9 ms·

This is the best article I've ever read of the subject of how you can improve intelligence: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-increase-yo

This is the best article I've ever read of the subject of how you can improve intelligence: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-increase-your-intelligence-5-ways-to-maximize-your-cognitive-potential/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-incr... Kind of like how people have to be reminded that the best way to lose weight is to diet and exercise, the real answer for intelligence is challenging yourself frequently and putting yourself in uncomfortable situations that you need to think your way through. At the end of the article there's a beautiful definition: "Intelligence isn’t just about how many levels of math courses you’ve taken, how fast you can solve an algorithm, or how many vocabulary words you know that are over 6 characters. It’s about being able to approach a new problem, recognize its important components, and solve it—then take that knowledge gained and put it towards solving the next, more complex problem. It’s about innovation and imagination, and about being able to put that to use to make the world a better place. This is the kind of intelligence that is valuable, and this is the type of intelligence we should be striving for and encouraging."

it_learnses 10y ago
this article also references the Dual-N-Back study which suggested that it could be used to increase cognitive skill that was transferable. But that study was debunked. Here's a Scientific American article on that: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-do...
- Davidp00 10y ago
  I agree that according to the article you linked it seems that the Dual-N-Back game is no different than any other brain training game which seems to differ from the authors view on it. However, I don't think that debunks the main points of the authors article (the last 3/4 of the article).
  - it_learnses 10y ago
    I think it does. If indeed Fluid Intelligence cannot be trained, then you could say that people who seek out Novelty, Challenges, etc. are actually the sort of people who have high intelligence, than the other way around. If these 5 principles he states actually did increase intelligence, then Lumosity would work for people as it exposes you to novel brain training games that are challenging.
    - Davidp00 10y ago
      Now that I reread the article I see that you are right. The authors whole argument depends on the Jaeggi study which has not been successfully replicated after multiple attempts.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hilop 10y ago
  It there a term for this phenomenon, where a researcher publishes an extraordinary result, some how gets past peer review, and then avoids pursuing the research further, to avoid embarrassing themselves and losing the fame and credit? Often there is a bonus step where they create a company to commercialize a product based on the conclusions.
  - heptathorp 10y ago
    The scientific method.
colmvp 10y ago
I'll also add to your comment that the Learning How to Learn course on Coursera is helpful regarding the concept of challenging yourself, as you can enhance your ability to take on challenging topics in a way that is sustainable and truly productive. For example, the idea of working on a problem eight hours a day straight seems efficient, but it's actually better to take breaks and let your mind wander and make neural connections in the background while you exercise or sleep. And instead of perhaps trying to solve a hard challenge at once in a day, such as learning something very complex, it's helpful to comprehend parts of it and spread it out over a course of a week, not unlike how it's better to learn an instrument by practicing a little bit everyday instead of cramming it into one day a week. Furthermore, instead of just jumping for a quick answer (e.g. StackOverflow, forums, answers sheet), it's helpful to try to solve it on your own even if it takes a much longer time. There's a big difference between 'knowing' something because you saw the solution and reverse engineered the method, vs. coming up with it yourself. Some of this might be stupidly obvious but it's nice to know there is science/other anecdotes behind it. That course is something I wish I had known decades ago before I went to University and in the workplace.
damontal 10y ago
I love reading about Feynman. How he would put himself in these novel situations and get completely absorbed. He learned how to play an instrument in Brazil and joined a Carnival school and wound up dressing up, and competing. He learned how to draw and managed to have art exhibits and sell his art. He'd go to dive bars and just wait for something interesting to happen. He wouldn't just learn something new. He'd learn it and then navigate in its world.
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  Who's that Feynman? He sounds interesting
  - dacohenii 10y ago
    Richard Feynman. Here's a video about who he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJw3OLB9sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJw3OLB9sI And the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman There are lots of videos of his lectures and interviews on youtube. You should check 'em out.
    - truth_sentinell 10y ago
      Oh, I had googled him but didn't expect to be this guy. He actually did a lot of accomplishments. Definitely not a wasted life.
    - bshimmin 10y ago
      I'm not sure any introduction to Feynman can be complete without this letter he wrote to his wife: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-is-dead.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-... (Warning: you may end up with something, ahem, in your eye...)
      - volkk 10y ago
        oh man, the postscript. :(
Waterluvian 10y ago
Strongly agree. I identify very strongly with that quote. I'm a geographer with near-zero math or computer science education from university. I work as a software engineer, surrounded by brilliant engineers. I have what I describe as a "swiss cheese practical knowledge of software engineering." I pride myself on being very adaptable, able to understand the components of a problem and the ability to learn how to solve the problem. I also feel exceptionally good at communication and the social aspects of problem solving. I've been doing very well at my job. But I think if I grew up being taught that intelligence != knowledge + trivia, I wouldn't have spent my earlier years fighting the impostor syndrome on a near daily basis.
