6 ms·

I'm in the middle of planning a startup with a doctor who does research on therapy methods for traumatic brain injury. She frequently goes on rants about how mu

I'm in the middle of planning a startup with a doctor who does research on therapy methods for traumatic brain injury. She frequently goes on rants about how much bullshit Lumosity is. So literal appeal to authority, but this particular authority was doing research at NIH for 17 years. I think she knows what she's doing.

notheguyouthink 9y ago
Are there any that aren't bullshit? I'm debating just setting up a spaced repetition app with my own custom knowledge base. At least that way I may not be getting higher brain function, but higher retention on memory items I care about.
- dmreedy 9y ago
  If there are, they would be as difficult to recognize as germ theory to a 16th century doctor. We simply don't know enough yet about the mechanism.
  - lbhnact 9y ago
    Yeah, it's interesting. We have decades of research into standardized tests in the academic setting, and yet most people generally feel that these metrics have very limited utility. The notion that a startup has A: deep insights into the nature of cognitive function that others do not; and B: devised and tested a paradigm that sustainably improves it, was always a little shocking to see claimed.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianN 9y ago
    You don't need germ theory to notice that washing your hands before performing surgery improves outcomes.
    - dmreedy 9y ago
      Yes, but you do need to start moving towards germ theory to understand why washing your hands with charcoal instead of soap results in dead patients again. Of course scientific theory and scientific observation are bootstrapped off of each other in the course of a dialectic, but raw statistics only get you so far until deductive work is required for the next steps, and the cycle repeats. It's easy to spot and distill in hindsight what is less obvious in the act; and when you've got as many variables as the human experience does, and as many ethical questions when you experiment with them, the process becomes all the more vague.
      - volkk 9y ago
        can you explain a bit about the charcoal/soap thing?
    - dkarl 9y ago
      It helps. It's much easier to notice something and take it seriously when it fits a theory you already have. Kind of like if your house is haunted, you might not notice that the sounds you hear at night fit that theory unless you already have it in mind. If you try to understand the noises in terms of your house settling, a fugitive living in your attic, or an animal breaking in at night to steal food, you won't notice, or won't take seriously, the patterns that would be obvious to someone who believes in ghosts.
    - colorint 9y ago
      This is, if you will, a very germ-theoretic perspective. Why would you notice, by eye, this correlation and not that one? More importantly, why would you collect these data rather than those? Scientific paradigms are "nefarious" because they control experimental design, so unparadigmatic data only come about by accident. And accidental results are often as not a flaw in the design or instrumentation, or else "noise."
      - adrianN 9y ago
        Of course it's easier if you have a viable theory to deduce efficient treatments. But the correlation between hand washing and medical outcome was noticed before germ theory, this is why I mentioned it. It didn't become popular until later though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- DiffEq 9y ago
  Or...one, or all of these: 1.Learn a Second Language 2. https://projecteuler.net/archives https://projecteuler.net/archives 3. http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/ http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/ If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process.
  - wccrawford 9y ago
    >If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process. One might argue that that's the only way to actually exercise your brain.
- aklemm 9y ago
  Why not just build stuff and solve real life problems with all your effort? That in itself is brain training AND productive at the same time.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    I mean, I do that. I build stuff (programs) in my off-time to solve problems I have. Eg, home automation, storage solutions, lots of cli utilities, etc. As strange as it sounds though, I think this has been making me more... dumb. Sure, I'm improving a subset of skills, especially computer science related with some of the more challenging projects, but I don't feel more intelligent. I forget things constantly, and frankly my knowledge of the world seems to just.. fade. I'm becoming so hyper focused that it's hurting me. That's why I mentioned spaced repetition. Not only do I want to improve my general brain functions, but I especially want to improve my recall of specific things. So I'm using a distributed database of mine as a way to keep a life journal. Anything I forget, I want to add to this knowledge journal, and try to ensure that I keep things in my mind.
- kiba 9y ago
  Spaced repetition absolutely works. I can literally see it in the statistics as clear as day. This is in addition to all the scientific evidences.
  - copperx 9y ago
    It absolutely works to improve your recall of the test items, but who knows if it improves your short or long term memory in general. That is, does it make it easier to recall things that are not part of the spaced repetition training?
    - gwern 9y ago
      I haven't seen any studies examining a broader transfer effect from spaced repetition. It seems unlikely - spaced repetition is just a hack of a normal memory mechanism for prioritizing factual knowledge, so why would explicit use of it have any generalized benefits? You are always being exposed to and remembering things, after all.
- gargarplex 9y ago
  I'm conversational in Swedish. Started with duolingo.
  - wccrawford 9y ago
    Congrats!
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  ...basically no. Dual n-back was thought to be the only thing that worked, but even that now looks non-transferrable. (Gwern is great on this topic.) For young, healthy adults, I do not know of any brain exercise capable of directly raising IQ or its analogues. You might, maybe, be able to boost neurogenesis. Exercise is a decent candidate for that, and I don't know the situation with drugs there. But I don't know of games that do it. Realistically, you've got a few options. Your idea, spaced repetition of useful stuff, is great. Practicing memory tricks like mind palaces can improve your long-term memory on arbitrary facts. Picking up new topics dissimilar to the ones you know probably helps synthesis. Lots of things can maybe delay dementia. Meditation can improve focus and alertness. All of those are worthwhile. The top-line, raise basic IQ stuff? To my knowledge doesn't exist.
chrisdone 9y ago
I'll cite your Hacker News comment in my next paper.
- wannabe_miner 9y ago
  Can you link to one of your previous papers?

