12 ms·

Study suggests that the “brain training” industry may be a placebo

225 points by Aelinsaar 10y ago

gabe_smith 10y ago
At least to me, it seems like doing repetitive puzzles isn't likely to do much more than make you good at that type of puzzle, rather than building actual problem-solving skills. I used to play these games with pretty little actual impact outside of my score... In math and logic, I've found a pretty great resource in https://brilliant.org/ https://brilliant.org/ with many quizzes and wikis that focus on the underlying connections and general problem-solving approaches, which has made me better at solving actual problems.
serg_chernata 10y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that being "smart" has everything to do with having a wealth of information and being able to draw connections between various facts and ideas. Repeatedly solving a simple puzzle only makes you good at repeatedly solving a simple puzzle.
- Practicality 10y ago
  Intelligence is supposed to be a measure of intellectual capability, independent of knowledge. It's difficult to define clearly, but knowledge is definitely a different quality. Of course "smart" is even less well-defined than intelligence, so it's not a very useful word for such a discussion.
  - riffraff 10y ago
    Yet, most tests of intelligence seem to be influenced by knowledge. I.e. if you have solved a lot of "guess the next shape" or "find the odd element" you are probably going to perform better because you know how the thing work. Likewise, literature and basic math seem to be widely influenced by education, and don't measure intelligence. Are there tests that really measure intelligence? And if there aren't, are the qualities really separated?
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      > I.e. if you have solved a lot of "guess the next shape" or "find the odd element" you are probably going to perform better because you know how the thing work. I hear this repeated a lot. I happen to have worked with someone who was into this (former something in Mensa), and as far as I understood one of the hallmarks of a good IQ test is when previous experience have small influence on the testscore. Some people tend to say that anyone can train for this. I guess if that was true, Mensa would have a lot more members.
      - jacalata 10y ago
        You are conflating various things. 1) it is uncontroversial that training improves performance on traditional IQ tests. It is true that people aim to minimise this when designing tests. It is also true that so far, nobody has done a great job at that. It's worth noting that Mensa presents different tests in different parts of the world - which is a pretty big hint that they think previous experience/cultural background affects how you perform on the test. 2) Anyone can improve their running performance through training. Not everyone can be a world class marathon runner. The fact that you can improve your performance on an IQ test is not disproven by the claim that not everyone is capable of reaching Mensa levels on it.
        reitanqild 10y ago
        > The fact that you can improve your performance on an IQ test is not disproven You and others here seem to think I'm out to: * disprove that IQ scores can be trained * say something about or recommend Mensa (not a member, don't know if I would qualify, never took the official test) while I only wanted to offer a counterpoint to the IQ-measurement-is-more-or-less-worthless school of thought. > Anyone can improve their running performance through training. Not everyone can be a world class marathon runner. Same goes for cognitive skills. I think this sums it up: there are significant differences in both physical and mental capabilities.
        jacalata 10y ago
- rezashirazian 10y ago
  I've spent sometime studying this. I personally believe Lumosity and the like are a waste of time (if not a downright scam) and do not make anyone smarter. Until I see scientific data that proves otherwise this will remain my belief. However that doesn't mean I don't believe in brain training By your definition, smart is knowledge AND the ability to draw connection between facts and ideas. And although solving simple puzzles may not train you for the latter, continuously solving mathematical problems (that may otherwise not have any real world applications) will train your brain to find patterns. If someone can make Calculus, Graph Theory and Discrete Mathematics fun enough for people to tackle daily, you'll have a real brain exercise platform.
  - serg_chernata 10y ago
    Good points, would this work with other puzzle types that do not involve math? Is there a threshold of difficulty for these puzzles to become useful?
  - atelic 10y ago
    Here [0] is an interesting article that talks about both sides of this argument. It has examples of studies that have shown real life advantages to these types of brain training. Some examples include increased scores on standardized tests in teenagers and better memory recall in adults 65+ [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-your...
    - eric_h 10y ago
      I like the analogy that the brain is a muscle and if you don't exercise it, parts of it start to atrophy. I think these brain games actually bring a lot of value to people who have retired and are no longer required to exercise their brains in order to fulfill their basic requirements of life. Maybe they don't make you smarter, but perhaps they help prevent you from getting stupid.
- ProAm 10y ago
  If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C It different than just having access to information, speed and how it's processed makes a significant difference.
  - Scea91 10y ago
    I don't think that is the case. Trained people will go A -> C. Also careless people will go A -> C, because it is easier to make a mistake when skipping the partial steps.
    - ergothus 10y ago
      I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list. The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make. IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are. Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way". Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
- B-Con 10y ago
  My POV has been that most of most of our conscious analysis boils down to utilizing a smaller set of basic cognitive tools. (Much like complex software runs on top of hardware with relatively simple interfaces.) If you can isolate and train core cognitive functions then that benefit will hopefully improve everything that utilizes it. So for a random example: if you can go from comfortably holding 5 random objects in your working memory to 8, that's going to manifest itself in a variety of ways. I wonder if people get different results from these puzzles based on how they approach the puzzle. Maybe they can solve the puzzle by avoiding the cognitive function the puzzle was designed to use and thus they get no/limited benefit.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    As a counter argument to this, for example when I play chess sometimes I feel that the 'holding of objects in working memory,' the "playing card castle" practice of thinking ahead that I build up in my head, has some practical use in the real world, but if I'm honest about it I feel the extremity and specificity of the scenario of chess is not transferable to the real world. I think the argument that chess has improved my underlying hardware sounds reasonable, but it's also necessary that hardware be able to adapt to different scenarios in life. If I spend too much time on chess, it feels like that would end in a place where that hardware would be specifically tailored to just playing chess.
    - coolgeek 10y ago
      I think that your comment undervalues the "thinking ahead" aspect, while overvaluing the "extremity and specificity" of what chess can teach. I'm not a chess player, but I recognize that it can be a very valuable tool for understanding what I might call the "while loop" of chess * any given position has multiple options for action * how to anticipate what moves an opponent may make in response to each of those options * how you will, in turn, respond to the opponents responses IOW, it teaches tactics and strategy, both of which we engage in countless times each day, whether or not we consciously realize it.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
- outworlder 10y ago
