What happened to Cognitivefun.net?

[Larsen]

Does anyone know what happened to Cognitivefun.net?
The site has been down for several days now.

[moe]

Woohoo!!!! cogfun is back. I guess I'll do some cognitive maintenance
over spring break (haven't done any in about 1.5 months due to being
bogged down with school).

On a side note has anyone noticed a positive effects from digit span
training? In the past 4 months my failure rate in terms of problem
solving SEEMS to have been considerably lower and I'm wondering if the
digit span training that I took up some months ago has had any effect
(I've done other things such as exercise, math problems, so it's hard
to tell).

Right before I discontinued my cognitive training I decided to try
some single n-back (position) and have actually noticed some nice
subjective effects from it (effects that warrant continuation). With
dual it turns out I was limited by the auditory component. In brain
workshop my dnb level was 8 (6 at cogfun due to foreign auditory) but
with position only n-back I waver between 10-12 with a max of 13. For
those that haven't tried single position n back I recommend you give
it a try.

BTW I play with a dark screen and no gridlines. It's seems to be more
difficult this way and that's what we want :)

[likeprestige]

"BTW I play with a dark screen and no gridlines. It's seems to be
more difficult this way and that's what we want"

Same here, :-)

[likeprestige]

Just out of curiosity...

What kind of problem solving questions would you struggle with more
than others?

Examples?

^_^

[moe]

Prior to the aerobic exercise and digit span routine I would struggle
with the really abstract problems in my calculus book. Now I'm
actually able to come up with solutions to the more abstract problems
without giving alot of conscious thought (I'm still not as fast as I'd
like to be though).

Examples?

Prove the identity 4(sin^6(x) + cos^6(x)) = 4 - sin^2(2x)

I'm pretty sure this isn't a hard problem for many of you but prior to
whatever the heck it is that I've done this is one that I may not have
been able to solve.

> > > The site has been down for several days now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[whoisbambam]

Moe,

Congratulations on dnb8--what a mind!

i have done 36 sessions on dnb4 now and still have not mastered it

you change the screen in brainworkshop to black?

what color are the square images? white?

thanks for sharing this and your effects with position nback--amazing
visual memory!

[Pontus Granström]

I was also at level 8 now I am stuck at level 5, what a drop.

--
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.

[likeprestige]

How long were you off DNB?

[Pontus Granström]

I did TNB, and SNB for quite a while, a couple of months or so.

[whoisbambam]

Pontus,

this seems impossible--IMO a huge difference between dnb5 and dnb8


i had stopped dnb for a couple months and within a couple days i
seemed to be where i was before


do tell us the situation

On Mar 1, 8:22 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was also at level 8 now I am stuck at level 5, what a drop.
>

[Pontus Granström]

Might have to do with bad sleep, dunno. But I am not lying.

[Pontus Granström]

I wouldn't call that an abstract problem though, it's very concrete in it's nature. Abstract mathematics is a lot different. It deals with structures and sets and so on. 

[whoisbambam]

lol
i know you are not lying--but i think something drastically has
changed to affect this huge of a difference

On Mar 1, 8:45 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might have to do with bad sleep, dunno. But I am not lying.
>

[Pontus Granström]

Yes, it's really depressing. I increased trial speed it might "wake me up".

[moe]

You're right that's not really an abstract problem. I guess what I
meant was that I've gotten better at the tougher problems that require
more ingenuity (usually the last 2-3 problems in the problem section
of a chapter). This is my first semester back in school and I'm
basically taking Trigonometry (I was one raw point away from testing
into calculus), Chem 1, and a Sociology course. I'm on a college
transfer track (transferring to NC state hopefully) and I'm in
Mechanical engineering. The maths that are required are Calc 1,2,3,
Physics 1,2, Linear algebra, Differential Eq and I think an
engineering statics course. I was wondering what are a few higher
level math subjects that I could dabble in in my spare time that are
above the require math courses in my track but at the same time
somewhat useful to me as an engineer? For example I self study calc
in my spare time and learning calc 1,2 stuff has made most of the
precalc stuff seem like a joke. Basically having more ability than
what the job requires would be nice.

To elaborate a little the combination of aerobic exercise and digit
span training SEEMS to have improved mathematical efficacy (not
efficiency, I'm a little but not much faster). Single position n back
seems to have made my minds eye even stronger and my overall speed and
flexibility seems to have gone up from it.

> >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[mustafa]

Moe how long were you training on the digit span task? Did you keep a
before and after data on your digit span ability?

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[moe]

I trained on the digit span for about a month. Before digit span
training my span was around 10 forward and reverse. At cogfun I've
made it up to 17 but that's not my actual span. I can probably get
around 12-13 digits consistently.

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[mustafa]

Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions. Did your reading
comprehension ability increase? Many people report dramatic increases
in reading comprehension when their digit span increases. You touched
upon this a little bit in your first post, but do you notice overall
that you are having an easier time in school completing assignments
and doing better on quizzes and tests? I'm also training on the digit
span task and it would be interesting to know how many benefits can be
achieved through training on the digit span task.

> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext -

[likeprestige]

Training on n-back has shown to increase digit-span and performance on
other tasks. Digit-span training has shown to increase one's digit
span and nothing else. Why would you choose the latter?

[likeprestige]

Mathematical logic is a lot of fun and it's usefulness is quite
flexible from one academic function to the next.

[mustafa]

I also do dual n-back.

[likeprestige]

Apart from the everyday benefits (remembering multiple phone numbers,
showing off in front of ur friends etc etc), I don't really see the
the value in _artificially_ increasing one's digit span. It's time
that could be spent either n-backing or on something that is of
practical importance in one's life.

[likeprestige]

Unless of course one is preparing for a preliminary aptitude test (and
one of the sub-tests is a digit-span-test) for a job or some form of
higher educational acceptance and one wishes to skew the results.

[moe]

My reading comprehension has always been good and I don't notice much
of an improvement in that area. Some months ago I was given an
abridged version of the woodcock johnson III (a test of crystallized
intelligence) and it consisted of 6 subtests, Comprehension, reading
fluency, word-letter recognition, math fluency, calculation, and
applied problems. I got the ceiling score of >18 (above grade level
18) on every subtest but no percentiles were listed, I was basically
told that I've gotten excellent scores on every subtest and on the
score sheet under percentile/ranking it just says advanced. This is
my first semester back in a few years so I don't have any before and
after grades but I'm actually doing pretty well in all my classes (eg
everyone did poorly on the first Chem 1 test (class avg 65-70) but I
totally destroyed it with a 99 and got similar scores on my other
tests). The only thing that I still struggle with is performing well
under pressure. I do well on tests and quizzes but not as well with
lab type assignments. For example with trig labs we're presented with
fairly new material and we are expected to turn in the work at the end
of class (sometimes we have 10 minutes to complete the work, sometimes
40). It's really hard to concentrate on the work because you're
incessantly thinking about the time limit and because of this my lab
grades aren't all that great. I ace quizzes and tests due to the fact
that the material isn't as novel once you arrive at a quiz or test.

[moe]

Thanks. My memory/n-backing ability isn't unparalleled though. There
are a few people doing like 14-15 back (Cev and a few other members)

[Pontus Granström]

Yes up to level 6!!!!

--

[carvalhoneto]

Moe,

I think 14-15 digit spam is like IQ for 200 in Weiss study theory
(bite; bits/sec).
What is your score em IQ tests?

Augusto

[whoisbambam]

a long way from 8!!!!

had you mastered 8?

u obviusly had mastered 5

maybe it will only take you a couple weeks to get back to 8--please
keep us i updated because this may indicate that our working memory
shrinks without regular practice

On Mar 2, 11:58 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes up to level 6!!!!
>

[Pontus Granström]

Yes, I'll keep you posted. I also lowered the trial time, it helped me a lot to stay more focused. Not that long from eight, but we'll see how long it takes before I get there.

