Still arguing with yourself? Pontus. I came to that conclusion from
your own cited study. If n-back correlates with Gf at .4 (which is a
weak-to-moderate correlation at best), and n-back is better than the
other two measures, then your own citation clearly states that the
other measures are weak correlations. I'm sorry, but I clearly don't
have the free time as you do to cherry-pick every study that supports
I could pick apart the egregious logical fallacies in your last post,
but I already said I won't discuss this furthur. If you can actually
find a proper study which counters my arguments, then I will
continue. Lets look at what you have yet to disprove:
--I said source a study comparing WM training methods. There clear
difference between comparing training methods and measures. My little
sister can figure this out. Let me spell it out. Just because
something is a more accurate measure, doesn't mean praciticing it will
improve what it measures. This is logic 101. Lets put this in
perspective. RPM is an accurate measure of Gf. If I practice the
test, I get better at RPM. Does this mean my Gf improves as well?
No. I just get more efficient at the test, albeit an accurate one.
Read the entire paragraph, I've been repeating this for 3 posts
-- Phantom arguments. It seems to can't argue with me directly, so
you create arguments I allegedly said for your rebuttal. For the last
time, and read it this time, I never said that every WM training is
equal. I said that we should compare two training methods within the
same study. Find one, otherwise you have no argument.
-- I never said WM can't be improved. My only main argument is that
there is conflicting evidence on whether n-back can indeed improve
intelligence at its core. Jaeggi cited other studies showing null
results in her own paper. Other people have posted null effects on n-
back. And yet, you still say I have no data? It is already sourced
on this forum. Well, I guess I have no data when you make up
arguments for me. Your barrage of experimental studies and
correlations doesn't change that.
On Apr 23, 6:50 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com
> * The first two are barely considered
> standard measures of WM,so of course n-back is superior.*
> Furthermore, these tasks (Ospan and reading span) have
> been repeatedly shown to be reliable measures of WM that
> demonstrate excellent construct and criterion-related validity
> (for a list of the many higher order cognitive tasks that
> correlate with WM, see Conway et al., 2005, p.777).
> Barely a valid measure of WM?
> > *
> > Case closed.*
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com
> >> *Furthermore, the best prediction of individual differences in
> >> fluid intelligence was accomplished using a hybrid model that
> >> depicted a latent construct comprising scores from the LNS and
> >> laboratory WM tests. Taken together, these findings suggested
> >> that while the laboratory and psychometric indices of WM may
> >> be measuring similar cognitive processes, there were subtle
> >> differences that should be considered, including their predictive
> >> utility.*
> >> Something I have been claiming all the time.
> >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com
> >>> Clinical measures
> >>> 1. Arithmetic 13.97 3.05 .75
> >>> 2. Spatial span 17.75 2.99 .22 ⁎⁎ .74
> >>> 3. Digit span 19.55 3.76 .31 ⁎⁎ .33 ⁎⁎ .81
> >>> 4. Letter number 12.56 2.67 .45 ⁎⁎ .43 ⁎⁎ .60 ⁎⁎ .74
> >>> Lab measures
> >>> 5. Ospan score 44.15 15.54 .23 ⁎⁎ .35 ⁎⁎ .54 ⁎⁎ .41 ⁎⁎ .73
> >>> 6. Lspan score 29.06 10.93 .34 ⁎⁎ .29 ⁎⁎ .43 ⁎⁎ .45 ⁎⁎ .55 ⁎⁎ .74
> >>> 7. Lag score 54.23 16.36 .41 ⁎⁎ .33 ⁎⁎ .48 ⁎⁎ .44 ⁎⁎ .38 ⁎⁎ .45 ⁎⁎ .79
> >>> gF measures
> >>> 8. RAPM 25.50 4.04 .34 ⁎⁎ .25 ⁎⁎ .16 ⁎ .29 ⁎⁎ .29 ⁎⁎ .30 ⁎⁎ .40 ⁎⁎ .75
> >>> 9. Block design 45.79 10.94 .41 ⁎⁎ .43 ⁎⁎ .27 ⁎⁎ .37 ⁎⁎ .29 ⁎⁎ .32 ⁎⁎ .38
> >>> ⁎⁎ .41 ⁎⁎ .75
> >>> 10. Matrix Reasoning 20.17 2.51 .19 ⁎ .30 ⁎⁎ .18 ⁎ .21 ⁎⁎ .12 .23 ⁎⁎ .36
> >>> ⁎⁎ .37 ⁎⁎ .33 ⁎⁎ .65
> >>> So 7 different tests.
> >>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com
> >>>> The other WM-tasks were from the WAIS test in this study. You claimed
> >>>> that increasing the difficulty on any WM-task is equal to dnb, then you
> >>>> accused me of not being scientific, when it's clearly you who are not. You
> >>>> even said that they also required updating etc, you just ASSUMED that all
> >>>> WM-tasks are equal and that spending 25% of the time on such a task compared
> >>>> to lowest significant result by jaeggi is a proof that training doesn't
> >>>> work. Why do you still claim this, when you are so overwhelmingly proved
> >>>> wrong?
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com
> >>>>> It proves that not all WM-tasks are equal, and you have no idea which
> >>>>> WM-task that were used so why are you so sure that you are right? There's
> >>>>> not just any data that support your claim.
> >>>>>> groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.-
Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> > - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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
> To post to this ...
> read more »- Hide quoted text -