  > I've always thought that being "smart" has everything to do with having a wealth of information and being able to draw connections between various facts and ideas. Yes. My pet theory is that the brain is just a huge pattern matching engine. Formal education is mostly about training the pattern recognizer with new patterns. Whenever you talk to people that are "uneducated" (or whatever word you may want to choose for that) that struggle with basic concepts, try to probe deeper. You'll find that, in many cases, they are being overwhelmed with new concepts being presented simultaneously. People with extensive formal education will have been exposed to innumerable problems and concepts by the time they reach adulthood. There's a wealth of information the brain can use to speed up comprehension. This is a pet theory though, being reinforced over the years by my own cognitive biases :)
  - elorant 10y ago
    I second that. And one of the main reasons I daily visit HN is exactly that. It widens my horizons, presenting me with different point of views to various problems/issues. I literally think that coming here makes me a smarter person in the long run. I also experience that line of thinking in learning math. Mathematics seem like the perfect example of pattern matching. You progressively learn to adapt to a certain kind of thinking by solving a multitude of different exercises that broaden your conceptual understanding of a field. At least that's how it works for me. You keep exercising and at some point you experience an epiphany and then everything becomes crystal clear.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - imron 10y ago
      > I literally think that coming here makes me a smarter person in the long run. Good ole' placebo effect :-)
    - syngrog66 10y ago
      I too continue to visit HN in part because its one of the rare places that feeds my smart side and inspires/stimulates/satisfies that aspect of my existence. At the same time I've repeatedly come close to abandoning HN entirely because of another aspect interwoven seemingly equally with the first thing, which might be described as a kind of smart-idiocy, different flavors of it, whether recursive irrelevant descents into subjective trivial minutia, or points-scoring one-upmanship in the field of PC-ness, the occasional pro-VC/pro-startup propaganda, or merely the blatant uncharitable assumptions about the intelligence/knowledge of the other party, or the increasing cases of "you want to learn more about 'foo', really? Gosh golly, let me Google that term for you, here are my top 5 results, and I suggest you learn about Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube, Khan Academy, etc.", or the thinly-disguised self-promotional posts/comments (humble-bragging, etc). Summary: there is gold here, utter gold. There is also shit, reeking shit. Make your choice, choose your focus, then tune your dial.
- zappo2938 10y ago
  There was a controversial study done in the 60s when we could still do these types of studies where they told teachers who the smart and dumb students were, the Pygmalion Effect.[0] The study suggests being "smart" has more to do with other people's perception and expectation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect#Rosenthal.E2.80.93Jacobson_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect#Rosenthal.E2....
- Mc_Big_G 10y ago
  Repeatedly solving a simple puzzle only makes you good at repeatedly solving a simple puzzle. s/simple/irrelevant/g a.k.a programming interviews
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I draw much from David Krakauer and J. Doyne Farmer, both of the Santa Fe Institute, and the latter's drawing on Muth (1980s). Krakauer: Intelligence is Search. It's the ability to find a least-energy path or solution through an arbitrary n-dimensional space. Knowledge is having a solid backing of (valid) data and models. Ignorance is not having that data and model store. It's a curable state, though being primed with bad data and models is very damaging to effective search. Krakauer gave a really good interview at Nautilus a year or so back on this, it's very highly recommended. http://m.nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/ingenious-david-krakauer http://m.nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/ingenious-david-krakaue... Farmer, quoting Muth, looks at a model of engineering in which engineers generate solutions at random but are very good at identifying the better solution. I'm thinking that there are emperical reasons to suspect that this may not be far from the truth, and methods such as A/B testing seem to explicitly embody the identification element of this. You'll find this covered in many of Farmer's recent talks (past few years), Martin School at Oxford and Nanjing University in particular, at YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6x10eBpAPo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6x10eBpAPo
  - bordercases 10y ago
    <3 Krakauer. Like everyone in his field he has probably encountered Herbert Simon before. But as far as "Intelligence is Search" goes, Herb thought that "search" is a subset of problem solving, next to "reasoning" and "constraints". In the end they could all be considered as being unified under "traversal of state-space" for a given problem. Creativity or imagination can be thought of as generating useful representations and possibilities for states within that space.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Ooh! Simon's new to me (or at least I think he is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon Anything of his that you find particularly singular or encapsulating these ideas? Also, it was just Simon's centenary. Good brief interview with Simon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnWbP_Wztk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnWbP_Wztk
- tunesmith 10y ago
  Yeah, I think that what a lot of people miss in this conversation is that there really is this thing that strongly correlates better performance on IQ tests with better performance in all sorts of other otherwise-unrelated things. And at the same time, training for better performance on IQ test questions does NOT increase performance on those otherwise-unrelated things. So it's that thing that correlates across those unrelated things. That's what the intelligence researchers define as intelligence, even though it's popular to redefine it as something else that is entirely nurture and not nature.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  The problem is, it is hard to find distinction between the word intelligence and knowledge. However, there is one metric we can use to define the difference between the two: Given two entities with equal knowledge the one who is more intelligent can perform better on an Intelligent Quotient test (aka IQ test). In order to perform such a test, however, we will need to find two people with equal knowledge. To find two such people I propose we use a Knowledge Quotient test (aka KQ test) The problem is, it is hard to find distinction between the word knowledge and intelligence. However, there is one metric we can use to define the difference between the two: Given two entities with equal intelligence the one who is more knowledgeable can perform better on an Knowledge Quotient test (aka KQ test). In order to perform such a test, however, we will need to find two people with equal intelligence. To find two such people I propose we use a Intelligent Quotient test (aka IQ test).
- wahsd 10y ago
  You will surely love the current issue of Scientific American then. (You won't) http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2016/07-01/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2016/07-01/
- douche 10y ago
  I would agree, in broad strokes. One of my gifts has always been a near-photographic visual memory (I can remember images of certain pages of books I read decades ago), and my brain's propensity for collection and efficient indexing of random bits of trivia. Mention some historical subject, and I almost instantly pull up everything I've ever read about that subject, as well as secondary and tertiary subjects that are related...
- etrautmann 10y ago
  There's a little bit more to it, however, since working memory is often a limitation for a wide range of tasks, and anything that could increase your short term buffer to hold a few more items concurrently could help across a wide range of tasks, and potentially yield more "fluid intelligence." There are a number of conflicting findings about whether you can actually increase this, but the general concept is not quite as trivial as overtraining on puzzles as you laid out.
CharlesMerriam2 10y ago
This study argues that people recruited to use Brain Training score higher on fluid intelligence than people recruited to participate in a study for a reward. That is, Brain Training works for people who believe it works. So, shouldn't it be used by people who believe it works?
- jerf 10y ago
