4 ms·

That is a rather unconvincing post. It makes the link to IQ without any actual evidence, claims Foer has an IQ of at least 130 again without anything backing it

That is a rather unconvincing post. It makes the link to IQ without any actual evidence, claims Foer has an IQ of at least 130 again without anything backing it up, and trots out a memory athlete's opinions as if they were unbiased facts. Never mind that the said expert specifically pointed out that correlation is not equivalent to causation. Or that IQs as measure of intelligence is still pretty contested. It's been a while, but I have a recollection of Foer going into the question of why more people don't do this in his book. It mostly has to do with the amount of time one needs to commit to practice, coupled with limited transferability of this skill. To give another anecdote, I've worked with a very high-performing engineer who spent a bunch of his free time building memory palaces for new codebases to ensure retention. I'm sure he was above average IQ-wise, but his productivity likely benefited from his approach as much as from his innate abilities.

JoshCole 5y ago
It is more than unconvincing. It is outright misleading. The idea that scientific investigations are refuting the idea that these skills are learnable is false. It doesn't make much effort to find studies to the contrary. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056179/ It also goes against common sense. Math, reading, and so many things are all learned, but frequently used by people who have a high IQ. Are we to assume that these things are not learned, because the author thinks IQ is the cause of reading skill, math, and similar things? I've bothered going through the labor to learn the skill. I've seen my baseline measurement of recall ability improved by the training time I invested in learning the skill. I haven't bothered to get to a competitive level, but I don't need to do so to be certain that humans can learn skills by practicing them with the intention to improve. The skeptic is just wrong. People can learn to improve their memory.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  Consider that people with higher IQs have greater proficiency at math and reading (such as SAT scores) despite everyone regardless of IQ having some ability.
  - JoshCole 5y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't reflect the inability to learn. You're confusing cumulative advantage leading to a competitive edge with an inability of lower IQ humans to learn advanced skills. You will also find things like richness and beauty positively associated with winning competitions too. That you will find this doesn't mean memory can't be improved. It reflect cumulative advantage more generally. It is one of the reasons for the cognitive bias of the halo effect, a statistical side effect of the principles underlying the Matthew Effect. Edges are edges. Critically, that doesn't mean that the skills aren't learnable. It means that people with the most advantages can exploit those advantages to gain a greater deal of advantage than someone who has less advantage.

JoshCole 5y ago

It is more than unconvincing. It is outright misleading. The idea that scientific investigations are refuting the idea that these skills are learnable is false. It doesn't make much effort to find studies to the contrary. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056179/ It also goes against common sense. Math, reading, and so many things are all learned, but frequently used by people who have a high IQ. Are we to assume that these things are not learned, because the author thinks IQ is the cause of reading skill, math, and similar things? I've bothered going through the labor to learn the skill. I've seen my baseline measurement of recall ability improved by the training time I invested in learning the skill. I haven't bothered to get to a competitive level, but I don't need to do so to be certain that humans can learn skills by practicing them with the intention to improve. The skeptic is just wrong. People can learn to improve their memory.

paulpauper 5y ago
Consider that people with higher IQs have greater proficiency at math and reading (such as SAT scores) despite everyone regardless of IQ having some ability.
- JoshCole 5y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't reflect the inability to learn. You're confusing cumulative advantage leading to a competitive edge with an inability of lower IQ humans to learn advanced skills. You will also find things like richness and beauty positively associated with winning competitions too. That you will find this doesn't mean memory can't be improved. It reflect cumulative advantage more generally. It is one of the reasons for the cognitive bias of the halo effect, a statistical side effect of the principles underlying the Matthew Effect. Edges are edges. Critically, that doesn't mean that the skills aren't learnable. It means that people with the most advantages can exploit those advantages to gain a greater deal of advantage than someone who has less advantage.