On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Pontus Granström <lepontus@gmail.com> wrote:You're seriously trying to defend such a flawed study. I can barely
> Gwern, I am talking about the research I have posted here that you very
> nicely avoid to deal with. The research done on speed RAPM, the research
> done on "reasoning speed" and so on. Besides, even if half dropped out,
> those who didn't improved more than chance can give them credit for.
believe it. This, among other things, is why I don't pay much
attention to you. (There's a lot of worthless discussion on this ML,
and I use the mute button liberally.)
Yes, you've posted a bunch of research of questionable relevance, all
of which that I bothered to read was about correlations - correlations
existing *before* any intervention like dual n-back. Which is exactly
what I've never contested, and adds nothing to the question of whether
dual n-back increases IQ or just speed on BOMAT/RAPM, and your belief
that they prove it is sheer question-begging. I have said all this
before.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
--
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