  I think that's a reasonable question. The answer is that there are much cheaper ways to obtain the placebo effect here than to give these companies your money. I also guess without immediate proof that the placebo effect is likely to be temporary and represent no real, persistent change to intelligence at all.... another reason to not give them your money. There are cheaper and much more entertaining ways to obtain "no change to your intelligence".
  - ladon86 10y ago
    > The answer is that there are much cheaper ways to obtain the placebo effect here than to give these companies your money. There might be cheaper ways, but paying money has an impact too. That's why more expensive painkillers often work better than generic ones, despite having identical ingredients [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.h...
- cpncrunch 10y ago
  We don't know if it was selection bias or the placebo effect, or a combination of both. It would be pretty simple to design another trial to test this.
  - tmalsburg2 10y ago
    > If it is selection bias then the training has no effect whatsoever. That doesn't follow. Both factors could have an effect at the same time and both effects could, in principle, go in either direction. The only thing that we can conclude from the present study is that the joint effect of placebo and selection bias is positive.
kingkawn 10y ago
Isn't the point of brain training sort of to intentionally induce placebo?
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  No. A placebo effect is fleeting but training is supposed to have long-term effects.
  - kingkawn 10y ago
    If a placebo is an effect that requires no training, being able to induce it would seem superior to training.
andriesm 10y ago
"Dual N-Back" remains one of the best - it may be the only one that really works, unlike the bulk of other brain games that truly are scams. This one has extensive research literature, and many free/ad-supported and cheap ones on android and iPhone app-stores. For a critical discussion of the research see: https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-increase-IQ https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-increase... It seems to be one of the best if you interested in this sort of thing. Claims include: improved working memory, improved executive functioning (great for ADHD/ADD), improved emotional control, self control and regulation, minor bump in IQ.
- fizzbatter 10y ago
  Can someone explain the downvote? Please don't downvote without explanation, i've got no idea if this persons claims are suspicious or false or etc. edit: Also, to this thread's OP; Doesn't your link's accepted answer claim n-back doesn't work? There is critical discussion there sure, but the consensus seems to be that it doesn't work. No?
  - andriesm 10y ago
    Thx Fizzbatter, I indeed have no horse in this game (I'm not involved in the industry) - I've seen all of the mainstream "brain games" be thoroughly discredited. Dual N-Back is the only one that has at least SOME indication that it may have actual benefits, and it's not owned by one of these big brain game companies - so you can at least be more impartial and less subject to hype. You're right, I deliberately pointed everyone to a skeptical discussion of the research. Brain games as a whole ain't great, but of a bad bunch, this is the best, both in terms of research behind it, and in terms of cost (not some monthly subscription - often a free download) and impartiality.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Please don't downvote without explanation, Downvotes exist to improve the signal to noise ratio on HN: please do, generally, downvote without explanation. If something is productive and worth discussing, that's a sign that its not worth a downvote.
Madmallard 10y ago
I've had sharpness and focus improvements taking energy metabolism supplements. Could be that I'm deficient here or that it could also help others. CoQ10, Nicotinamide Riboside, L-Carnitine, Magnesium Malate, B complex, N-Acetyl Cysteine In terms of just being smarter and quicker to learn I'm not really sure that seems to be a combination of experience and natural factors. The experience part you can obviously change but the other one who knows.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  I think in general if a supplement has a positive result on health/cognition, that means you were deficient. CoQ10, for example, is produced by your body. You would think then, it would produce as much as you need.
- icelancer 10y ago
  Obligatory link to gwern's experimentation and research on nootropics: https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
- auganov 10y ago
  Are you actually taking Nicotinamide Riboside long term? 500$ for a yearly supply is a bit steep and that's assuming 300mg/day which is not ideal.
bunkydoo 10y ago
Well this doesn't really come as a huge surprise. these brain training apps seem to target logical repetitive tasks that would only train your brain to be better at doing just that - logical repetitive tasks. I do however think it is very possible to train the brain, it just hasn't been put in the form of an app or autonomous computer software yet.
nxzero 10y ago
An interesting thing about placebos is that all placebos are not equal, which to me calls into question what a placebos really is.
TheSisb2 10y ago
I've read of some people who were finally set free after a long stretch in solitary confinement, and many of them attributed the preservation of their sanity to simple math or word exercises. I believe one would just count exponents of two as far as he could go and another would try remembering every word in every language they knew. Not sure of similarities to brain training games, but I would bet there is something there.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  You just gave me an interesting idea. Manually writing down my vocabulary (grouped into passive and active) for every language I know. Counting up the results and comparing would be rather interesting. After that diffing it with a dictionary file for each language to see the gaps. This will probably take forever, but it could be worth the time.
jrockway 10y ago
Yeah, the human body seems to be very good at doing the minimum required to meet the provided training stimulus. Ride a bike fast, you get better at riding a bike fast. I started doing crossword puzzles a few months ago. Mainly I've gotten better at doing crossword puzzles. When I started, I had to think about each clue, but now I know the common words that always show up and don't even have to read the clues to get those. Meanwhile, as I never write about "MDs" or the "EPA", this has had no useful impact on my life.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Right, which is why training specificity is a thing. You can train different than you play/compete, but you have to target very carefully, especially as you progress.
gtrubetskoy 10y ago
Unlike "brain training", good old "learning" and "education" are definitely _not_ placebos.
- 1ris 10y ago
  Learning a language might increase your overall intelligence, but mostly you "just" learn a language - like solving puzzles makes you better at solving these specific puzzles.
BurningFrog 10y ago
The intelligence is all in my mind?
zizzles 10y ago
The only real "brain training" is reading, learning practical and technical skills, and perhaps living a healthy lifestyle. Other than that, forget it. Brain power and being a quick-witted genius is all about GENETICS (like most things in this life)
- eagsalazar2 10y ago
  Couldn't disagree more. I guess intelligence might be an exception but most outcomes in life are not about genetics but are about circumstance, passion, and hard work.
  - Someone1234 10y ago
    That's a rather strawman response. You say you "couldn't disagree more" then state a position that the person you're replying to never stated they hold (about life outcomes). They were talking about cognitive decline and "brain power," not life outcomes as you seem to think.
    - eagsalazar2 10y ago
      (like most things in this life) doesn't imply to you they are extending this POV beyond the discussion of brain power?
  - zizzles 10y ago
    Passion. Hard work. Two personality-traits largely influenced by genetics. Try again.
    - imron 10y ago
      I'm interested to see if you have any links to studies/research that back this up. The reason I ask is that I personally find I am passionate/hardworking for certain things but for others I'm completely disinterested/lazy. Likewise I have seen other people who are typically lazy and not hardworking, but get them on the one thing they are interested in (e.g. a specific sport) and they can quote match and player statistics stretching back decades. It's like they have this amazing ability but they've only applied it to a relatively useless part of their life (I say relatively useless because if they'd applied themselves with the same fervour to their work they'd have a much better quality of life). I'm not sure how that connects that with genetic personality traits.
