6 ms·

Title should include "for healthy young adults" as in the study: "The researchers note limitations in the study, most importantly that they only looked at youn

Title should include "for healthy young adults" as in the study: "The researchers note limitations in the study, most importantly that they only looked at young, healthy people. Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution."

SilasX 9y ago
So, kinda like: "Adding a two mile walk every morning was found to have no health benefits[1] [1] we only studied marathon runners"
- abtinf 9y ago
  That is an incorrect analogy, because that claim would be about enhancing performance for peak performers. This study shows that there is no basis for the claim that you can enhance performance of normal/healthy performers. The researchers state the have insufficient evidence to determine the effect on low/unhealthy performers.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    It’s actually not a bad analogy - healthy young adults tend to be at their mental peak, certainly compared to when they are another 40-50 years down the road...
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      It is a bad analogy, because the problem with studying marathon runners is that they've already used the fitness technique you want to study. They're runners because they walk and run a a lot. (And not necessarily because they're young! People run marathons in their 80s.) This study is about people who've never used Luminosity's techniques, but are in unrelated good (brain) health. There are a lot of known ways to mitigate or undo damage to the brain. Luminosity made a much bolder claim, that they could raise IQ in healthy, high-functioning adult brains. That's the Holy Grail of intelligence research, because no one has ever found a way to do it. It's like claiming a two mile walk each day will make literally anyone a much better runner. If you claim that, it's relevant that your offering is no good to marathoners.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Except - Luminosity has consistently implied and claimed they can boost performance in young, healthy people. That study of two mile walks for marathoners would suddenly be worthwhile if a popular, well-funded program claimed they could improve your marathon time with a two mile walk.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    Alright, fair point, given Lumosity's claims.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      Yeah - it's an awkward situation. The study would be silly, except that it borrowed the silliness from what people were already asserting.
abtinf 9y ago
"Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution. Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If the researchers have a positive reason to believe brain-training games are a form of medical treatment for aging or addicted populations, they should state that. None of this "may" nonsense.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study. "May" is not a statement of positive belief.
  - abtinf 9y ago
    The popularity of a belief does not grant validity to a claim. "May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know." "May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility. Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?
- rodiger 9y ago
  >It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.
  - abtinf 9y ago
    To believe something is possible, you must have some evidence for it. If you believe something without any evidence, you are dealing with arbitrary whims or claims. If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane. You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.
ebbv 9y ago
That's a stretch. There's no evidence to suggest that it will be beneficial for anyone. No matter how many studies you run you can always find a group that isn't covered by the study and say "Well it STILL might be helpful for Red haired, left handed people between 5'2 and 5'3 with 2 siblings of the same gender."

SilasX 9y ago

So, kinda like: "Adding a two mile walk every morning was found to have no health benefits[1] [1] we only studied marathon runners"

abtinf 9y ago
That is an incorrect analogy, because that claim would be about enhancing performance for peak performers. This study shows that there is no basis for the claim that you can enhance performance of normal/healthy performers. The researchers state the have insufficient evidence to determine the effect on low/unhealthy performers.
- djrogers 9y ago
  It’s actually not a bad analogy - healthy young adults tend to be at their mental peak, certainly compared to when they are another 40-50 years down the road...
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    It is a bad analogy, because the problem with studying marathon runners is that they've already used the fitness technique you want to study. They're runners because they walk and run a a lot. (And not necessarily because they're young! People run marathons in their 80s.) This study is about people who've never used Luminosity's techniques, but are in unrelated good (brain) health. There are a lot of known ways to mitigate or undo damage to the brain. Luminosity made a much bolder claim, that they could raise IQ in healthy, high-functioning adult brains. That's the Holy Grail of intelligence research, because no one has ever found a way to do it. It's like claiming a two mile walk each day will make literally anyone a much better runner. If you claim that, it's relevant that your offering is no good to marathoners.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Except - Luminosity has consistently implied and claimed they can boost performance in young, healthy people. That study of two mile walks for marathoners would suddenly be worthwhile if a popular, well-funded program claimed they could improve your marathon time with a two mile walk.
- SilasX 9y ago
  Alright, fair point, given Lumosity's claims.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Yeah - it's an awkward situation. The study would be silly, except that it borrowed the silliness from what people were already asserting.

abtinf 9y ago

"Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution. Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If the researchers have a positive reason to believe brain-training games are a form of medical treatment for aging or addicted populations, they should state that. None of this "may" nonsense.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study. "May" is not a statement of positive belief.
- abtinf 9y ago
  The popularity of a belief does not grant validity to a claim. "May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know." "May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility. Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?
rodiger 9y ago
>It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.
- abtinf 9y ago
  To believe something is possible, you must have some evidence for it. If you believe something without any evidence, you are dealing with arbitrary whims or claims. If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane. You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.

ebbv 9y ago

That's a stretch. There's no evidence to suggest that it will be beneficial for anyone. No matter how many studies you run you can always find a group that isn't covered by the study and say "Well it STILL might be helpful for Red haired, left handed people between 5'2 and 5'3 with 2 siblings of the same gender."