IQ results at start, 3 months, and after 1 year of n-back training
Tofu
time to take another IQ test. At the beginning of the year I bought a
test booklet from Barnes and Noble called "Self-Scoring IQ Tests" by
Victor Serebriakoff (the president of Mensa). Here are the details of
the test. The book contains two different IQ tests, but the tests
have very similar problems. The instructions say you can take one
test or take both tests and average the scores. Instead I took the
first test before I started training, the second test after 3 months
of training, and the first test again 1 year later. All three tests I
had to self-score which I did without looking back at the answers to
try to understand my mistakes, so at to lessen any practice effect.
Each test consists of 3 subtests: a verbal test, a number test and a
spatial test. There are 50 questions for each subtest. There is a
table in the back of the booklet which shows how to convert the number
of correct answers into an IQ score. The verbal section is weighted
3x as much as the other two sections, so the maximum number of points
possible is 250. Here are my IQ scores on each test and the number of
correct answers I got on each subtest out of 50 questions:
IQ Verbal Number
Spatial
Test 1 117 27 25
40
Test 2 128 37 40
35
Test 3 128 34 42
42
<As a sidenote- after 6 months I took a practice LSAT without any
studying and got a 146, roughly 30th percentile, and I took an IQ test
from http://iqtest.dk/main.swf after 1 year which I scored a 115 on.
Also, in high school I took a professionally administered IQ test and
got a 137 which may have been high because they took my age into
account in the scoring like the old school IQ tests used to do, but
I'm not sure if they actually did that>
During my first 4 days of training my maximum score was dual 3-back at
71%. After 3 months of training (just before the second test) my
maximum score was triple 4-back at 76%. After one year my max was
quad 6-back at 47%. I switched from dual n-back to triple n-back then
to quad n-back, but if you count the number of items I had to remember
as a measure of working memory (I'm not sure if it really is) then my
working memory about doubled compared to each previous test (which was
intentional on my part). Despite this, my IQ stayed the same on the
second and third test I took. I should also add, my score on the
number test jumped dramatically from the first test to the second test
probably because I taught myself how to do long division before the
second test (which was the only studying I did for all 3 tests).
Here is my subjective take on the results. N-back training may have
somehow improved my verbal intelligence, but since verbal intelligence
is a form of crystallized intelligence and training working memory is
supposed to primarily improve fluid intelligence, it probably didn't.
My score on the verbal subtest went up and then down which would make
no sense if it did have any influence. My score on the number subtest
most likely improved because of practice effect from learning long
division which I had long forgotten at the time of the first test.
Another possibility is that the tests are a poor measure of
intelligence, but since the President of Mensa designed the test it
should be at least somewhat accurate. Mensa seems somewhat like a
business to me though who's aim is not to produce professional quality
IQ tests though. Not sure if that is the case but just an idea.
Since my IQ score increased from the first test to the second test,
and stayed the same from the second test to the third test it could be
possibly that working memory only contributes to IQ up to a certain
point. All in all, I feel more inclined to say that n-back training
has only a little if any effect on IQ though which is why reason I'm
probably going to stop doing the n-back training.
On a more positive note, since I started n-back training I have
noticed better concentration which I had a serious problem with
before. In general, I feel like I think more clearly and I at least
feel like I've become smarter too. I've reached a pretty high level
in n-back and any gains I've made in the last month or two have been
small, so I think I've reached a long-term plateau which is another
reason for me to stop the training. From my experience when I stop
the n-back training for a month or two and return to n-back training I
still perform at the same level anyway. It seems like the effects
from training are going to last a while which is also good news.
Overall, I feel like the n-back training was worth it but if I had it
to do over I would have probably stopped after a couple of months.
Iron
believe you spent daily doing n-back training (number of sessions per
day)? All the information we know suggests this is more important for
results than max n level achieved. Its good to hear that you felt
your concentration has improved. Do you find that you are at all more
capable of organizing your life/time/responsibilities? A large reason
why I am interested in n-back is to improve my general executive
functioning, so I'm curious to see if having practiced so much you
have experienced any large changes in executive functioning
specifically.