mattfrommars 10y ago
I find N Back training to be actually effective from personal experience.
dredmorbius 10y ago
This has been both obvious and revalidated numerous times. I'd like to know why public broadcasters, particularly PBS and NPR in the US, aren't called to task for advertising this crap heavily during their sponsoship drives. Associating yourself with crap spreads the stains.
hackney 10y ago
From my perspective, 'brain training' is one more cliched bs pile of crap nonsense similar to the retarded phrase 'climate change'. There is nothing to ponder simply because the most powerful thought one can achieve is basically to have no thought/s whatsoever. When an individual can perceive the light body as a vessel designed to do more than thought itself is even capable of (reason), then one can receive true knowledge by the act of being open to information instead of the backasswards concept of more thought is more information. In practice, thoughts are like commands and one thought all by itself is an extremely powerful facet of awareness. People are themselves their own stumbling blocks. The basic purpose of attention is to simply make things happen. What I find interesting is that simple logic goes hand in hand with truths. If you find yourself in a quagmire of noise trying to understand something, you are complicating it beyond it's logical efficient boundaries. Truth has it's own mathematical inverse proportion which paradoxically is true from both perspectives wherein the singular truth viewpoint is mirrored exactly opposite the universal truth viewpoint.
- Retra 10y ago
  Looks like you've mastered the art of having no thoughts, and with so many words even.
bjourne 10y ago
Even if you can't "train your brain" what you can train is your ability to focus at a task. For example, if you play chess you probably do not "get smarter." All you get is better at visualizing future board positions and maybe you learn some general strategy and opening theory. But 99% of chess is raw calculation. Most people when they begin playing can't stand games longer than fifteen minutes or so. They have not trained their brains to focus over extended periods of times. But the more you play, the better you become at sitting still and concentrating on the position on the board. Eventually after years of practice, you'll be able to play games where both players have 120 minutes+increment and use your time without getting bored. Replace chess with any other brain teaser, like a quiz or an iq test. If you can sit and stare at the same problem uninterrupted for hours trying to work out a solution, then you will condition your brain to be able to do just that. I firmly believe that is useful in all parts of life. Random example, you are thinking about divorcing your wife. Now if you are able to spend several hours analyzing the possible ramifications of that decision you will be better of than if you can only think about it for twenty minutes without losing your train of thought. So I don't think it is all placebo. Ability to concentrate and perseverance through difficulties are two very important skills to have.
- ss248 10y ago
  It's not only chess, meditation, for example, works on the same principles.
matznerd 10y ago
What really matters is cross-over. Does the skill you are training have application to what is being simulated? It's kind of like you get what you measure, in that you get what you train. For example, through training head-to-head in math based games where speed is important, I have noticed that I am much more able to do quick calculations on checks more easily. There is a game in Elevate where you are shown avatars of people then told information about them and their names. You have to remember what they look like and basic information about them through various rounds and comparisons to the other players. I have noticed that when I play that game frequently, it helps with memorizing names of people. Dual-n-back is said to help increase working memory and I believe it because in that game you are having to constantly keep in your head the last auditory and visual records at the same time and integrate new information with them. I am annoyed by people constantly saying this type of training does not work...
hmahncke 10y ago
This research article and the arstechnica commentary are examples of exactly the overreach that they aim to criticize. A number of large-scale multi-site randomized controlled trials have shown that specific types of brain training generalize to untrained measures of cognitive function and real-world activities. Here's two examples: ACTIVE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934012/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934012/ IMPACT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169294/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169294/ Some brain training works, and some doesn't. Of the ones that work, some show certain types of benefits; and others show other types of benefits. Throwing the whole field out is like saying "laetrile doesn't treat cancer, so no molecules treat cancer." disclosure: I was an investigator on IMPACT; and I work at a brain training company (Posit Science)
GoToRO 10y ago
"brain training" industry may be a placebo but brain training is real. I have yet to understand why people think that you can have a very good brain if you don't train. In sports it's a given: if you want to run fast, you have to train, you have to eat right, you have to sleep rigth, you have to take breaks to not destroy your body. But somehow people that work with their brain think that the brain, the organ, does not work like the rest of the body and that you are smart no matter what an so on. You are smart if you trained, if you sleep right, if you eat right and in general if you take care of yourself. People say "it's just a puzzle". It's like a football player would say "why do I have to do squats?! I never have to do one while I play". Sure, at some point the puzzle becomes too easy. Thats why they do squats with weights.
- chrisfosterelli 10y ago
  Keeping your brain fit is important, and the study isn't arguing that. The way that these games do it is not useful. Just liking training running will make you good at running, training those puzzles will make you good at... those puzzles. That's not what those game companies sell it as, people want better general intelligence and instead they are just getting really good at matching shapes or solving crosswords. In your football example, a squat is full body exercise that strengthens numerous different muscle groups. These "brain training games" are not full mind exercises.
arkj 10y ago
The funny part is why does the placebo work? I know, there you go again....
Hondor 10y ago
Chewing gum can also increase intelligence. So it's easy to see that the effect of games can be hard to isolate from other factors. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356310 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356310
Cacti 10y ago
I thought it was well-proven a year or two ago that these apps/offers/classes were a scam?
- c3534l 10y ago
  It was. And at any rate claiming your app is scientifically proven or whatever was a lie from the beginning.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ultramancool 10y ago
I seem to remember studies from a few years back showing Lumosity as less effective than World of Warcraft at "brain training". At least WoW can engage a few social and competitive aspects rather than just mindless puzzle solving. CBC's Marketplace also did a show about this, pretty much crapping on the evidence for the whole thing: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-training-mind-games http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-train...
elcapitan 10y ago
Brain suggests that the "study" industry might be a placebo.
davycro 10y ago
Studies show that surgeons who play first person shooter video games are faster and better with laproscopic and robotic procedures. Does that not count as brain training?
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Seriously, all training is brain training, if it isn't weightlifting. What else are you gonna train?
  - minikites 10y ago
    Exercise is great for cognitive development/maintenance and weight training in particular involves more math than an outsider may realize so even that is brain training.

