4 ms·

I thought dual n-back had been discredited as a method of increasing cognitive performance. I know there must be some experts on here - would you care to commen

by robbiep 10y ago

I thought dual n-back had been discredited as a method of increasing cognitive performance. I know there must be some experts on here - would you care to comment?

slig 10y ago
See this very thorough article on gwern's [1] website: https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gwern https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gwern
- robbiep 10y ago
  Awesome, thanks. So N-back is not likely a useful method. Therefore this article misconstrues the scientific evidence regarding training.
  - drited 10y ago
    The article was written in 2011 before many of the follow up studies questioning Jaeggi's initial findings were published. While I think the evidence available today had muddied the water relative to what people thought after Jaeggi was first published, not all avenues have been covered (e.g. do people in knowledge I industries who are more motivated to increase iq try harder and as a result achieve better results). In my opinion, if you can spare the time, there's little to be lost from trying n back training. If it does work for you, the upside is tremendous. Anecdotally I tried it and came up with novel solutions to problems I hadn't previously cracked within a few months of training.
azakai 10y ago
Aside from that, the article is full of plenty of dubious claims. For example, > In order to [generate novel ideas], you need both right and left hemispheres working in conjunction with each other. The simplistic idea of the hemispheres being different types of thinking, or that originality requires them "working together", is not supported. In fact very interesting things happen when the two hemispheres are separated, but it isn't something to do with the topic of the article. > Efficiency is not your friend when it comes to cognitive growth. In order to keep your brain making new connections and keeping them active, you need to keep moving on to another challenging activity Of course efficiency is not your friend if your goal is apparent growth and increased activity in the brain. But that's not the goal. The goal is to be effective. An effective brain is using less resources because it needs less. A chess master can consider fewer moves than a novice, for example. Unless we had evidence that any brain growth is good for general intelligence in some way. We don't. Taxi drivers have growth in areas responsible for mapping and spatial location, for example, but no evidence suggests that makes them better at anything else. In any case, the advice provided is badly justified, but still valid. The 5 principles are just common sense - which is why the author can find people like Einstein suggesting them many decades ago.
- curiousgal 10y ago
  I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one. — Chess Master Jose Raoul Capablanca

by robbiep 10y ago

I thought dual n-back had been discredited as a method of increasing cognitive performance. I know there must be some experts on here - would you care to comment?

slig 10y ago

See this very thorough article on gwern's [1] website: https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gwern https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gwern

robbiep 10y ago
Awesome, thanks. So N-back is not likely a useful method. Therefore this article misconstrues the scientific evidence regarding training.
- drited 10y ago
  The article was written in 2011 before many of the follow up studies questioning Jaeggi's initial findings were published. While I think the evidence available today had muddied the water relative to what people thought after Jaeggi was first published, not all avenues have been covered (e.g. do people in knowledge I industries who are more motivated to increase iq try harder and as a result achieve better results). In my opinion, if you can spare the time, there's little to be lost from trying n back training. If it does work for you, the upside is tremendous. Anecdotally I tried it and came up with novel solutions to problems I hadn't previously cracked within a few months of training.

azakai 10y ago

Aside from that, the article is full of plenty of dubious claims. For example, > In order to [generate novel ideas], you need both right and left hemispheres working in conjunction with each other. The simplistic idea of the hemispheres being different types of thinking, or that originality requires them "working together", is not supported. In fact very interesting things happen when the two hemispheres are separated, but it isn't something to do with the topic of the article. > Efficiency is not your friend when it comes to cognitive growth. In order to keep your brain making new connections and keeping them active, you need to keep moving on to another challenging activity Of course efficiency is not your friend if your goal is apparent growth and increased activity in the brain. But that's not the goal. The goal is to be effective. An effective brain is using less resources because it needs less. A chess master can consider fewer moves than a novice, for example. Unless we had evidence that any brain growth is good for general intelligence in some way. We don't. Taxi drivers have growth in areas responsible for mapping and spatial location, for example, but no evidence suggests that makes them better at anything else. In any case, the advice provided is badly justified, but still valid. The 5 principles are just common sense - which is why the author can find people like Einstein suggesting them many decades ago.

curiousgal 10y ago
I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one. — Chess Master Jose Raoul Capablanca