3 ms·

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 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...
- projektir 10y ago
  I'm trying to address the issue without relying on how well given studies replicated, since that's a bit of a minefield in general. A lot of the principles in the parent are much older than the studies. While it would be really great to have solid studies that would confirm one or the other position, it doesn't seem like they exist, so I'm addressing it on a more philosophical level.
  - mamon 10y ago
    If the study result cannot be replicated then the "principles" you refer to are nothing more than superstitions and you can "address them on philosophical level" all you want, that won't make them any more true. The fact that those things (like challenging yourself, seeking novelty, etc.) are often quoted in context of IQ increase just comes from observing the behaviour of highly intelligent people and then confusing the cause with effect.

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...

projektir 10y ago
I'm trying to address the issue without relying on how well given studies replicated, since that's a bit of a minefield in general. A lot of the principles in the parent are much older than the studies. While it would be really great to have solid studies that would confirm one or the other position, it doesn't seem like they exist, so I'm addressing it on a more philosophical level.
- mamon 10y ago
  If the study result cannot be replicated then the "principles" you refer to are nothing more than superstitions and you can "address them on philosophical level" all you want, that won't make them any more true. The fact that those things (like challenging yourself, seeking novelty, etc.) are often quoted in context of IQ increase just comes from observing the behaviour of highly intelligent people and then confusing the cause with effect.