225 points by Aelinsaar 10y ago

At least to me, it seems like doing repetitive puzzles isn't likely to do much more than make you good at that type of puzzle, rather than building actual problem-solving skills. I used to play these games with pretty little actual impact outside of my score... In math and logic, I've found a pretty great resource in https://brilliant.org/ https://brilliant.org/ with many quizzes and wikis that focus on the underlying connections and general problem-solving approaches, which has made me better at solving actual problems.

serg_chernata 10y ago

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that being "smart" has everything to do with having a wealth of information and being able to draw connections between various facts and ideas. Repeatedly solving a simple puzzle only makes you good at repeatedly solving a simple puzzle.

Practicality 10y ago
Intelligence is supposed to be a measure of intellectual capability, independent of knowledge. It's difficult to define clearly, but knowledge is definitely a different quality. Of course "smart" is even less well-defined than intelligence, so it's not a very useful word for such a discussion.
- riffraff 10y ago
  Yet, most tests of intelligence seem to be influenced by knowledge. I.e. if you have solved a lot of "guess the next shape" or "find the odd element" you are probably going to perform better because you know how the thing work. Likewise, literature and basic math seem to be widely influenced by education, and don't measure intelligence. Are there tests that really measure intelligence? And if there aren't, are the qualities really separated?
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    > I.e. if you have solved a lot of "guess the next shape" or "find the odd element" you are probably going to perform better because you know how the thing work. I hear this repeated a lot. I happen to have worked with someone who was into this (former something in Mensa), and as far as I understood one of the hallmarks of a good IQ test is when previous experience have small influence on the testscore. Some people tend to say that anyone can train for this. I guess if that was true, Mensa would have a lot more members.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      You are conflating various things. 1) it is uncontroversial that training improves performance on traditional IQ tests. It is true that people aim to minimise this when designing tests. It is also true that so far, nobody has done a great job at that. It's worth noting that Mensa presents different tests in different parts of the world - which is a pretty big hint that they think previous experience/cultural background affects how you perform on the test. 2) Anyone can improve their running performance through training. Not everyone can be a world class marathon runner. The fact that you can improve your performance on an IQ test is not disproven by the claim that not everyone is capable of reaching Mensa levels on it.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        > The fact that you can improve your performance on an IQ test is not disproven You and others here seem to think I'm out to: * disprove that IQ scores can be trained * say something about or recommend Mensa (not a member, don't know if I would qualify, never took the official test) while I only wanted to offer a counterpoint to the IQ-measurement-is-more-or-less-worthless school of thought. > Anyone can improve their running performance through training. Not everyone can be a world class marathon runner. Same goes for cognitive skills. I think this sums it up: there are significant differences in both physical and mental capabilities.
        jacalata 10y ago
rezashirazian 10y ago
I've spent sometime studying this. I personally believe Lumosity and the like are a waste of time (if not a downright scam) and do not make anyone smarter. Until I see scientific data that proves otherwise this will remain my belief. However that doesn't mean I don't believe in brain training By your definition, smart is knowledge AND the ability to draw connection between facts and ideas. And although solving simple puzzles may not train you for the latter, continuously solving mathematical problems (that may otherwise not have any real world applications) will train your brain to find patterns. If someone can make Calculus, Graph Theory and Discrete Mathematics fun enough for people to tackle daily, you'll have a real brain exercise platform.
- serg_chernata 10y ago
  Good points, would this work with other puzzle types that do not involve math? Is there a threshold of difficulty for these puzzles to become useful?
- atelic 10y ago
  Here [0] is an interesting article that talks about both sides of this argument. It has examples of studies that have shown real life advantages to these types of brain training. Some examples include increased scores on standardized tests in teenagers and better memory recall in adults 65+ [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-your...
  - eric_h 10y ago
    I like the analogy that the brain is a muscle and if you don't exercise it, parts of it start to atrophy. I think these brain games actually bring a lot of value to people who have retired and are no longer required to exercise their brains in order to fulfill their basic requirements of life. Maybe they don't make you smarter, but perhaps they help prevent you from getting stupid.
ProAm 10y ago
If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C It different than just having access to information, speed and how it's processed makes a significant difference.
- Scea91 10y ago
  I don't think that is the case. Trained people will go A -> C. Also careless people will go A -> C, because it is easier to make a mistake when skipping the partial steps.
  - ergothus 10y ago
    I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list. The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make. IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are. Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way". Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
B-Con 10y ago
My POV has been that most of most of our conscious analysis boils down to utilizing a smaller set of basic cognitive tools. (Much like complex software runs on top of hardware with relatively simple interfaces.) If you can isolate and train core cognitive functions then that benefit will hopefully improve everything that utilizes it. So for a random example: if you can go from comfortably holding 5 random objects in your working memory to 8, that's going to manifest itself in a variety of ways. I wonder if people get different results from these puzzles based on how they approach the puzzle. Maybe they can solve the puzzle by avoiding the cognitive function the puzzle was designed to use and thus they get no/limited benefit.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  As a counter argument to this, for example when I play chess sometimes I feel that the 'holding of objects in working memory,' the "playing card castle" practice of thinking ahead that I build up in my head, has some practical use in the real world, but if I'm honest about it I feel the extremity and specificity of the scenario of chess is not transferable to the real world. I think the argument that chess has improved my underlying hardware sounds reasonable, but it's also necessary that hardware be able to adapt to different scenarios in life. If I spend too much time on chess, it feels like that would end in a place where that hardware would be specifically tailored to just playing chess.
  - coolgeek 10y ago
    I think that your comment undervalues the "thinking ahead" aspect, while overvaluing the "extremity and specificity" of what chess can teach. I'm not a chess player, but I recognize that it can be a very valuable tool for understanding what I might call the "while loop" of chess * any given position has multiple options for action * how to anticipate what moves an opponent may make in response to each of those options * how you will, in turn, respond to the opponents responses IOW, it teaches tactics and strategy, both of which we engage in countless times each day, whether or not we consciously realize it.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
outworlder 10y ago
