are not the official ones. 

[Leonardo]

Man, I'm up to question 30, but this TRI52 thing is so poorly designed that not even the cheap puzzle games on Steam are so poorly executed. There is no single question in which the logic doesn't allow for at least three different options. 

I truly can't believe that this is standardised in any way or developed by any serious organism. 

[CLJACKSON04]

Depends on the test. No so on WAIS-IV

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/0352d76f-bdf3-41aa-be7e-d760fffa0165n%40googlegroups.com.

[Leonardo]

I have been unable to find any serious research in which TRI52 or JCTI is used. The only information is the one written by the author of the test, and he deleted it, you can only access to it through Wayback Machine. Don't waste your time with this test. It is really poorly designed. I got up to 36 before quitting due to the reiterative and vague nature of the questions: this is truly an example on how not to design a test. 

[Bo T]

TRI-52 is a good fluid intelligence test, but as Leo already have noted, it tends to deflate scores due to the vague nature of some questions. 

Would you guys like me to post two similar fluid intelligence tests, which are validated and have clear logic for their questions? They are both dominoes tests, with example questions that will give you an idea of the nature of the questions. One of them is a shorter version of the other, but I can attest that they will produce similar results because I scored 137 on both of them. We can use the short version to produce a baseline, and keep the longer version for later if we want to compare scores. The short version can measure up to an IQ of 148, while the longer version can measure up to 160. 

[Leonardo]

Yeah, post that one. 

[Grey Bach]

Wouldn't vague questions be vague for everyone? Even if it is deflated, I'm fine with that (more motivation to brain train). I'll just take it again after I have had long enough to forget the questions. I'm also using academic achievement tests to track my progress as well. You guys use any test you'd like though. You guys should also list any method you are using besides Syllogimous.

[Bo T]

Ok , I will post both with relevant details in about an hour or so. 

[Bo T]

For both tests, have a paper and pencil, and a timer. number the paper for however many questions there are in the test you want to take.
for example, TIG-1 has 35 questions, number the paper 1 to 35 so you don't waste time during the test writing down each question number.

also, record each answer in the format x-y, where x is the top portion of the domino, and y is the bottom portion.



First test : (Use this test to establish your IQ before the brain training program you want to do)
 
TIG-1 (short version, measures up to 149 IQ)
time limit : 15 mins , 35 questions.

First page (Ejemplos) are examples so you understand how questions are structured.

Answer key and scoring table in the pdf file. Answer key is a bit weird in ordering but you will figure it out.
check how many right answers you got, and use the scoring table to see the corresponding IQ.

test :https://pdfhost.io/v/C9xj89nFl_TIG1_15_min



Second test : (Use this test to check if the brain training program you finished has increased your IQ)

TIG-2 (longer version, measures up to 160 IQ)
time limit : 30 minutes , 50 questions

also contains examples on first page.
The answer key is in a separate file for this one, check it and see how many right answers you got.
No immediate scoring table for this one, use the below formula.

Scoring formula : ((number of right answers you got - 23.49)/6.63)x15 + 100
This will give you your IQ.  

test : https://pdfhost.io/v/SjJLectOU_137492130CuadernillodeaplicacionTIG2pdfpdf.pdf
answers : https://pdfhost.io/v/KGs.5CO73_TIG2gabapdf.pdf



credits to the cognitive testing subreddit, r/cognitivetesting , both tests are available there but I wanted to make it convenient for you guys.

[Bo T]

So, how did you score Leo? 

[Leonardo]

I'm too sick to concentrate. I have not even opened the link. 

[Bo T]

My apologies. Wishing you a speedy recovery, take good care of yourself leo. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/c639a6df-7d79-4102-b6aa-683b9a8498c9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Leonardo]

No need to apology. This fucking influenza, or CoViD, or whatever, has fucking obliterated my brain for a few days. How intense have been the headaches, man. 

[Fredo Corleone]

Just introduced negation in multiple classes of questions. ;)

[Granny Norma]

Hello,

I have tried out the new negation feature for a brief moment on Distinction mode. These were the statements I was given,
"SAQ is the same as VIP

NEF is not the opposite of SAQ

Conclusion:

NEF is the same as VIP."

I am quite sure this is false, but according to Syllogimous V3, it is true. Just because A is not opposite to B, does not mean A is the same as B. Oppositeness is just one type of difference,
ruling it out does not rule out all types of differences. Therefore, unless my logic here is proven wrong, please fix this glitch.
Also, one feature that I would like to see is sound feedback like in RYIQ.com. May you please consider adding this as a feature? 

[Fredo Corleone]

Uhio, that seems a bug xD Let me fix! Thanks for the feedback

[Leonardo]

Not works for same-different. Is not the same, is not different. For the rest, I think that you may just change "not" for "opposite" and called it done.

CAJ is the opposite of the same of GON.

GON is the opposite of the opposite of NUK.

Is NUK the same as CAJ?

[Fredo Corleone]

SameDifferent or sameOpposite, which class doesn't work?

In the game they are different things

[Leonardo]

That sounds a bit idiotic, now that I stop to think about it. Maybe it is better like this:

The opposite of CAJ is the same as GON.

The opposite of GON is the opposite of NUK.

Is NUK the same as CAJ?

False, because GON = NUK and CAJ is the opposite of GON. 

This is the way, I believe. 

[Fredo Corleone]

I followed suggestions and re-implemented negation.

Tell me if you find any issue.

Do you guys want negation as a setting or it's fine to always have the chance of getting negation?