On May 31, 9:21 pm, "D. K. Ohms" <311442185795...@gmail.com> wrote:
> we know that no one here
> has an IQ of 180 or so
>
> Really? You claim perfect knowledge of everyone's IQ scores? How much
> novel BS are we supposed to swallow here?
>
> Ohms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The.Fourth.Deviation. wrote:
> > If what you all are suggesting is true, it means that there is a WM/GF
> > max that humans can attain, and that people here must be near that
> > max, and therefore untrainable by DNB. But we know that no one here
> > has an IQ of 180 or so, so therefore why should we think that no one
> > can improve? In addition, what exactly is this IQ point that people
> > are suggesting prevents one from experiencing benefits? I think that
> > this argument is very tenuous...
>
> > On May 31, 1:48 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That's not necessarily so. I don't remember seeing anything in Jaeggi
> > > suggesting that individuals who scored high initially did not
> > > significantly improve. The headline of a study supporting this must be
> > > "High IQ individuals have less to gain from brain training". But so
> > > far, most studies just show that it increases performance or increases
> > > efficiency of PFC. A person may lose 5 pounds of weight, but looking
> > > in the mirror feel as if they still look the same. How do we know
> > > these high aptitude individuals do not merely discount results? At
> > > this juncture there is no research I know of which suggests to that to
> > > be the case.
>
> > > Plus there is some confounding of ideas here. A person with higher
> > > testosterone will be initially stronger, and have more potential than
> > > someone with less testosterone. I know of no reason to think that
> > > intelligence does not work similarly, and as I mentioned, no research
> > > I know of suggests this either.
>
> > > On May 31, 1:34 am, brain train <brain.train...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > completely agree with Milestones- people with high potential (currently
> > > > hidden) who are being pulled down on IQ measure due WM issues are the ones
> > > > who are likely to benefit most from DNB.
> > > > i also think that these are the same people who must be looking around to
> > > > find a solution to their problems from different sources like- forums like
> > > > this forum, scientific magazines, research papers, brain-training tools,
> > > > books etc. Reason being that they have a hint that they are operating below
> > > > their potential.
>
> > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, milestones <wgweathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 31, 9:21 am, "The.Fourth.Deviation." <davidsky...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > First, everything is hard until your brain adapts to it.
>
> > > > > > Second, I personally conclude that .5 is a strong link between gf and
> > > > > > DNB, but it still leaves room for a lot of other factors, which is why
> > > > > > DNB only predicts part of gf. That is why people can achieve high N
> > > > > > levels, but still have a lower IQ. I believe that a person of IQ 100
> > > > > > can achieve levels 5+ through training because PIQ/GF is only one
> > > > > > aspect of DNB performance. And DNB can be learned, making it harder
> > > > > > for us to link performance with IQ. A newbie genius will most likely
> > > > > > be outperformed by a mediocre DNB devotee. I predict that a person of
> > > > > > IQ 100 could even achieve DNB 6 or 7, or higher, after sustained
> > > > > > training efforts.
>
> > > > > One thing to note, though as I have many times in this group. There is
> > > > > a difference between a person with a average/normal IQ versus someone
> > > > > who may be functioning at average IQ but has greater potential and who
> > > > > may in fact have an IQ in excess (or far in excess) of what they are
> > > > > testing at. Their performance could be depressed by learning
> > > > > disabilities, ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, manic depression, or a
> > > > > number of things which WM training -- along with other interventions
> > > > > --- may help in varying degrees. For someone without any impediments
> > > > > to their potential, interventions like DNB are most likely far less
> > > > > efficacious and IQ will likely move less (since day to day functioning
> > > > > and theoretical potential are already close together). This could be a
> > > > > person of average intelligence or a gifted individual. If I had to
> > > > > guess, this group seems to attract people with above average
> > > > > intelligence but who are not living up their potential for the
> > > > > aforementioned reasons. For me, prior to training, my WM was mediocre
> > > > > compared to my long term memory, which was quite good, so DNB has been
> > > > > an optimal intervention. My example shows that if someone has strong
> > > > > long term memory, and comparably lower WM, then DNB might help
> > > > > functioning a lot. But then, not everyone will experience this, and
> > > > > other interventions may be preferable to DNB depending on the issues
> > > > > the person is dealing with.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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-training@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
--
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-training@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment