Re: Jaeggi 2010 in the news

You all know if you search your feelings (as Darth would have put it, I'll do a little bit of nearding myself) that it's just a matter of time before we have definite proof that n-backing improves the ability to solve "more complex" problems they way you want it. Personally I stick to the biology of thinking and my personal experience.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:51 PM, ao <argumzio@gmail.com> wrote:

I can say, based on the evidence available, that DNB only improves
on'es speed in solving matrix-style Gf-slanted problems and _not_
one's ability to solve problems that one had initially found more
difficult because one couldn't actually *figure out* the pattern.

argumzio

On Jun 1, 2:43 pm, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I defending a flawed study? This study which I believe I called the
> 20-min version RAPM is proof of what Moody is claiming is wrong. Probably
> paid by the brain training Illuminati of course. I think it's funny that you
> have these "nerd neurotic" almost aspberger-like raged resistance as soon as
> I hit your sensitive spot, the fact that you censorship results that do not
> match your rather narrow "nerd neurotic keyhole".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > You're seriously trying to defend such a flawed study. I can barely
> > 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.

--
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.