[likeprestige]

Lowering the trial time doesn't help you stay _'more'_ focused; that's
a misrepresentation. All it simply says is that you are unable to
_maintain_ your focus for the required length of time. Try to have
more faith in your brains ability to adapt over time rather than
trying to seek a performance that although on the surface is
appealing, is just a _masked_ performance. If you say you reached 8-n-
back before, there shouldn't be any reason as to why you can't do it
all again under the _default_ conditions.

On Mar 3, 7:18 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I'll keep you posted. I also lowered the trial time, it helped me a lot
> to stay more focused. Not that long from eight, but we'll see how long it
> takes before I get there.
>

[Pontus Granström]

Might be a good build up though, besides, the speculated link between
WM and Gf might be to quickly adapt to situations where there is minimal room for processing, seems like pushing oneself here might be better
in that sense. It might also have to do with motivation and there mere fact
that I am not trying hard enough because I already know I've completed that level while it still provides a fair challenge to the brain.

[likeprestige]

Maybe. I'm unsure.

On Mar 3, 9:13 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might be a good build up though, besides, the speculated link between
> WM and Gf might be to quickly adapt to situations where there is minimal
> room for processing, seems like pushing oneself here might be better
> in that sense. It might also have to do with motivation and there mere fact
> that I am not trying hard enough because I already know I've completed that
> level while it still provides a fair challenge to the brain.
>

[Mike]

I have to say I'm in the same situation than Pontus. I reached my max, dual 12 and 13 back, a long time ago and I don't think I can go much further, so I lost motivation a bit. when I play I usually don't focus as much as I used to when I still hadn't plateaued and was curious to know my max--so now I usually don't get passed 10 during a session. but I still want to play to keep the benefits of training (I definitely feel I'm different than before n-back). it's true I think that changing the type settings keeps you awake and focused. I alternate between quad triple and dual to keep me entertained. but sadly I have a feeling, and I read that from other people too, that n-back isn't nearly as beneficial when you're not playing at your max. it would be no strain no gain.

recently I switched to faster trials: 5 and then 4 quarters of seconds (1sec between trials). I have to say it was incredibly challenging and fun to play. I never had a headache playing n-back!!! (even 2 years ago when I was struggling with dual 3 and 4)--but playing at 5 and 4 quarters gave me one. it cuts my max level (compared to slower trials) by more than a third.and after playing at faster trials for a 2 weeks I feel I'm faster and even more verbal than I have ever been (although intelligent, I'm probably ADD inattentive, daydreamer, not the most verbal and social person, I get stressed when asked to do mental math--also, although I played the piano all my life, piano sight reading at a steady pace is quasi impossible for me, my mind is zoning out constantly). 

btw I never gave my iq scores before and after training at n-back, but here they are (in order of test taking): 119, 125, 125, 107, 153, 131, (and I would say between 125 and 131 was my real iq) from different online tests almost 2 years ago before starting n-backing. after two years (I took the same bunch of online iq tests 3 weeks ago before trying faster trials) I got: 126, 135, 124, 125. so there wasn't much of a change. but I had been playing n-back softly for a long time. I expected my iq to jump at least by 5 to 10 points, from what I felt in my life. then after my week of faster trials, I did this iq test:       and I got 149. if anyone who already knows his iq wants to try it, I'd be curious to know if they also score higher than expected, at first try of course. I thought the 153 I once got was pure chance, but maybe it wasn't completely, and that would be cool. I'm going to retest on other online iq tests in the next days. the fact that I'm ADD probably messes with my performance on iq tests, because all tests I took were timed (I'm slow). in my iq subtests it comes back constantly that my short term memory and processing speed are much lower than the rest. and this is true for all times I took iq tests, before and after training, and even in the 149 I just got the other day--both short term memory and processing speed were much lower than the rest.

