6 ms·

This isn't even enough time to significantly increase your strength at a gym, which we know is possible and observable. Why anyone would think this is enough tr

This isn't even enough time to significantly increase your strength at a gym, which we know is possible and observable. Why anyone would think this is enough training to produce noticeable effects baffles me.

arbitrage 11y ago
Your analogy isn't appropriate. The brain is not made of muscle tissue.
- hawkice 11y ago
  The purpose of the analogy (as I understood it) was that there are important, extremely large effects that are caused by behavior X (in this case, exercise). But if we put exercise to the same test, we would fail to notice those important and extremely large effects. So by using so little training, we learn little about what effects it _could_ have -- it could work, but we wouldn't know unless it worked 10-100x faster than other important systems we rely on.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    This is fallacious, inductive reasoning. The behaviors are not the same. It is not valid to draw a post hoc conclusion from one to the other.
    - Nimitz14 11y ago
      .
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        It is still inductive. There is zero reason to believe "there's a better chance it is so than otherwise". You may wish to brush up on your logic.
        Nimitz14 11y ago
        You know what, you're right. I take back what I said.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - hawkice 11y ago
      So, I don't mean to imply that there is a units equivalency -- 1 minute of exercise is not the same or similar to 1 minute of some type of mental activity. It's no good to say "this experiment doesn't use at least N minutes of intervention, where N comes from this totally different process and unit system having to do with the effects of e.g. bench presses". But that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you give an intervention of thirty minutes of activity a week and see no change, it's a pretty reasonable to conclude "30 minutes a week for six weeks is not an effective dose" and not jump all the way to "This intervention has no effect". This is why I highlighted how low the 'dose' of the intervention was. [I also am relying on my understanding of Dual N-back, language learning, and other mental tasks, and the turnaround time for them is substantially longer -- and thus requires a higher dose -- than starting from a similar place in exercise. This context is useful only for general dose estimates {{ even 10 hours a week might not be enough to learn a language, certainly not in six weeks }}, but not necessary for the comparison.] Does that address the substance of your objection?
TeMPOraL 11y ago
More imporantly, unless there's a hidden software in brain that responds precisely to that particular training, you'd expect that anything that can yield significant results by doing it 3x a week for 10 minutes would be already discovered purely by random chance.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Sure, but would they have recognized it? Would they put 2 and 2 together - "I ate a hamburger every Tuesday night for a year, and now I'm smarter...Eureka!" Heck, maybe they would - they're a genius now.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Of course they would, that's how we've invented pretty much anything, scientific method included. People are pretty observant, there are lots of them and they've been taking notes for many thousands of years.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Um, I meant the random chance part. If something happens randomly, folks are rarely watching, right?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  6 weeks of effective 10min training is actually enough for some one that isn't training regularly. Do 10 min of pushups for 6 weeks and see for yourself.
  - tomcam 11y ago
    Snap! I a very fat man who can do 45 pushups without stopping. The idea of going for 10 minutes is unfathomable to me. But more important, you really dropped that 10 minutes into perspective for me. Thank you.
    - 11y ago
vlehto 11y ago
"six weeks of brain training, with 10-minute sessions three times each week" Average couch potato could do miracles to his/her oxygen uptake with that amount of hard aerobic training. Ten minutes running uphill at full speed, stop when you're out of breath. Catch breath, do again. If you started with coopers test result of 1500m, you could probably hit 2500m at the end of the training.

arbitrage 11y ago

Your analogy isn't appropriate. The brain is not made of muscle tissue.

hawkice 11y ago
The purpose of the analogy (as I understood it) was that there are important, extremely large effects that are caused by behavior X (in this case, exercise). But if we put exercise to the same test, we would fail to notice those important and extremely large effects. So by using so little training, we learn little about what effects it _could_ have -- it could work, but we wouldn't know unless it worked 10-100x faster than other important systems we rely on.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  This is fallacious, inductive reasoning. The behaviors are not the same. It is not valid to draw a post hoc conclusion from one to the other.
  - Nimitz14 11y ago
    .
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      It is still inductive. There is zero reason to believe "there's a better chance it is so than otherwise". You may wish to brush up on your logic.
      - Nimitz14 11y ago
        You know what, you're right. I take back what I said.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - hawkice 11y ago
    So, I don't mean to imply that there is a units equivalency -- 1 minute of exercise is not the same or similar to 1 minute of some type of mental activity. It's no good to say "this experiment doesn't use at least N minutes of intervention, where N comes from this totally different process and unit system having to do with the effects of e.g. bench presses". But that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you give an intervention of thirty minutes of activity a week and see no change, it's a pretty reasonable to conclude "30 minutes a week for six weeks is not an effective dose" and not jump all the way to "This intervention has no effect". This is why I highlighted how low the 'dose' of the intervention was. [I also am relying on my understanding of Dual N-back, language learning, and other mental tasks, and the turnaround time for them is substantially longer -- and thus requires a higher dose -- than starting from a similar place in exercise. This context is useful only for general dose estimates {{ even 10 hours a week might not be enough to learn a language, certainly not in six weeks }}, but not necessary for the comparison.] Does that address the substance of your objection?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

More imporantly, unless there's a hidden software in brain that responds precisely to that particular training, you'd expect that anything that can yield significant results by doing it 3x a week for 10 minutes would be already discovered purely by random chance.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Sure, but would they have recognized it? Would they put 2 and 2 together - "I ate a hamburger every Tuesday night for a year, and now I'm smarter...Eureka!" Heck, maybe they would - they're a genius now.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Of course they would, that's how we've invented pretty much anything, scientific method included. People are pretty observant, there are lots of them and they've been taking notes for many thousands of years.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Um, I meant the random chance part. If something happens randomly, folks are rarely watching, right?
dogma1138 11y ago
6 weeks of effective 10min training is actually enough for some one that isn't training regularly. Do 10 min of pushups for 6 weeks and see for yourself.
- tomcam 11y ago
  Snap! I a very fat man who can do 45 pushups without stopping. The idea of going for 10 minutes is unfathomable to me. But more important, you really dropped that 10 minutes into perspective for me. Thank you.
  - 11y ago

vlehto 11y ago

"six weeks of brain training, with 10-minute sessions three times each week" Average couch potato could do miracles to his/her oxygen uptake with that amount of hard aerobic training. Ten minutes running uphill at full speed, stop when you're out of breath. Catch breath, do again. If you started with coopers test result of 1500m, you could probably hit 2500m at the end of the training.