- Strawman. Doesn't prove or disprove anything and doesn't directly
counter my argument. The STM games were used in neurological research
as well. Even n-back is used more extensively (which you don't cite),
it doesn't matter. The idea that n-back is a superior method is not
conclusive because it can't be replicated consistently, not conclusive
because there is no direct comparison with other games within similar
parameters, thus still just speculation.
:::"Well show me a evidence that a group spent 200 minutes on a Short
Term
Memory task."
Not relevant. That is the thing, we don't know. I'm not saying that
n-back does nothing, I'm saying we don't have enough evidence due to
conflicting results. In this case, it is up to you to provide hard
evidence, because a lack thereof only proves my point.
And the study shows that there is no correlation with time spent.
Don't you think that is significant at all?!
:::"That all STM tasks are equal is a thing that is only
speculation. "
Exactly! You are just proving my point; we don't know either way. So
why construct canned theories around a lack of evidence?
:::"N-back has a very special place due to it's load on the
executive functions."
Tall order since some studies show n-back does nothing.
::: "N-back activates areas linked to IQ as seen by fmri scans, it
increases oxygen to the brain (known to increase IQ), "
Changes in the brain don't automatically mean increases in IQ. One,
there aren't enough studies to show that it can be replicated on a
wider scales. Two, changes in the brain don't automatically correlate
to higher IQ. Do taxi drivers, jugglers, and meditators have higher
IQ as well? (there have been many studies showing transcendental
meditation doesn't increase IQ. Many times only personally funded
research shows a positive effect)
I'm done here. You epitomize using personal biases over scientific
evidence. When a method such as n-back can't be replicated, it is up
to us to look at the reasons why, and not make excuses for it. It is
up to us to be skeptical of its efficacy and not become a zealot. It
is becoming increasingly clear that there is no reasoning with you, so
I'm ending it here before I waste more time.
On Apr 22, 7:24 am, Pontus Granström <
lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well true, but I do not think it's a coincident that they use n-back for so
> much neurological research when studying brain activity and so on.
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Michael Campbell <
>
>
>
>
>
>
michael.campb...@unixgeek.com> wrote:
> > Pontus Granström wrote:
>
> >> 2. The STM-task is probably inferior to dnb. (not just speculation)
>
> > "probably" is pretty close to speculation.
>
> > --
> > 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<brain-training%2Bunsubscribe@go
oglegroups.com>
> > .
> For more options, visit this group athttp://
groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -