When WM hurts?
Gwern Branwen
Enhancements" http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/psych/people/academic/thills/thills/hillspublications/hillshertwig2011cdps.pdf
, Hills & Hertwig 2011:
> As an example, working memory is correlated with performance on many cognitive tasks, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test. However, individuals with high working-memory capacity often fail to hear their own name in a cocktail-party task and recall fewer items from a list after experiencing a context change (see Unsworth & Engle, 2007). These results demonstrate that the effects of enhancements should be viewed as we view adaptations: Enhancement is only meaningful with respect to specific individuals in specific environments.
- Unsworth, N., & Engle, R.W. (2007). "The nature of individual
differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary
memory and controlled search from secondary memory". _Psychological
Review_, 114, 104–132;
http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/Publications/2007/Nature%20of%20individual%20differences.pdf
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
Gwern Branwen
http://www.indiana.edu/~abcwest/pmwiki/pdf/hertwig.thinkingpsypatterns.2003.pdf
"More is not always better: The benefits of cognitive limits"
Aman Idle
--
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.
Gwern Branwen
> gwern, if you don't mind me asking. What's you're iq? You seem quite bright,
> interested in knowing how high you are.
whoisbambam
It is a rare thing to find such a sharing person.
On Feb 12, 11:56 pm, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael
expected night but couldn't be sure if she'd be able to make it
because her decision was dependent on how well her _curve_s were
feeling/looking in front of the mirror that night.
That's the nature of the...
or is this view misguided?
On Feb 13, 8:19 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Why Aren't We Smarter Already: Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Cognitive
>
> > As an example, working memory is correlated with performance on many cognitive tasks, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test. However, individuals with high working-memory capacity often fail to hear their own name in a cocktail-party task and recall fewer items from a list after experiencing a context change (see Unsworth & Engle, 2007). These results demonstrate that the effects of enhancements should be viewed as we view adaptations: Enhancement is only meaningful with respect to specific individuals in specific environments.
>
> - Unsworth, N., & Engle, R.W. (2007). "The nature of individual
> differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary
> memory and controlled search from secondary memory". _Psychological
>
> --
> gwernhttp://www.gwern.net
Michael
curves in relation to enhancement and how much is ever too much to the
point where it starts compromising some things. I think its the same
for medication, in that some people just require less/more than others
due to body size, physiological function or brain chemistry.
In the case where some argue that unlimited processing capacity &
storage is a negative thing, maybe this only holds true when the
scenario doesn't involve having this 'ability' matched by other
compatible criteria. Along the same vein (although, like many things,
I guess its still a misunderstood concept), having lower than average
latent inhibition and the positives/negatives associated with it
portrays a similar notion, where if low latent inhibition is coupled
with low levels of intelligence it can be cognitively disastrous,
however if it is coupled with high levels of intelligence, more
positive outcomes, such as creative achievement, may result.
If anyone would like to add anything...
Gwern Branwen
> Like one of the articles said though, maybe we all have our own bell
> curves in relation to enhancement and how much is ever too much to the
> point where it starts compromising some things.
It's a little more complex than that - the 'curves' are defined by
optimizing for multiple things simultaneously by our bodies-brains as
designed by evolution. But humans are adaptation-executers, not
fitness-maximizers, as the evopsych quote goes. And then you have the
issue that many of the curves are not inherent bio-chemical
trade-offs, if you will, but adaptations for old environments, which
leads to loopholes - http://www.gwern.net/Drug%20heuristics
(The annoying thing is that Bostrom's paper, to a large extent,
obviates that paper. But it was still useful for some examples. Oh
well.)
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
Michael
http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessmaximizers/
On Feb 14, 4:38 am, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Michael <m....@live.com.au> wrote:
> > Like one of the articles said though, maybe we all have our own bell
> > curves in relation to enhancement and how much is ever too much to the
> > point where it starts compromising some things.
>
> It's a little more complex than that - the 'curves' are defined by
> optimizing for multiple things simultaneously by our bodies-brains as
> designed by evolution. But humans are adaptation-executers, not
> fitness-maximizers, as the evopsych quote goes. And then you have the
> issue that many of the curves are not inherent bio-chemical
> trade-offs, if you will, but adaptations for old environments, which