127 scientists challenge the purported brain training “consensus” released by the Stanford Center for Longevity

[Payman Saghafi]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/12/prweb12401341.htm

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Don't worry to much about the Stanford Center for Longevity.  Who even heard of this place before they decided to form a consensus of themselves?  There' also a professor who's made a career out of proving Oswald did it, at least to himself and anyone who cares to read his web page.   

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 1:36:42 PM UTC-8, Payman Saghafi wrote:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/12/prweb12401341.htm

[Jessica]

Wake up.

There are people in the world who literally don't want others to get smarter. This isn't an intellectual argument that's been had regarding human enhancement & its limitations, rather, its on the level of values and preferences. 

Although simplistic, human life is made up of slaves and masters. 

The beauty of the sophistication in the camouflage of this in the modern age has reached a point that the slaves don't know they're slaves, further, little do they know but most of the masters are actually slaves too. Real human liberation. Freedom from your own mind, the generational and seasonal prisons that have been put in place and will continue to be placed on one's lenses, takes dedication and hard work. Which is in part why slaves will remain slaves and masters will continue to want to delude themselves into believing their title because they can't face the harsh realities of life, so they submit themselves to the slavery of mastery in the minutia of life. 

The real people who move the gears. They don't want people to get smarter because then you'll no longer be a gear, you'll be a gear maker.

This message won't likely reach many people. Your lenses will either see the reality and then pretend it doesn't exist or pass it off as if I'm some loon supporting some unsubstantiated idea that "it's the illuminati, government control, yada, yada", thus something you should ignore. Both are forms of not facing reality, the reality that it is indeed possible that there are strings pulled to detract large populations of people from believing in and wanting to improve their intellectual faculties through 'brain training'. 

Any wonder why there hasn't been a major push towards creating the best possible games to test the hypothesis? 

There's an inordinate amount of money to be made. However if its successful it means that there's also an inordinate amount of change that could indeed arise as a result of the walking dead waking up from their unconsciousness.

Human progress, not science, advances one funeral at a time.

[Josh]

Interesting.  I aways figured every social ecosystem had " positions" that needed to be filled.  Human need for archetypes and the addition of group dynamics etc. even in a room full of people who are not controlling and assertive.  Someone will assume control eventually .. Then the lucifer effect kicks in .. Long story short.. End of story lol 

Sent from my iPhone

--
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 post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jessica]

The lucifer effect depends on the values, principles and discipline of the individual. We can all become God's (not Lucifers) over ourselves though with hard work. Learning from past people (Aristotle; Socrates; Plato; Marcus Aurelius; and many, many others).

We want to escape responsibility because we are deeply afraid of having a self of our own. Its not an abstract responsibility that we find threatening, but rather the responsibility to realise ourselves. It's too hard for most people to learn how to escape cognitive bias', become their own independent critical thinker. Most are fish in a fish bowl simply waiting for their master to give them food (i.e. they need a "it's in folks without a doubt, brain training works!!!!"... But of course most will only seek to stick to the brain training of the paradigm built, they couldn't possibly fathom the idea of coming up with activities on their own, let alone realize the fact that they can exercise their faculties without the use of gluing their eyes to screen, "Ohhh no" they say, "My master hasn't given me that food yet"). It's a sick learned helplessness that the majority of the human species has. Until humans have built a system that's devoid of corruption and misled agendas I don't know how anyone can trust consensus to the level that folk do without first hand experience.

"There is scarcely any neurosis in which the tendency to get rid of the self does not appear in direct form. It may appear in fantasies (i.e. dreams) of leaving home or becoming a derelict or of losing one’s identity. The tendency is present in wishes to be hypnotised in an inclination towards mysticism in feelings of unreality. In an inordinate need for sleep, in the lure of sickness, insanity or death. In masochistic fantasies, the common denominator of feeling of being putty in the masters hands. Of being devoid of will of all power, of being absolutely subjected to another’s domination." Karen Horney

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” Gustave Le Bon,

On the Contrary: Essays by Men and Women:

"Freedom is the last thing he wants. He functions, as we shall see according to the principle of pleasure in non-freedom. To be sentenced to life-long freedom is a worse fate than life-long slavery.