> I've always thought that being "smart" has everything to do with having a wealth of information and being able to draw connections between various facts and ideas. Yes. My pet theory is that the brain is just a huge pattern matching engine. Formal education is mostly about training the pattern recognizer with new patterns. Whenever you talk to people that are "uneducated" (or whatever word you may want to choose for that) that struggle with basic concepts, try to probe deeper. You'll find that, in many cases, they are being overwhelmed with new concepts being presented simultaneously. People with extensive formal education will have been exposed to innumerable problems and concepts by the time they reach adulthood. There's a wealth of information the brain can use to speed up comprehension. This is a pet theory though, being reinforced over the years by my own cognitive biases :)
- elorant 10y ago
  I second that. And one of the main reasons I daily visit HN is exactly that. It widens my horizons, presenting me with different point of views to various problems/issues. I literally think that coming here makes me a smarter person in the long run. I also experience that line of thinking in learning math. Mathematics seem like the perfect example of pattern matching. You progressively learn to adapt to a certain kind of thinking by solving a multitude of different exercises that broaden your conceptual understanding of a field. At least that's how it works for me. You keep exercising and at some point you experience an epiphany and then everything becomes crystal clear.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - imron 10y ago
    > I literally think that coming here makes me a smarter person in the long run. Good ole' placebo effect :-)
  - syngrog66 10y ago
    I too continue to visit HN in part because its one of the rare places that feeds my smart side and inspires/stimulates/satisfies that aspect of my existence. At the same time I've repeatedly come close to abandoning HN entirely because of another aspect interwoven seemingly equally with the first thing, which might be described as a kind of smart-idiocy, different flavors of it, whether recursive irrelevant descents into subjective trivial minutia, or points-scoring one-upmanship in the field of PC-ness, the occasional pro-VC/pro-startup propaganda, or merely the blatant uncharitable assumptions about the intelligence/knowledge of the other party, or the increasing cases of "you want to learn more about 'foo', really? Gosh golly, let me Google that term for you, here are my top 5 results, and I suggest you learn about Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube, Khan Academy, etc.", or the thinly-disguised self-promotional posts/comments (humble-bragging, etc). Summary: there is gold here, utter gold. There is also shit, reeking shit. Make your choice, choose your focus, then tune your dial.
zappo2938 10y ago
There was a controversial study done in the 60s when we could still do these types of studies where they told teachers who the smart and dumb students were, the Pygmalion Effect.[0] The study suggests being "smart" has more to do with other people's perception and expectation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect#Rosenthal.E2.80.93Jacobson_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect#Rosenthal.E2....
Mc_Big_G 10y ago
Repeatedly solving a simple puzzle only makes you good at repeatedly solving a simple puzzle. s/simple/irrelevant/g a.k.a programming interviews
dredmorbius 10y ago
I draw much from David Krakauer and J. Doyne Farmer, both of the Santa Fe Institute, and the latter's drawing on Muth (1980s). Krakauer: Intelligence is Search. It's the ability to find a least-energy path or solution through an arbitrary n-dimensional space. Knowledge is having a solid backing of (valid) data and models. Ignorance is not having that data and model store. It's a curable state, though being primed with bad data and models is very damaging to effective search. Krakauer gave a really good interview at Nautilus a year or so back on this, it's very highly recommended. http://m.nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/ingenious-david-krakauer http://m.nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/ingenious-david-krakaue... Farmer, quoting Muth, looks at a model of engineering in which engineers generate solutions at random but are very good at identifying the better solution. I'm thinking that there are emperical reasons to suspect that this may not be far from the truth, and methods such as A/B testing seem to explicitly embody the identification element of this. You'll find this covered in many of Farmer's recent talks (past few years), Martin School at Oxford and Nanjing University in particular, at YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6x10eBpAPo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6x10eBpAPo
- bordercases 10y ago
  <3 Krakauer. Like everyone in his field he has probably encountered Herbert Simon before. But as far as "Intelligence is Search" goes, Herb thought that "search" is a subset of problem solving, next to "reasoning" and "constraints". In the end they could all be considered as being unified under "traversal of state-space" for a given problem. Creativity or imagination can be thought of as generating useful representations and possibilities for states within that space.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Ooh! Simon's new to me (or at least I think he is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon Anything of his that you find particularly singular or encapsulating these ideas? Also, it was just Simon's centenary. Good brief interview with Simon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnWbP_Wztk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnWbP_Wztk
tunesmith 10y ago
Yeah, I think that what a lot of people miss in this conversation is that there really is this thing that strongly correlates better performance on IQ tests with better performance in all sorts of other otherwise-unrelated things. And at the same time, training for better performance on IQ test questions does NOT increase performance on those otherwise-unrelated things. So it's that thing that correlates across those unrelated things. That's what the intelligence researchers define as intelligence, even though it's popular to redefine it as something else that is entirely nurture and not nature.
crimsonalucard 10y ago
The problem is, it is hard to find distinction between the word intelligence and knowledge. However, there is one metric we can use to define the difference between the two: Given two entities with equal knowledge the one who is more intelligent can perform better on an Intelligent Quotient test (aka IQ test). In order to perform such a test, however, we will need to find two people with equal knowledge. To find two such people I propose we use a Knowledge Quotient test (aka KQ test) The problem is, it is hard to find distinction between the word knowledge and intelligence. However, there is one metric we can use to define the difference between the two: Given two entities with equal intelligence the one who is more knowledgeable can perform better on an Knowledge Quotient test (aka KQ test). In order to perform such a test, however, we will need to find two people with equal intelligence. To find two such people I propose we use a Intelligent Quotient test (aka IQ test).
wahsd 10y ago
You will surely love the current issue of Scientific American then. (You won't) http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2016/07-01/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2016/07-01/
douche 10y ago
I would agree, in broad strokes. One of my gifts has always been a near-photographic visual memory (I can remember images of certain pages of books I read decades ago), and my brain's propensity for collection and efficient indexing of random bits of trivia. Mention some historical subject, and I almost instantly pull up everything I've ever read about that subject, as well as secondary and tertiary subjects that are related...
etrautmann 10y ago
There's a little bit more to it, however, since working memory is often a limitation for a wide range of tasks, and anything that could increase your short term buffer to hold a few more items concurrently could help across a wide range of tasks, and potentially yield more "fluid intelligence." There are a number of conflicting findings about whether you can actually increase this, but the general concept is not quite as trivial as overtraining on puzzles as you laid out.