notheguyouthink 9y ago

Are there any that aren't bullshit? I'm debating just setting up a spaced repetition app with my own custom knowledge base. At least that way I may not be getting higher brain function, but higher retention on memory items I care about.

dmreedy 9y ago
If there are, they would be as difficult to recognize as germ theory to a 16th century doctor. We simply don't know enough yet about the mechanism.
- lbhnact 9y ago
  Yeah, it's interesting. We have decades of research into standardized tests in the academic setting, and yet most people generally feel that these metrics have very limited utility. The notion that a startup has A: deep insights into the nature of cognitive function that others do not; and B: devised and tested a paradigm that sustainably improves it, was always a little shocking to see claimed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianN 9y ago
  You don't need germ theory to notice that washing your hands before performing surgery improves outcomes.
  - dmreedy 9y ago
    Yes, but you do need to start moving towards germ theory to understand why washing your hands with charcoal instead of soap results in dead patients again. Of course scientific theory and scientific observation are bootstrapped off of each other in the course of a dialectic, but raw statistics only get you so far until deductive work is required for the next steps, and the cycle repeats. It's easy to spot and distill in hindsight what is less obvious in the act; and when you've got as many variables as the human experience does, and as many ethical questions when you experiment with them, the process becomes all the more vague.
    - volkk 9y ago
      can you explain a bit about the charcoal/soap thing?
  - dkarl 9y ago
    It helps. It's much easier to notice something and take it seriously when it fits a theory you already have. Kind of like if your house is haunted, you might not notice that the sounds you hear at night fit that theory unless you already have it in mind. If you try to understand the noises in terms of your house settling, a fugitive living in your attic, or an animal breaking in at night to steal food, you won't notice, or won't take seriously, the patterns that would be obvious to someone who believes in ghosts.
  - colorint 9y ago
    This is, if you will, a very germ-theoretic perspective. Why would you notice, by eye, this correlation and not that one? More importantly, why would you collect these data rather than those? Scientific paradigms are "nefarious" because they control experimental design, so unparadigmatic data only come about by accident. And accidental results are often as not a flaw in the design or instrumentation, or else "noise."
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Of course it's easier if you have a viable theory to deduce efficient treatments. But the correlation between hand washing and medical outcome was noticed before germ theory, this is why I mentioned it. It didn't become popular until later though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
DiffEq 9y ago
Or...one, or all of these: 1.Learn a Second Language 2. https://projecteuler.net/archives https://projecteuler.net/archives 3. http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/ http://rosalind.info/problems/list-view/ If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  >If you are going to exercise your brain, you might as well get smarter and learn useful skills in the process. One might argue that that's the only way to actually exercise your brain.
aklemm 9y ago
Why not just build stuff and solve real life problems with all your effort? That in itself is brain training AND productive at the same time.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  I mean, I do that. I build stuff (programs) in my off-time to solve problems I have. Eg, home automation, storage solutions, lots of cli utilities, etc. As strange as it sounds though, I think this has been making me more... dumb. Sure, I'm improving a subset of skills, especially computer science related with some of the more challenging projects, but I don't feel more intelligent. I forget things constantly, and frankly my knowledge of the world seems to just.. fade. I'm becoming so hyper focused that it's hurting me. That's why I mentioned spaced repetition. Not only do I want to improve my general brain functions, but I especially want to improve my recall of specific things. So I'm using a distributed database of mine as a way to keep a life journal. Anything I forget, I want to add to this knowledge journal, and try to ensure that I keep things in my mind.
kiba 9y ago
Spaced repetition absolutely works. I can literally see it in the statistics as clear as day. This is in addition to all the scientific evidences.
- copperx 9y ago
  It absolutely works to improve your recall of the test items, but who knows if it improves your short or long term memory in general. That is, does it make it easier to recall things that are not part of the spaced repetition training?
  - gwern 9y ago
    I haven't seen any studies examining a broader transfer effect from spaced repetition. It seems unlikely - spaced repetition is just a hack of a normal memory mechanism for prioritizing factual knowledge, so why would explicit use of it have any generalized benefits? You are always being exposed to and remembering things, after all.
gargarplex 9y ago
I'm conversational in Swedish. Started with duolingo.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Congrats!
Bartweiss 9y ago
...basically no. Dual n-back was thought to be the only thing that worked, but even that now looks non-transferrable. (Gwern is great on this topic.) For young, healthy adults, I do not know of any brain exercise capable of directly raising IQ or its analogues. You might, maybe, be able to boost neurogenesis. Exercise is a decent candidate for that, and I don't know the situation with drugs there. But I don't know of games that do it. Realistically, you've got a few options. Your idea, spaced repetition of useful stuff, is great. Practicing memory tricks like mind palaces can improve your long-term memory on arbitrary facts. Picking up new topics dissimilar to the ones you know probably helps synthesis. Lots of things can maybe delay dementia. Meditation can improve focus and alertness. All of those are worthwhile. The top-line, raise basic IQ stuff? To my knowledge doesn't exist.

chrisdone 9y ago

I'll cite your Hacker News comment in my next paper.

wannabe_miner 9y ago
Can you link to one of your previous papers?