To put it another way: man is always searching for someone or something to enslave him, for only as a slave does he feel secure - and, as a rule, his choice falls on a woman. Who or what is this creature who is responsible for his lowly existence and who, moreover, exploits him in such a way that he only feels safe as her slave, and her slave alone?"

[diff...@yahoo.com]

I would add that this kind of debate is healthy up to a point.  Challenge and defense is what makes peer review work.  I only object to the claim made by the Stanford group that they represent a consensus.  That implies the debate has been settled within the academic community, which is most certainly not the case. 

There are some valid points others have already made, that exaggerated and unfounded claims need to be challenged.  And I do remember reading about a case of an already strapped family of a cognitively disabled child who was induced to spend thousands on a treatment that did not deliver results for them. This however, is not by any means confined to brain training. 

Desperate relatives frequently grasp at straws, believing the best treatment is being withheld from them, and are willing to try experimental drugs and procedures if there is some chance of a miracle.  That brain training is not a miracle cure for something should be emphasized.  That it can and has helped those most in need should also be emphasized. 

Even if it's just three or four IQ points, for someone struggling on the low rungs of society, that can make a difference in their lives.  But it's more likely someone who has been smart all their lives and are losing it that have the resources and the inclination to do the work.  

[Josh Hottes]

"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel." --Loki Laufeyson

[Jessica]

LOKI Cosplay / Avengers Kneel Speech in the REAL stuttgart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJRmdfMlbs

I'll be honest and say I needed the laugh, however its no laughing matter. Millions perish every year around the world due to the masses helplessness, which is a perishing of human actualization in itself. Loki doesn't even need to try once most people reach autopilot. There’s two ways of being eaten, have some beast pursue you and have it grab you in its jaws or alternatively you don’t need to move an inch and you sail right into its jaws of your own free will. Which one is more deadly and demonic, that’s up to you to choose.

[Josh Hottes]

I agree, Its always good to throw some gallows humor around to break up the trance.  

Biases and intuitions are complicated issues.. I read two books recently Power of habit, and thinking fast and slow.  basically we are automatons.. but out of necessity.  To preserve energy 

[Jessica]

Right, so that's a perfectly good reason as to why people should just continue to piss all over the carpet in, because that's what they're used to. Although there's acute irony here, people need to go to military school on how to free their own mind. Limited free will exists in the frontal lobes. It takes energy to do it sure, but so does running away from a crazy ex girl friend who's got a knife and a restraining order (don't ask me how she's the one who was able to obtain it!). It needs to be done, otherwise she gets us all, that's mother nature's alcohol problems (all the stuff we're making her drink) in this case. She ripples her wicked laugh last.

Humor aside, future generations rely on past generations. In saying that we are the product of billions of past people, and those that will come in the future will be the product of us, by virtue of cause and effect.

[[ P.S - I've now uncovered (and will continue to) some humor algorithms to help me deal with all the devastating realities that exist in the world, in saying that I thank you for the heads up ]]

[Josh]

Lol . On the crazy ex-girlfriend scenario .. 

Just remember .. A person is smart and people are crazy 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jessica]

" A person is smart and people are crazy "

This reminds me of the movie, I Am Legend. 

The main character never forgot his duty, no matter how many crazy 'people' there happened to be against him.

I Am Legend - My name is Robert Neville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU7tDawkr2Q

To move elsewhere would be an action of cowardice. 

[Josh Hottes]

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/q-K_Cyxjf8A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Josh Hottes]

oops

[Jessica]

There's a whole lot of malfunctioning crazy going on with our Earth spaceship (i.e. bat shit crazy YouTube advertisements; among other... maybe) but we just need to keep our cool and work to get the job done. If we don't, not only will Earth crash but so will we. It's not about delusional "just think positive", no, see reality for what it is and then take right action.

Houston, We Have a Problem - Apollo 13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAmsi05P9Uw

"it's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.." - Fight Club

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfDVLsBXYcM

[whoisbambam]

While I do not discount self-fulfilling prophecy and all.....it is unlikely brain training significantly increases real-world intelligence or IQ in normal adults, across the board......substantiated by double-blind studies, repeatedly.

That is reality.