AshDog
due to the principle of the indifference of the indicator. This
principle states that the content of the questions is unimportant as
long as all test-takers understand it. Hence, you can predict
mathematical ability with verbal analogies, and you can predict verbal
ability with number series. This contributes to the fact that what
tests "verbal ability" loads on g better than other types of
abilities, which is why it is weighted more than the mathematical and
spatial sections. Thus, if all test-takers were unfamiliar with the
content, then the test (regardless of what ability was being tested
for) would measure crystalized intelligence.
This is why it is inaccurate to consider tests likes the LSAT, GRE,
SAT, ACT, etc., simply as testing for crystalized intelligence. The
test-taking population (or vast majority of them) here is sufficiently
familiar with the english language and the general content and
methodologies of the tests, such that the results become better
predictors of fluid intelligence. In fact, it would be appropriate to
rank the them by fluid intelligence based on their scores on these
tests.
Mike^2
rehashing a point in lieu of relevancy: The theory of mine is that
different people, considering people behave differently to certain
things (i.e medicines, etc...) will probably benefit varyingly from
something like DNB. that is to say, that certain people will get more
benefits while others, fewer...
polar
here. WM definitely does not equal Gf, but it still seems you improved
both. Can I ask two questions - when did you swith for triple n-back,
and when to quad? Maybe it depends more on time and number-of-whole-
items interferention (both are greater in dual n back) then on
multitude of each impuls. And second thought you inspired, what was
the schedule of your training - 20min a day, weekends off? And
actually one more thing - if you're going to stop, could you watch for
next 4 montnh (once in 2 weeks maybe), how is your memory,
concentration, and mood? would it be possible for you to report it in
april 2010?
Tofu
>believe you spent daily doing n-back training (number of sessions per
>day)?
month a took off from training after 9 months of training. Also, I
started off doing dual n-back, then switched to triple n-back after 10
weeks, then switched to quad n-back after about 10 months.
>Do you find that you are at all more
>capable of organizing your life/time/responsibilities?
in general than before. I feel as I get older I naturally get better
at this. Also, I started both living in another country and began
working at my first job since graduation at the beginning of the
training, which have both had a definite impact on the way I think and
organize my life.
>WM definitely does not equal Gf, but it still seems you improved
>both.
gf according to a few studies I read. The Kaufman study said working
memory is the second greatest contributing factor to g, so if my
working memory improved then my iq score should have changed at least
a little bit on the third test. This makes me question whether n-back
training actually improves working memory, or in what way improvements
in working memory increase g.
If n-back training actually improved g to a great degree you would
think it would have gotten much more press than it has. Researchers
don't appear to be intensely studying how n-back training could
improve g, yet if it did greatly improve g the researcher would have
their name in a history book as they well know. A program that could
substantially increase g would change the world as we know it which
needs no explanation. It might be possible that there were some
unadvertised preliminary studies done that showed there is in fact
nothing useful about n-back training, hence the lack of continued
research on this. Probably the most promising area for increasing
intelligence will come from genetics research, which is why it's being
researched so much.
>if you're going to stop, could you watch for
>next 4 montnh (once in 2 weeks maybe), how is your memory,
>concentration, and mood? would it be possible for you to report it in
>april 2010?
it. I felt confined by having to do it everyday, and I worried
whether I was just wasting time.
Pheonoxia
for the largest chunks of intelligence. I find that the verbal and
numeric IQ tests aren't universally applicable and host a number of
other flaws in testing intelligence. Your IQ gains on those tests
stopped about the time you switched to triple-n and quad-n-back. This
may have been because you dug a wider hole by training with more
variables, not a deeper hole with dual n-back by getting to higher n-
levels. You likely trained attention/focus as quad requires uber
attention, but not the depth and therefore capacity (WMC, not WM)
required for higher levels of dual n-back. Higher n-level on a simpler
task like DNB, instead of a lower n-level on a harder task, allows you
string things out further in your mind, albeit not as complicated of
things.
You should try the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices IQ test. It's
simply pattern recognition, which if all your time on quad trained
anything, it probably trained that the most.
> fromhttp://iqtest.dk/main.swf after 1 year which I scored a 115 on.
akpr...@gmail.com
Given the extreme coherence of his post, it would be safe to assume
that he didn't make such an elementary mistake.
I'm not entirely sure I believe it, though: much of the verbal section
on the GRE depends on the size of your vocabulary. Although I'm sure
this correlates well in practice with fluid intelligence, it's common
for smart people to not build their vocabs (and less intelligent
people to train them). Apart from this, it makes sense: much of one's
score also depends on how well one can reason using familiar words.
On Dec 10 2009, 2:44 pm, Enoch Alien <alienenoch...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Ashdog,
>
> I believe you are confusing fluid intelligence with crystallized
> intelligence.
> > --
>
> > 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 at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
Pontus Granström
--
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.
Pheonoxia
doesn't necessarily make them smarter.
What is g-load?
> > > fromhttp://iqtest.dk/main.swfafter 1 year which I scored a 115 on.
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsubscribe@go oglegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
milestones
section
on the GRE depends on the size of your vocabulary. Although I'm sure
this correlates well in practice with fluid intelligence, it's common
for smart people to not build their vocabs (and less intelligent
people to train them). Apart from this, it makes sense: much of one's
score also depends on how well one can reason using familiar words."
For native speakers, vocabulary is the best predictor of verbal
intelligence and vocabulary is also the best predictor of overall
intelligence. This fact is not in dispute. Vocabulary correlates .8
with overall intelligence (IQ).
For those who are not native speakers (of say, English) the above
statement is false.
Whether or not "smart" people (by smart I assume you mean people with
high fluid intelligence) neglect vocabulary building or not is hard to
prove. My guess is that your assertion is incorrect. People with high
curiosity drive will pick up unusual words as they would various sorts
of information about the world, and if their long term memory is good,
they will retain it. If they have high "fluid" intelligence, they will
use these words and information appropriately and strategically.
Vocabulary level also has an extremely high correlation with
occupational success; this has been shown over and over again (by
Johnson O'conner research among others). So, people at the top of
various occupational ladders (i.e. CEO's) have well developed
vocabularies that are often invariably superior to people who work for
them. One might argue that an employee -- say, an engineer -- is
engaged in more intellectually complex tasks than the CEO and is
therefore more intelligent. However, what they''re doing is simply
more specialized and requires a specific skill. They may be a genius
in what they can do, but this does not necessarily translate into
having higher intelligence in a general sense. The arrogance of the
"genius" in his or her area of specialization might preclude that
individual from developing more general powers of intellect. And the
same applies the other way -- say, someone who has developed a great
vocabulary and trivia knowledge but has weak interests or skills
outside of language development. One of the reasons that people in
positions of power develop their vocabularies is for the purpose of
communication, and, beyond just communication -- manipulation. For
instance, CEO's are often adept at flattering the "geniuses" who slave
for them, praising their amazing intellectual abilities. But it's
worth noting that being a"genius" in a specific area is different than
being intelligent in the overall sense, even though the two are not
mutually exlcusive -- to be a genius in a domain one typically has a
starting IQ about 1.5 -2 standard deviations above the mean. I don't
mean to discount the importance of being a genius but people (on the
internet especially) often wrongly attribute astronomical IQ's onto
famous figures, because of their extraordinary talents not their
overall intelligence. It's a mistake to conflate having a certain
talent with general intelligence, and I admit that I used to make that
error myself, but now no longer do. It is an easy mistake to make.
Pontus Granström
swedish officer selection.pdf
--
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.
milestones
having alot of vocabulary items in
the IQ-test"
When WAIS sub tests have been factor analyzed, the highest subtests
are block design (fluid) and vocabulary (crystallized). So, G loading
is independent of whether a particular test is fluid or crystallized.
"IQ to me is the measure of G, while Gv and Gc are more or less
independent factors and highly influenced by enviromental factors
(study,
computer games)."
Gv is subsumed under Gf. Gc, like Gf, subsumes a multitude of
specialized level 1 factors. (And they keep coming up with specialized
abilties that correlate with Gf and Gc). And yes, you can improve both
Gv and Gc. Raising Gv by playing video games will lead to gains on a
test like the Raven's where perceptual speed matters and building
vocabulary will help raise Gc. Building Gc has been widely known since
the beginning of intelligence testing and it's a smart thing to do.
Obviously, Gc relates not only to vocabulary but arithmetic and (other
math) as well...what you might call "educational crystallized"
intelligence.
G is at the top of the pyramid but some have argued (such as Horn of
Horn-Cattell fame) that it's relatively meaningless and just a
statistical construct and far less robust than Gf and Gc. I have no
training in the psych field -- so I don't know enough to speculate on
what's what.
"Of course an intelligent person might have a richer vocabulary but
so has one who do alot of reading and I know that many people
have alot higher Gc than Gf and vice versa"
Yes, if this is the case, this ability to read well and pick up words
in context indicates good analytical abilities. But there is such a
thing called non verbal learning disability where one has an excellent
vocabulary (and general information knowledge) but tends to be very
rigid in their thinking and expressiveness...this is sometimes brought
about by right hemisphere deficits and being too "left brained" --
that is, not well lateralized between left and right. The opposite is
true for autistics who tend to score high on non verbal tests but
poorly on verbal tests.
My scores on Gc tests varied from 3 to 8 exactly Science:8, Literature:
3,Debate:5, Technology:3. Highest
g-load has science and debate and literature has almost exactly the
same
G-load and Gc-load."
The best measures of Gc are not content specific tests that you study
for but are randomly general types of questions, both vocabulary and
trivia. Again, this is only true based on someone's acculturation
level and language familiarity. The higher the cultural homogeneity of
test takers knowledge the greater correlation between Gf and Gc.
However, the correlation between Gf and Gc begins to fall apart once
the cultural knowledge gap is widened. That is, "Who wrote the
Inferno?" is a question that is good for white middle class Americans
and english speaking Europeans, but is terrible for someone in Tibet.
Regarding the Gf/Gc thing, I think for the purposes of internet tests,
the only tests people should take at all seriously are Gf tests,
particularly matrix type tests as this is the fair way to measure
people from different cultures.
Pontus Granström
Tofu
First, I don't know if my level of intelligence has changed. I
haven't taken an intelligence test since then but I suspect that it
hasn't changed (and never actually changed during the dnb training for
that matter). If someone wants me to take an intelligence test again
I'd be willing btw. My observations regarding how my general way of
thinking has changed since then have also been inconclusive. I've
made an effort to think more clearly and alertly by taking steps to
reduce unnecessary anxiety through conscious effort and exercise, as
well as experimenting with different levels of caffeine intake. I
also broke up with my gf which has made my thinking clearer :) Since
I stopped dnb I've been experimenting with different things, so I
can't attribute any perceived change in thinking to dnb. I can say
that it seems like I'm thinking more clearly and I feel happier and
less anxiety.
On Jan 6, 8:43 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand my post, science and debate etc doesnt refer to
> trivia but rather words that belongs to those domains, could be words like
> approximation, empathy etc nor is it a test where you study before you take
> it. The Gc loadings are described in the table, please take a look. The
> whole test is described there as well, I also took an additional 6 tests
> which are not described.
>
> > brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com<brain-training%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Pontus Granström
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
Paul Hobbs
--
Paul