I thought my working memory was deficient--but I plateaued at 12 and 13 after a year of daily training, so it's strange. it's possible that I heavily rely on strategies that most people don't use, in order to reach 13 back despite my lower wm. I chunk but I also mentally write letters on the board, draw lines between positions or imagine my fingers pressing keys, and, most importantly maybe, I assign some invented meanings to the chunk of 3-4 letters--because otherwise my phono loop alone couldn't pass 7-8 items (who does those strategies?). you can store more information by saturating all available types of memory (subsets of wm) and by compressing info/making up patterns with the info. maybe this is why I can reach 13, and this performance doesn't represent my actual low wm and processing speed. when I play at 4 quarters, I can't pass dual 7 (8 at 5quarters). my performance is lowered by roughly a third--is that more or less than other people?

it's also possible that ADD inattentive stems more from low processing speed, not working memory so much. but here again, I constantly score among the fastest on cogfun at reaction times, stroop, fast counting and flanker so I'm not sure at all what my problem is. also I had 176.5, 212.5, 200 and 255 bits at the site Pontus posted in another thread. I don't know what's going on in my brain, but basically I think I have a pretty good and even high processing speed, but I zone out constantly for short lapses of time (this is really visible when I play PASAT, I'm going to stop on an addition for much longer). so my ADD would be an inability to sustain attention (daydream/zone out) rather than a defect of wm or processing speed. I'm trying to understand and correct this. hopefully faster trials and a wider variety of cog games can be more beneficial.

I think that dual, quad, and shorter trials--all the different types of n-back--can train different parts of your Gf. I seem to adopt very different strategies when playing the different types and different settings of n-back. quad I think increased my raw phono loop more. shorter trials increased my phono loop even more, so much that I had trouble actually relying on my old strategy of writing down letters and finding meaning for them, when I play slow DNB again (I tried yesterday and it was weird). it also definitely improved my processing speed in only 2 weeks of faster trials. I can do mental math much better than I ever could and this is probably the reason I could score so high on my last iq test. I score better at PASAT on cogfun than I used to.

this thread was really interesting to re-read: My System, let's share strategies comments there seem to confirm that playing without strategies increases Gf the most--I agree with likeprestige's comment in there. so for a long time I was training strategies more than my real wm. I hope faster trials can increase int more.

==

what made me want to try shorter trials was a study that I stumbled upon saying that ADHD had a worse wm than ADD and that ADD was also called sluggish cognitive tempo (slow, therefore low processing speed--which applies to me) + the article Pontus brought up about a main int gene M1 and processing speed. I thought my real intelligence bottleneck could be some aspects of processing speed or central executive, that my ADD messes with or alters. I thought shortening the trials could train processing speed and focus better. I hope it's going to bring more benefits, because I'd really like to be smarter. I'll keep you updated about my next iq scores in a few days if anyone is interested.

btw Pontus the article about main int genes was really interesting. I saw that site a long time ago, but I was doubtful. but re-reading it seems possible. I still think that a few other important genes must influence iq. maybe it's a bell curve of genes that influence iq, M1 being at the right end. maybe brain size also substantially influences iq. I can't see brain shape/(parts more developed) not influencing iq. what other genes could influence iq?

also is that M1 gene found more in caucasians? if indian castes also had M1, their lower classes would be producing high int individuals more regularly like it did in the west. maybe there are many iq genes in the world.

anyway. there are so many interesting things and so little time. I will be posting again soon.

[Mike]

questions for people who can answer them:

- do you score higher than usual here: http://www.wordofmouthexperiment.com/dedpyhto/tests/iq-test-intro.htm 

- what is your max n-back level at normal interval, and at shorter intervals (4 quarters trials)?

- who uses strategy of inventing meanings for letter-chunks at dnb-- and what is your max dnb level?

[likeprestige]

I can relate to the 'head ache' feeling, however, it wouldn't be in
the form of a pain but rather just a strange sensation.

When I became acquainted with:

Quadruple-stim, position, images, sound, sound 2 1-back-

Trial speed: 1.5 sec (hoping to eventually be able to competently
perform at 1 sec)

I began to feel an abnormal sensation at the top of my forehead that
would continue for a few hours after a session. I still sometimes
experience this.

Playing under this mode also caused a lot of stress on my eyes,
resulting in bruising around the eyes and the need for eye drops
because I they would become dry. These symptoms are no longer present,
it seems my brain and eyes have adjusted.

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Might be a good build up though, besides, the speculated link between
> > WM and Gf might be to quickly adapt to situations where there is minimal
> > room for processing, seems like pushing oneself here might be better
> > in that sense. It might also have to do with motivation and there mere fact
> > that I am not trying hard enough because I already know I've completed that
> > level while it still provides a fair challenge to the brain.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Mike]

yes me too it's a mild sensation that continues for a few hours. maybe that's the markor for effective/useful DNB training.

btw your following post from a while ago is a good reasoning I think! chunking can only be useful if it's consciously activated. you can't use it during tasks where you don't even suspect that you're using your working memory. therefore you should train you intuitive wm, not strategies, that are task specific and only consciously activated.

==

        - The hypothesized transfer of increased performance in the dual-n- 
back task to general working memory performance may be less compared 
to that of an intuitive strategy. All things being equal, if you are 
to compare subject X (chunking strategy) and subject Y (intuitive 
strategy) in regards to their ability to remember a ten digit phone 
number a paradoxical result may reveal itself. 
Hypothetical Scenario 1: 
Subject X and Y are asked to recall a ten digit number and are 
informed of the time (e.g. recall in 10sec, 30 min, 1hr etc.) in which 
they have to recall it. 

à All things being equal, the result: Subject X performs the task much 
more successfully due to the fact that they were informed of the 
scenario and the task conditions attached. 

Hypothetical Scenario 2: 
The same scenario, however the subjects are not informed of the task 
and/or its requirements. 
        è All things being equal, the result: Subject Y performs the task 
much more successfully due to practicing an intuitive strategy which 
is hypothesized as being more conducive to higher working memory 
gains. 

I hypothesized that Subject X would be worse off because they were not 
informed in regards to when they should implement their chunking 
strategy . Thus, in conclusion I deduce that Subject Y may possess the 
ability to effectively adapt to changing conditions more than subject 
X if both subjects are placed in an unpredictable environment where 
the task goals are not in plain sight. 

regards, 

likeprestige 

P.S - I realize I've only discussed the peripherals, hopefully someone 
can share some more insight on this. Thanks... 

--

[likeprestige]

Thanks Mike,

Personally I think I was too clear cut and thus, failed with the act
of striking a balance between the two extremes.

I now actively try and rehearse the sequence of "to be recalled"
stimuli.

However...

As I'm sure your aware, as 'n-level' increases the ability to rehearse
the whole string, decreases.

Thus, often I resort to trying to just simply recall the next stimuli
in-line.

This is not very dissimilar to Jonathan Tooomim's approach (can be
found by searching this group).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTUITIVE APPROACH = PURE RECOG. PROCESSES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Li et al. (2008), reported that after training participants on single-
n-back there performance decreased on a WMC measure, known as OSPAN.

The conclusion of this result was that the n-back task relied more on
recog. processes more than recall and thus this explained the
different results achieved on the OSPAN, which relies more on recall
processes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to go into more detail, but I have to run-off (literally) to
work.

Will continue in a 'different' time dimension.

> ...
>
> read more »

[likeprestige]

---- Remember that everything said in relation to 'how' to perform the
n-back task is pure __conjecture__, so just take it with a grain of
salt.

To sum up,

"I now actively try and rehearse the sequence of (to be recalled)
stimuli."

I however would never use chunking or mnemonic techniques.

On the left-hand-side of the spectrum you have the most __passive__
process (intuitive organisation = no rehearsal), when you begin to
move further to the right the activity begins to tax the "information
processing system" [Central Executive] (actively rehearsing stimuli)
more until you reach a ___pure__ maximum threshold. Beyond this point
a subject begins to step into __artificial___ territory, where the use
of mnemonic techniques and or chunking strategies (as mentioned) is
the name of the game.

I try to stay at my (pure) maximum threshold, I think this serves as a
good balance between the _two extremes_.

I've probably missed a few things (quite tired), so if there's
anything else you'd like to add or...

P.S - I doubt those 'head aches' you referred to before will occur
when playing on the left-hand-side of the spectrum.

> ...
>
> read more »

[likeprestige]

Also, just so they get credit, I should mention that my so-called
'method' is a combination of Jonathan Toomim & milestones' thoughts on
the subject.