It does not mean it cannot be increased (general intelligence or IQ)...or is not being increased....it just seems to me that it has not yet been scientifically substantiated that it more than likely does substantially improve IQ in normal adults.

nor does that mean brain training does not have beneficial effects to some individuals in particular for various reasons.......

[jotaro]

hi jessica i have a question.

can you forget the meaning of the word hello?

if not then why cant you be freed from knowing its meaning?

now why corruption exsists?

in a yes or no world corruption is impossible.7

but in the end of the day there is a third option in our world:

pretend: control and manipulate the information that presented to others to alter their behaviour in your favour.

there is a small subset of people wishing to enslave others.

plus not all people wishing for others to not get smart, only the ones who get something to lose from it, but the established authority wont lose its authority till its death. even if others get smarter. true freedom doesnt exsist

you are no exception jessica.

--

[jotaro]

ah also from seeing other people, most people just dont give a shit about getting more capable brain.

[jotaro]

whoisbambam, that doesnt improve that "intellegence cant be improved"

it just shows that what have been tried until now is not effective.

also i came to terms with the fact that genes do in fact play a big role.

for example i was looking at the news and saw a story about a 14 years old kid who got sat scare 1580 out of 1600 and finished school at this point,

here is a kid who got a huge processing speed.

do you think she did something consciously to get this?

i bet she always had this compared to other kids her age.

[Jessica]

Freedom starts with the mind, no place else. Yes, this means a man can still be freer than any US president in history even if he happens to be locked away in a prison serving a life sentence for trying to assassinate said president. 

Most of the following are not mainstream for a very good reason. In fact, even though I'd move a few key words around: "control and manipulate the information that presented to others to alter their behaviour in your favour" is a very fitting statement here.

Here's a reading list I've found helpful on my own journey so far:

The Kybalion - By The Three Initiates

Approaching The Unconscious - Carl Jung

Nature and Madness (Primitivism) - Paul Shepard

The Myth of Mental Illness - Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.

Holographic universe -  Michael talbot

The Outsider - Colin Wilson

The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner

Art and Physics - Leonard Shlain

The Book: On the taboo against knowing who you are - Allan Watts

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness - Eric Fromm

The Betrayal of the Self: The Fear of Autonomy in Men and Women - Arno Gruen

The Insanity of normality - Arno Gruen

The Alphabet versus the Goddess: The conflict between word and image - Lednard Shlain

The Voice of the Earth: An exploration of ecophyschology - Theyodore Roszak

Freud and Man’s Soul - Bruno Bettelheim 

Civilization and its discontents - Sigmund Freud

[αrgvmziΩ]

So, (2^6 + 2^2) < (2^7 - 2^0). How soon until we see a contradiction to this with (2^8 +/- 2^-2) persons? Any volunteers to be (1 - 2^-2)th or 2^-2th to sign? ;)

argumzio

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Payman Saghafi <payman...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/12/prweb12401341.htm

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

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

[Colin Dickerman]

You could get 127 scientists to say that the sky wasn't blue or that the earth was flat.

[Mercel]

Nobody is in awe of the bodybuilder's strength because his achievements are simply not magical since we know precisely how he got there.

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Really?  Which scientists are those? 

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Do you mean you could, like, post a notice on a science blog?  "Wanted: 127 scientists to say the sky isn't blue or the earth is flat.  Must a.) have take a science course or b.) know a lot about science.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 2:24:47 AM UTC-8, Colin Dickerman wrote:

[Colin Dickerman]

Not exactly. All we would need is to offer strong incentives for scientists to adopt a certain view. When there's something to be gained, you can get scientists to tell you lead gasoline and smoking a pack a day is good for you. 

There's a now large and growing industry for these scientists to make a living off of and that money is going to lead scientists by their noses. We need to know what sort of financial ties these scientists have.

[diff...@yahoo.com]

That's part of why they have tenure.  Tenure means they have jobs for life, plus lifetime pension and benefits if they retire, unless of course they screw up and try to publish research with faked results, or some other unethical behavior.  Tenure insulates them from the kind of bribery you describe.  The other reason for tenure is to insulate them from being fired for publishing poliltically unpopular science, such as the theory of evolution, or that the earth is imperceptibly eliptical.