CharlesMerriam2 10y ago

This study argues that people recruited to use Brain Training score higher on fluid intelligence than people recruited to participate in a study for a reward. That is, Brain Training works for people who believe it works. So, shouldn't it be used by people who believe it works?

jerf 10y ago
I think that's a reasonable question. The answer is that there are much cheaper ways to obtain the placebo effect here than to give these companies your money. I also guess without immediate proof that the placebo effect is likely to be temporary and represent no real, persistent change to intelligence at all.... another reason to not give them your money. There are cheaper and much more entertaining ways to obtain "no change to your intelligence".
- ladon86 10y ago
  > The answer is that there are much cheaper ways to obtain the placebo effect here than to give these companies your money. There might be cheaper ways, but paying money has an impact too. That's why more expensive painkillers often work better than generic ones, despite having identical ingredients [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304173339.h...
cpncrunch 10y ago
We don't know if it was selection bias or the placebo effect, or a combination of both. It would be pretty simple to design another trial to test this.
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  > If it is selection bias then the training has no effect whatsoever. That doesn't follow. Both factors could have an effect at the same time and both effects could, in principle, go in either direction. The only thing that we can conclude from the present study is that the joint effect of placebo and selection bias is positive.

kingkawn 10y ago

Isn't the point of brain training sort of to intentionally induce placebo?

tmalsburg2 10y ago
No. A placebo effect is fleeting but training is supposed to have long-term effects.
- kingkawn 10y ago
  If a placebo is an effect that requires no training, being able to induce it would seem superior to training.

andriesm 10y ago

"Dual N-Back" remains one of the best - it may be the only one that really works, unlike the bulk of other brain games that truly are scams. This one has extensive research literature, and many free/ad-supported and cheap ones on android and iPhone app-stores. For a critical discussion of the research see: https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-increase-IQ https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-increase... It seems to be one of the best if you interested in this sort of thing. Claims include: improved working memory, improved executive functioning (great for ADHD/ADD), improved emotional control, self control and regulation, minor bump in IQ.

fizzbatter 10y ago
Can someone explain the downvote? Please don't downvote without explanation, i've got no idea if this persons claims are suspicious or false or etc. edit: Also, to this thread's OP; Doesn't your link's accepted answer claim n-back doesn't work? There is critical discussion there sure, but the consensus seems to be that it doesn't work. No?
- andriesm 10y ago
  Thx Fizzbatter, I indeed have no horse in this game (I'm not involved in the industry) - I've seen all of the mainstream "brain games" be thoroughly discredited. Dual N-Back is the only one that has at least SOME indication that it may have actual benefits, and it's not owned by one of these big brain game companies - so you can at least be more impartial and less subject to hype. You're right, I deliberately pointed everyone to a skeptical discussion of the research. Brain games as a whole ain't great, but of a bad bunch, this is the best, both in terms of research behind it, and in terms of cost (not some monthly subscription - often a free download) and impartiality.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Please don't downvote without explanation, Downvotes exist to improve the signal to noise ratio on HN: please do, generally, downvote without explanation. If something is productive and worth discussing, that's a sign that its not worth a downvote.

Madmallard 10y ago

I've had sharpness and focus improvements taking energy metabolism supplements. Could be that I'm deficient here or that it could also help others. CoQ10, Nicotinamide Riboside, L-Carnitine, Magnesium Malate, B complex, N-Acetyl Cysteine In terms of just being smarter and quicker to learn I'm not really sure that seems to be a combination of experience and natural factors. The experience part you can obviously change but the other one who knows.

sliverstorm 10y ago
I think in general if a supplement has a positive result on health/cognition, that means you were deficient. CoQ10, for example, is produced by your body. You would think then, it would produce as much as you need.
icelancer 10y ago
Obligatory link to gwern's experimentation and research on nootropics: https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
auganov 10y ago
Are you actually taking Nicotinamide Riboside long term? 500$ for a yearly supply is a bit steep and that's assuming 300mg/day which is not ideal.

bunkydoo 10y ago

Well this doesn't really come as a huge surprise. these brain training apps seem to target logical repetitive tasks that would only train your brain to be better at doing just that - logical repetitive tasks. I do however think it is very possible to train the brain, it just hasn't been put in the form of an app or autonomous computer software yet.

nxzero 10y ago

An interesting thing about placebos is that all placebos are not equal, which to me calls into question what a placebos really is.

TheSisb2 10y ago

I've read of some people who were finally set free after a long stretch in solitary confinement, and many of them attributed the preservation of their sanity to simple math or word exercises. I believe one would just count exponents of two as far as he could go and another would try remembering every word in every language they knew. Not sure of similarities to brain training games, but I would bet there is something there.

executesorder66 10y ago
You just gave me an interesting idea. Manually writing down my vocabulary (grouped into passive and active) for every language I know. Counting up the results and comparing would be rather interesting. After that diffing it with a dictionary file for each language to see the gaps. This will probably take forever, but it could be worth the time.

jrockway 10y ago

Yeah, the human body seems to be very good at doing the minimum required to meet the provided training stimulus. Ride a bike fast, you get better at riding a bike fast. I started doing crossword puzzles a few months ago. Mainly I've gotten better at doing crossword puzzles. When I started, I had to think about each clue, but now I know the common words that always show up and don't even have to read the clues to get those. Meanwhile, as I never write about "MDs" or the "EPA", this has had no useful impact on my life.

sliverstorm 10y ago
Right, which is why training specificity is a thing. You can train different than you play/compete, but you have to target very carefully, especially as you progress.

gtrubetskoy 10y ago

Unlike "brain training", good old "learning" and "education" are definitely _not_ placebos.

1ris 10y ago
Learning a language might increase your overall intelligence, but mostly you "just" learn a language - like solving puzzles makes you better at solving these specific puzzles.

BurningFrog 10y ago

The intelligence is all in my mind?

zizzles 10y ago

The only real "brain training" is reading, learning practical and technical skills, and perhaps living a healthy lifestyle. Other than that, forget it. Brain power and being a quick-witted genius is all about GENETICS (like most things in this life)

eagsalazar2 10y ago
Couldn't disagree more. I guess intelligence might be an exception but most outcomes in life are not about genetics but are about circumstance, passion, and hard work.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  That's a rather strawman response. You say you "couldn't disagree more" then state a position that the person you're replying to never stated they hold (about life outcomes). They were talking about cognitive decline and "brain power," not life outcomes as you seem to think.
  - eagsalazar2 10y ago
    (like most things in this life) doesn't imply to you they are extending this POV beyond the discussion of brain power?
- zizzles 10y ago
  Passion. Hard work. Two personality-traits largely influenced by genetics. Try again.
  - imron 10y ago
    I'm interested to see if you have any links to studies/research that back this up. The reason I ask is that I personally find I am passionate/hardworking for certain things but for others I'm completely disinterested/lazy. Likewise I have seen other people who are typically lazy and not hardworking, but get them on the one thing they are interested in (e.g. a specific sport) and they can quote match and player statistics stretching back decades. It's like they have this amazing ability but they've only applied it to a relatively useless part of their life (I say relatively useless because if they'd applied themselves with the same fervour to their work they'd have a much better quality of life). I'm not sure how that connects that with genetic personality traits.