JamesBarney 10y ago
Actually diet and exercise are pretty much completely ineffective at long term weight loss. "Why can’t an average person make those kinds of gains as well? Or even more gains, considering they don’t have the additional challenge of an autism spectrum disorder?" This betrays a complete lack of understanding of the body of knowledge around intellectual improvement. No one would say "we took this broken Honda and were able to get a 100% improvement in it's speed, and gas efficiency by just fixing the leaky gas hose, if we can make these kinds of gains with a broken car imagine what we do with a new Honda". This would of course be as silly.
- softawre 10y ago
  Of course diet and exercise are effective for long term weight loss. People stop dieting. That's the problem.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Calling a diet that people can't follow "effective" seems like a fine exaggeration to help maintain a nutritionist practice but impractical for any other purpose
    - an_account 10y ago
      That's like saying that quitting smoking is ineffective because many people can't follow through with it. Limiting caloric intake (diet) below caloric output (exercise, etc) is the only effective way to lose weight, excluding literally cutting it off. Just because people struggle at doing so doesn't mean that it's not effective.
      - projektir 10y ago
        Depends on how you are measuring effectiveness. From the perspective of either sociology or public policy, calling a treatment that doesn't work effective makes no sense. It's like saying that the only reason we have problems is because people are not always completely rational and benevolent in every interaction. That may very well be true, but what use is that? I don't understand what purpose that kind of comment may serve outside of making the commenters feel better that they do not share the problem. The issue with the human body is that psychological effects are actually physical effects and therefore entirely relevant. The human body is not a mere automobile into which you pour gas, you push a gas pedal, and it just goes. That's the entire problem. You can't even treat a cat like that, let alone a human. The psychological consequences are part of the equation and disregarding them and trying to pretend they don't exist is essentially taking out all the complex variables out and solving a simple equation nobody cares about. Kind of like programming GPS using Newtonian physics and then being surprised it's off constantly. There are more complex laws at stake here and we don't understand them very well. Moralization is effectively a cop out. "They're too lazy, stupid, or otherwise inferior to me to do this theoretically simple thing" is the same as: "I have no idea what's going on." Limiting caloric intake leads to weight loss. So why are people not limiting their calorie intake? Then consider what kind of people are more or less likely to limit their calorie intake. So on and so forth. The equation becomes a lot more complex and also a lot more interesting.
rz2k 10y ago
Isn't that really a variation on being good at patterns you've encountered before? Perhaps the only "real" secret to intelligence is avoiding malnutrition or any type of poisoning such as from lead.
CJefferson 10y ago
I would pay money for a subscription service that would give me way to challenge myself every... month? (hopefully the system would tell me how long I should work on each new topic for).
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Perhaps part of it is being creative enough to work that out?
projektir 10y ago
The hypothesis that one's progress is directly proportional to the amount of pain experienced is actually a rather strange one and tends to be an expression of the just-world hypothesis, in which I absolutely do not believe. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the linked article doesn't really seem to present evidence for its claims, either. The article brings up children, who are already known to have very variable IQ compared to the IQ of adults. From what I've seen, the evidence for IQ as such not being very fluid is more solid than for it being fluid. At the very least, the statement that anyone can increase their IQ would sound really strange in light of current research. Furthermore, raising the IQ of disadvantaged children and then saying that means IQ is like the analogy in another comment where being able to take a broken car from 0 MPH to 100 MPH by fixing it implies you'd be able to take a Honda and make it run 100 MPH faster. It doesn't work that way. Consider that the average person gets no such help. The more intelligent ones often get negative help. IQ, though, is not necessarily the same as intelligence, or even the ability to learn new information. I don't disagree with the advice the article suggests, and I think it has a high chance of raising one's intelligence, I'm just not sure if it would raise one's IQ. Given that we don't really know the relationship between IQ, g, and "intelligence" yet, even that claim is definitely suspect. There's nothing obvious about it, unless you sign up for the pain == progress hypothesis, which is the just-world hypothesis. The greater danger is that we have convinced quite a few people that intelligence == IQ and not being able to raise one means you can't raise the other. I'm pretty sure my IQ hasn't risen one point for the past 6 years but I definitely feel more intelligent per the definition in the italicized paragraph. And I think the point of brain exercises was specifically to raise the raw processing power of the brain without information aids, i.e., IQ.
- Davidp00 10y ago
  The problem with the authors principles is that they are based on a study[0] that has failed to replicate and was faulty to begin with[1]. [0] Susanne M. Jaeggi, M. B. (2008). Improving Fluid intelligence With Training on Working Memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801268105 [1] Courtesy of it_learnses: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-do...
kringldt 10y ago
That article contains no evidence you can raise intelligence, and also references the now discredited n-back brain training games.

it_learnses 10y ago

this article also references the Dual-N-Back study which suggested that it could be used to increase cognitive skill that was transferable. But that study was debunked. Here's a Scientific American article on that: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-do...