Tenure doesn't stop them from trying to make money other ways, but the peer review system also keeps them honest.  Peer review means other scientists have to review the papers they submit for publication and and try to find flaws in them.  And it's necessary for them to publish papers both to get tenure in the first place, and then to get grant money.  It's very competitive, so much so that even though sometimes bad research gets through, it happens more often that the best research doesn't get published.  This is because other scientists shoot it down to prevent grant money from flowing to another institution.  That may in fact be what this Stanford group is up to, rather than that 127 scientists are all taking bribes from the National Institute of Health.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 8:20:31 PM UTC-8, Colin Dickerman wrote:

Not exactly. All we would need is to offer strong incentives for scientists to adopt a certain view. When there's something to be gained, you can get scientists to tell you lead gasoline and smoking a pack a day is good for you. 

There's a now large and growing industry for these scientists to make a living off of and that money is going to lead scientists by their noses. We need to know what sort of financial ties these scientists have.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:22:48 AM UTC-8, diff...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Colin Dickerman]

I'm pretty sure tenure only serves to protect the dusty old farts that won't retire or die after the past 20 years of them not giving a shit anymore.

You describe a system that I don't think reflects the complexity of the real world. The real world is one in which scientists publish papers about bigfoot for money. The signers here are described as not only professors, but business owners and doctors and people from around the world. You can go get a doctor to say anything you want, too. 

Follow the money!

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Your statements betray your unfamiliarity with this "complex" world and some amount of hostility.  Without real experience, you invent targets to vent on..

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 1:11:43 AM UTC-8, Colin Dickerman wrote:

I'm pretty sure tenure only serves to protect the dusty old farts that won't retire or die after the past 20 years of them not giving a shit anymore.

You describe a system that I don't think reflects the complexity of the real world. The real world is one in which scientists publish papers about bigfoot for money. The signers here are described as not only professors, but business owners and doctors and people from around the world. You can go get a doctor to say anything you want, too. 

Follow the money!

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:29:02 PM UTC-8, diff...@yahoo.com wrote:

[jotaro]

perhaps brain training works but not so meaningful that its obvious as is the body builder case, its effect is negligible compared to the effort involved.

by the way i am just talking about familiar brain training things we all tried.

as long as humans gonna present things to other humans including behaviour and shit, they are potentially corruptible .

its not have to be money, it can be other things too, like admitting your son to that mothefucking ivy school.

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Payman Saghafi <payman...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did all of you actually read the press release before posting?

 

It seems that a couple of you took my post to mean that the scientists are anti-brain training, which they are not.  The scientists see value in brain training, and don't like the fact that non-scientists have convinced themselves that brain training is completely worthless.

 

 Perhaps brain training works in some cases and not in others?  Perhaps brain training benefits some people and not others?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jotaro]

as with the saying if it looks like a duck and moves, sounds like a duck it must be a duck.

in this case its not its just a deception.

[Colin Dickerman]

It would be great if you could refute anything I said, but it must be so obviously true that you couldn't. Tenure is an antiquated system that protects incompetency and scientists respond to incentives like everyone else does.

[Jessica]

They're not scientists. They're humans that adhere to a kind of thinking method regarding certain matters, such as when they want to find something out. This is obviously to the exception of human social matters. If a human in this context believes that their partner is cheating this is likely to be prompted by intuition first then 'scientific reasoning' to use as a whip to suit their emotional end; so much so is the case when a smart fellow decides he doesn't like someone because they're not comparably intelligent when really in a lot of cases they simply don't like the person for the sake of not liking the person, not because they're not comparably intelligent. It's the case of the dog not liking the cat because it is not dog, not because the cat can't/doesn't/has not thought of burying bones. If only the dog could spend more time studying Jung, then he/she might be able to become more integrated, thus more accepting of (the) cat, even to the end of embracement.  One day when religious dogma (among other things) is thrown in a ship that's sinking to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean we might just begin to start referring to it as 'human reasoning'. A job description is not a part of your DNA, nor should a job subtract from it let alone the humanity of others.

On Friday, December 26, 2014 2:51:55 PM UTC+11, Colin Dickerman wrote:

It would be great if you could refute anything I said, but it must be so obviously true that you couldn't. Tenure is an antiquated system that protects incompetency and scientists respond to incentives like everyone else does.