mattfrommars 10y ago

I find N Back training to be actually effective from personal experience.

dredmorbius 10y ago

This has been both obvious and revalidated numerous times. I'd like to know why public broadcasters, particularly PBS and NPR in the US, aren't called to task for advertising this crap heavily during their sponsoship drives. Associating yourself with crap spreads the stains.

hackney 10y ago

From my perspective, 'brain training' is one more cliched bs pile of crap nonsense similar to the retarded phrase 'climate change'. There is nothing to ponder simply because the most powerful thought one can achieve is basically to have no thought/s whatsoever. When an individual can perceive the light body as a vessel designed to do more than thought itself is even capable of (reason), then one can receive true knowledge by the act of being open to information instead of the backasswards concept of more thought is more information. In practice, thoughts are like commands and one thought all by itself is an extremely powerful facet of awareness. People are themselves their own stumbling blocks. The basic purpose of attention is to simply make things happen. What I find interesting is that simple logic goes hand in hand with truths. If you find yourself in a quagmire of noise trying to understand something, you are complicating it beyond it's logical efficient boundaries. Truth has it's own mathematical inverse proportion which paradoxically is true from both perspectives wherein the singular truth viewpoint is mirrored exactly opposite the universal truth viewpoint.

Retra 10y ago
Looks like you've mastered the art of having no thoughts, and with so many words even.

bjourne 10y ago

Even if you can't "train your brain" what you can train is your ability to focus at a task. For example, if you play chess you probably do not "get smarter." All you get is better at visualizing future board positions and maybe you learn some general strategy and opening theory. But 99% of chess is raw calculation. Most people when they begin playing can't stand games longer than fifteen minutes or so. They have not trained their brains to focus over extended periods of times. But the more you play, the better you become at sitting still and concentrating on the position on the board. Eventually after years of practice, you'll be able to play games where both players have 120 minutes+increment and use your time without getting bored. Replace chess with any other brain teaser, like a quiz or an iq test. If you can sit and stare at the same problem uninterrupted for hours trying to work out a solution, then you will condition your brain to be able to do just that. I firmly believe that is useful in all parts of life. Random example, you are thinking about divorcing your wife. Now if you are able to spend several hours analyzing the possible ramifications of that decision you will be better of than if you can only think about it for twenty minutes without losing your train of thought. So I don't think it is all placebo. Ability to concentrate and perseverance through difficulties are two very important skills to have.

ss248 10y ago
It's not only chess, meditation, for example, works on the same principles.

matznerd 10y ago

What really matters is cross-over. Does the skill you are training have application to what is being simulated? It's kind of like you get what you measure, in that you get what you train. For example, through training head-to-head in math based games where speed is important, I have noticed that I am much more able to do quick calculations on checks more easily. There is a game in Elevate where you are shown avatars of people then told information about them and their names. You have to remember what they look like and basic information about them through various rounds and comparisons to the other players. I have noticed that when I play that game frequently, it helps with memorizing names of people. Dual-n-back is said to help increase working memory and I believe it because in that game you are having to constantly keep in your head the last auditory and visual records at the same time and integrate new information with them. I am annoyed by people constantly saying this type of training does not work...

hmahncke 10y ago

This research article and the arstechnica commentary are examples of exactly the overreach that they aim to criticize. A number of large-scale multi-site randomized controlled trials have shown that specific types of brain training generalize to untrained measures of cognitive function and real-world activities. Here's two examples: ACTIVE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934012/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934012/ IMPACT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169294/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169294/ Some brain training works, and some doesn't. Of the ones that work, some show certain types of benefits; and others show other types of benefits. Throwing the whole field out is like saying "laetrile doesn't treat cancer, so no molecules treat cancer." disclosure: I was an investigator on IMPACT; and I work at a brain training company (Posit Science)

GoToRO 10y ago

"brain training" industry may be a placebo but brain training is real. I have yet to understand why people think that you can have a very good brain if you don't train. In sports it's a given: if you want to run fast, you have to train, you have to eat right, you have to sleep rigth, you have to take breaks to not destroy your body. But somehow people that work with their brain think that the brain, the organ, does not work like the rest of the body and that you are smart no matter what an so on. You are smart if you trained, if you sleep right, if you eat right and in general if you take care of yourself. People say "it's just a puzzle". It's like a football player would say "why do I have to do squats?! I never have to do one while I play". Sure, at some point the puzzle becomes too easy. Thats why they do squats with weights.

chrisfosterelli 10y ago
Keeping your brain fit is important, and the study isn't arguing that. The way that these games do it is not useful. Just liking training running will make you good at running, training those puzzles will make you good at... those puzzles. That's not what those game companies sell it as, people want better general intelligence and instead they are just getting really good at matching shapes or solving crosswords. In your football example, a squat is full body exercise that strengthens numerous different muscle groups. These "brain training games" are not full mind exercises.

arkj 10y ago

The funny part is why does the placebo work? I know, there you go again....

Hondor 10y ago

Chewing gum can also increase intelligence. So it's easy to see that the effect of games can be hard to isolate from other factors. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356310 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356310

Cacti 10y ago

I thought it was well-proven a year or two ago that these apps/offers/classes were a scam?

c3534l 10y ago
It was. And at any rate claiming your app is scientifically proven or whatever was a lie from the beginning.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ultramancool 10y ago

I seem to remember studies from a few years back showing Lumosity as less effective than World of Warcraft at "brain training". At least WoW can engage a few social and competitive aspects rather than just mindless puzzle solving. CBC's Marketplace also did a show about this, pretty much crapping on the evidence for the whole thing: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-training-mind-games http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-train...

elcapitan 10y ago

Brain suggests that the "study" industry might be a placebo.

davycro 10y ago

Studies show that surgeons who play first person shooter video games are faster and better with laproscopic and robotic procedures. Does that not count as brain training?

JulianMorrison 10y ago
Seriously, all training is brain training, if it isn't weightlifting. What else are you gonna train?
- minikites 10y ago
  Exercise is great for cognitive development/maintenance and weight training in particular involves more math than an outsider may realize so even that is brain training.