Davidp00 10y ago
I agree that according to the article you linked it seems that the Dual-N-Back game is no different than any other brain training game which seems to differ from the authors view on it. However, I don't think that debunks the main points of the authors article (the last 3/4 of the article).
- it_learnses 10y ago
  I think it does. If indeed Fluid Intelligence cannot be trained, then you could say that people who seek out Novelty, Challenges, etc. are actually the sort of people who have high intelligence, than the other way around. If these 5 principles he states actually did increase intelligence, then Lumosity would work for people as it exposes you to novel brain training games that are challenging.
  - Davidp00 10y ago
    Now that I reread the article I see that you are right. The authors whole argument depends on the Jaeggi study which has not been successfully replicated after multiple attempts.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hilop 10y ago
It there a term for this phenomenon, where a researcher publishes an extraordinary result, some how gets past peer review, and then avoids pursuing the research further, to avoid embarrassing themselves and losing the fame and credit? Often there is a bonus step where they create a company to commercialize a product based on the conclusions.
- heptathorp 10y ago
  The scientific method.

colmvp 10y ago

I'll also add to your comment that the Learning How to Learn course on Coursera is helpful regarding the concept of challenging yourself, as you can enhance your ability to take on challenging topics in a way that is sustainable and truly productive. For example, the idea of working on a problem eight hours a day straight seems efficient, but it's actually better to take breaks and let your mind wander and make neural connections in the background while you exercise or sleep. And instead of perhaps trying to solve a hard challenge at once in a day, such as learning something very complex, it's helpful to comprehend parts of it and spread it out over a course of a week, not unlike how it's better to learn an instrument by practicing a little bit everyday instead of cramming it into one day a week. Furthermore, instead of just jumping for a quick answer (e.g. StackOverflow, forums, answers sheet), it's helpful to try to solve it on your own even if it takes a much longer time. There's a big difference between 'knowing' something because you saw the solution and reverse engineered the method, vs. coming up with it yourself. Some of this might be stupidly obvious but it's nice to know there is science/other anecdotes behind it. That course is something I wish I had known decades ago before I went to University and in the workplace.

damontal 10y ago

I love reading about Feynman. How he would put himself in these novel situations and get completely absorbed. He learned how to play an instrument in Brazil and joined a Carnival school and wound up dressing up, and competing. He learned how to draw and managed to have art exhibits and sell his art. He'd go to dive bars and just wait for something interesting to happen. He wouldn't just learn something new. He'd learn it and then navigate in its world.

truth_sentinell 10y ago
Who's that Feynman? He sounds interesting
- dacohenii 10y ago
  Richard Feynman. Here's a video about who he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJw3OLB9sI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJw3OLB9sI And the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman There are lots of videos of his lectures and interviews on youtube. You should check 'em out.
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    Oh, I had googled him but didn't expect to be this guy. He actually did a lot of accomplishments. Definitely not a wasted life.
  - bshimmin 10y ago
    I'm not sure any introduction to Feynman can be complete without this letter he wrote to his wife: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-is-dead.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-... (Warning: you may end up with something, ahem, in your eye...)
    - volkk 10y ago
      oh man, the postscript. :(

Waterluvian 10y ago

Strongly agree. I identify very strongly with that quote. I'm a geographer with near-zero math or computer science education from university. I work as a software engineer, surrounded by brilliant engineers. I have what I describe as a "swiss cheese practical knowledge of software engineering." I pride myself on being very adaptable, able to understand the components of a problem and the ability to learn how to solve the problem. I also feel exceptionally good at communication and the social aspects of problem solving. I've been doing very well at my job. But I think if I grew up being taught that intelligence != knowledge + trivia, I wouldn't have spent my earlier years fighting the impostor syndrome on a near daily basis.