> ...
>
> read more »

[napoleon's_pidgin]

On Mar 1, 9:40 pm, likeprestige <plastic...@live.com.au> wrote:
> Apart from the everyday benefits (remembering multiple phone numbers,
> showing off in front of ur friends etc etc), I don't really see the
> the value in _artificially_ increasing one's digit span. It's time
> that could be spent either n-backing or on something that is of
> practical importance in one's life.

How Increasing Your Brain's 'Digit Span' Can Improve Overall Function
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-g-goldberg-phd/how-to-improve-
memory_b_801119.html)

It may be difficult, at first, to understand how remembering strings
of meaningless numbers can have such a profound effect on the brain's
overall functioning -- and on so many aspects of our lives that we
don't even normally associate with intelligence. Yet, when we grasp
the importance of sequential processing -- the foundation of
practically every intellectual, cognitive and psychological function
in the brain -- we understand that we use it in practically everything
we do, in all of our everyday activities. As children, we needed
sequential processing to learn the various steps of tying our own
shoelaces. Without sequential processing, we cannot construct or
comprehend complex sentences; we can't remember baseball scores from
the beginning to the end of the game; we can't remember the plot of a
novel, nor recipes; we can't tell jokes (or if we do, we forget the
punchline), nor sing a song or play a musical instrument. Without
sequential processing we are unable to draw a map from memory of the
United States; we are unable to visualize our home when we are in a
store intending to buy home furnishings. We can't make change with
money -- or be able to think through any other math problem -- unless
we can sequentially process.

[likeprestige]

Sure, but I can't imagine digit-span training (without the use of
chunking, mnemonic techniques) is __more__ effective than n-back in
regards to improving the area that you speak of, sequential
processing. I've heard that digit span training may help important
areas for daily cognition in children but I haven't read anything
about adults. I think it's the basic premise behind the work of
CogMed's Working memory training programs for children. What I have
_heard_, I can't cite anything now, in regards to adults and digit-
span training has been of negative appeal.

I am willing to be wrong on this, so if you believe this is inaccurate
just link a study.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM, napoleon's_pidgin <bradf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How Increasing Your Brain's 'Digit Span' Can Improve Overall Function
> (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-g-goldberg-phd/how-to-improve-
> memory_b_801119.html)

I tried looking for the hard citation in that blogpost, to the
Louisiana 2002 study with schoolchildren. (Somewhat plausible too,
given McNab's results with kids.) Strangely enough, I didn't see
anything in Google that was not scraping Huffington Post or in Google
Scholar.

Not the most thorough search, but I don't especially trust
psychoanalysts in the first place nor people who post on Huffington
Post (best friend of anti-vaxxers).

While we're at it, if anyone knows of studies showing general benefits
like academic grades redounding to WM training besides the ones in the
FAQ already, I'd appreciate pointers. The FAQ must grow, to paraphrase
_Dune_.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Arkanj3l]

I'm curious on why you chose "left" and "right" rather than
"arbitrary". It makes me wonder if there's hemispheric lateralization
for the different methods one would employ while tackling n-back.

> ...
>
> read more »

[likeprestige]

I don't see it as arbitrary.

"It makes me wonder if there's hemispheric lateralization
for the different methods one would employ while tackling n-back."

Oh definitely... In a sense at least.

One thing which could be hypothesized about different brain regions
that are activated when say performing n-back using chunking or
mnemonic techniques v. other, let's say fluid techniques (mnemonic/
chunking) is that the areas responsible for the storage & retrieval of
Gc (procedural learning, strategies, skill learning etc) may be
activated more in the brain with the _artificial_ method.

I wish I were more educated in the area of Neuroscience, this would
enable me to speak more elaborately & serve more generously to your
proposition. Unfortunately, I'm not, but good thoughts on your behalf
nevertheless.

> ...
>
> read more »

[mustafa]

Gwern here is the study I think the author of the huffingtonpost.com
article was referring to.

http://nacd.org/learn_more/docs/nacd_neuroeducational_model.pdf

> ...
>
> read more »