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:05:56 AM UTC-8, diff...@yahoo.com wrote:

[Payman Saghafi]

Point well taken, JokyBoy.  I don't necessarily disagree with you.  Still, I'd ask us to be more specific. The current evidence that brain training significantly benefits elderly people who have memory problems is completely different from the current evidence that brain training significantly benefits 30 year old people who are healthy.  The current evidence that a teen with severe ADD significantly benefits from brain training is completely different from the current evidence that a typical adult without ADD significantly benefits from brain training. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JokyBoy

[jotaro]

hey payman , for me the benefits is so negligible from brain games, that i didnt notice anything , however i did notice how much effort it takes.

when i excercised after 12 months i was stronger , my muscles were bigger i could push heavier things, heck i could see it in my physical interactions outside of gym.

with brain training games, meh everything remained the same.

i felt just as retarded as i did before n back.

i got smarter but then i again it was because i was exposed to more experiences outside of the game. you life experience and shit.

how is that for evidence for you? i was talking about familiar brain training games+

from my experience only. it migh work for add.

i was diagnosed with add and it like magic went away with time. before i even bothered with the brain training.

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Payman Saghafi <payman...@gmail.com> wrote:

Point well taken, JokyBoy.  Still, I'd ask us to be more specific. The current evidence that brain training significantly benefits elderly people who have memory problems is completely different from the current evidence that brain training benefits healthy 30 year old individuals. The current evidence that a teen with severe ADD significantly benefits from brain training is completely different from the current evidence that a healthy, stable 30 year old benefits from the same training. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JokyBoy

perhaps brain training works but not so meaningful that its obvious as is the body builder case, its effect is negligible compared to the effort involved.

by the way i am just talking about familiar brain training things we all tried.

as long as humans gonna present things to other humans including behaviour and shit, they are potentially corruptible .

its not have to be money, it can be other things too, like admitting your son to that mothefucking ivy school.

[jotaro]

or it didnt went away at all , i have no idea lmao.

maybe i was misdiagnosed, maybe the "noise" of the dangers of add were blown out of proportions , i dont know if it didnt went away i can say it isnt so bad as they say.

[diff...@yahoo.com]

No you didn't read the original statement that the press release is in response to.  The debate isn't scientist vs non-scientist.  It's scientist vs scientist.  The original statement claimed, made by a group of scientists, claimed they represent a consensus.  Consensus means that everyone has agreed on a position. The group of scientists who released the statement in your post is a bigger and probably more prestigious group.  However both groups are scientists, which means there is no consensus.

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 11:03:15 AM UTC-8, Payman Saghafi wrote:

Did all of you actually read the press release before posting?

 

It seems that a couple of you took my post to mean that the scientists are anti-brain training, which they are not.  The scientists see value in brain training, and they don't like the fact that some non-scientists have convinced other non-scientists that brain training is completely worthless.

 

Perhaps brain training works in some situations and not others?  Perhaps brain training benefits some people and not others?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brandon Woodson]

Consensus can also refer to a majority.

I would tend toward that kind of definition rather than a definition requiring a unanimous agreement since we'd have to both: have all scientists everywhere agree, then have the polling means to ascertain they all agree. Virtually impossible on two counts.


--Brandon

--

[Payman Saghafi]

diff....@yahoo.com:

You are right! I didn't read the original statement that was made by the Stanford Center for Longevity.  I read the press release only.

Looks like we have two camps with strong opinions.  Now I guess a couple of secondary questions are as follows:

1) How many of the scientists who defend brain training are making money from the brain training for profit industry?

2) Which of the two groups of signatories has greater overall expertise in brain training?

I will do a little research on my own.

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Those are appropriate questions.

[diff...@yahoo.com]

Another appropriate question is whether the "consensus" group has ties to the pharmaceutical industry, possibly pursuing research aimed at developing drug therapies for senility.

[Payman Saghafi]

Looks like only 5 or so of the 127 signatories who defend brain training have obvious possible financial motives:

 

http://www.cognitivetrainingdata.org/cognitive-training-data-signatories/

 

Not sure how reliable the source above is.