JamesBarney 10y ago

Actually diet and exercise are pretty much completely ineffective at long term weight loss. "Why can’t an average person make those kinds of gains as well? Or even more gains, considering they don’t have the additional challenge of an autism spectrum disorder?" This betrays a complete lack of understanding of the body of knowledge around intellectual improvement. No one would say "we took this broken Honda and were able to get a 100% improvement in it's speed, and gas efficiency by just fixing the leaky gas hose, if we can make these kinds of gains with a broken car imagine what we do with a new Honda". This would of course be as silly.

softawre 10y ago
Of course diet and exercise are effective for long term weight loss. People stop dieting. That's the problem.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Calling a diet that people can't follow "effective" seems like a fine exaggeration to help maintain a nutritionist practice but impractical for any other purpose
  - an_account 10y ago
    That's like saying that quitting smoking is ineffective because many people can't follow through with it. Limiting caloric intake (diet) below caloric output (exercise, etc) is the only effective way to lose weight, excluding literally cutting it off. Just because people struggle at doing so doesn't mean that it's not effective.
    - projektir 10y ago
      Depends on how you are measuring effectiveness. From the perspective of either sociology or public policy, calling a treatment that doesn't work effective makes no sense. It's like saying that the only reason we have problems is because people are not always completely rational and benevolent in every interaction. That may very well be true, but what use is that? I don't understand what purpose that kind of comment may serve outside of making the commenters feel better that they do not share the problem. The issue with the human body is that psychological effects are actually physical effects and therefore entirely relevant. The human body is not a mere automobile into which you pour gas, you push a gas pedal, and it just goes. That's the entire problem. You can't even treat a cat like that, let alone a human. The psychological consequences are part of the equation and disregarding them and trying to pretend they don't exist is essentially taking out all the complex variables out and solving a simple equation nobody cares about. Kind of like programming GPS using Newtonian physics and then being surprised it's off constantly. There are more complex laws at stake here and we don't understand them very well. Moralization is effectively a cop out. "They're too lazy, stupid, or otherwise inferior to me to do this theoretically simple thing" is the same as: "I have no idea what's going on." Limiting caloric intake leads to weight loss. So why are people not limiting their calorie intake? Then consider what kind of people are more or less likely to limit their calorie intake. So on and so forth. The equation becomes a lot more complex and also a lot more interesting.

rz2k 10y ago

Isn't that really a variation on being good at patterns you've encountered before? Perhaps the only "real" secret to intelligence is avoiding malnutrition or any type of poisoning such as from lead.

CJefferson 10y ago

I would pay money for a subscription service that would give me way to challenge myself every... month? (hopefully the system would tell me how long I should work on each new topic for).

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Perhaps part of it is being creative enough to work that out?

projektir 10y ago

The hypothesis that one's progress is directly proportional to the amount of pain experienced is actually a rather strange one and tends to be an expression of the just-world hypothesis, in which I absolutely do not believe. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the linked article doesn't really seem to present evidence for its claims, either. The article brings up children, who are already known to have very variable IQ compared to the IQ of adults. From what I've seen, the evidence for IQ as such not being very fluid is more solid than for it being fluid. At the very least, the statement that anyone can increase their IQ would sound really strange in light of current research. Furthermore, raising the IQ of disadvantaged children and then saying that means IQ is like the analogy in another comment where being able to take a broken car from 0 MPH to 100 MPH by fixing it implies you'd be able to take a Honda and make it run 100 MPH faster. It doesn't work that way. Consider that the average person gets no such help. The more intelligent ones often get negative help. IQ, though, is not necessarily the same as intelligence, or even the ability to learn new information. I don't disagree with the advice the article suggests, and I think it has a high chance of raising one's intelligence, I'm just not sure if it would raise one's IQ. Given that we don't really know the relationship between IQ, g, and "intelligence" yet, even that claim is definitely suspect. There's nothing obvious about it, unless you sign up for the pain == progress hypothesis, which is the just-world hypothesis. The greater danger is that we have convinced quite a few people that intelligence == IQ and not being able to raise one means you can't raise the other. I'm pretty sure my IQ hasn't risen one point for the past 6 years but I definitely feel more intelligent per the definition in the italicized paragraph. And I think the point of brain exercises was specifically to raise the raw processing power of the brain without information aids, i.e., IQ.

Davidp00 10y ago
The problem with the authors principles is that they are based on a study[0] that has failed to replicate and was faulty to begin with[1]. [0] Susanne M. Jaeggi, M. B. (2008). Improving Fluid intelligence With Training on Working Memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801268105 [1] Courtesy of it_learnses: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-do...

kringldt 10y ago

That article contains no evidence you can raise intelligence, and also references the now discredited n-back brain training games.