It took me a while to realize that it was asking about the second one back - I decry the wording explaining it.
The full Jaeggi and Buschkehl article is online. Is it as novel a result as they imply that this training exercise improved performance on a different intelligence test? Even if it is, it doesn't even hint, I think, at long-term impact: the posttests were all 1-2 days after the last training session.
The sidebar says, 164+ 1 in 30,000; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the chess champion Bobby Fischer.
How do we know this about WAM?
It is a satisfyingly difficult task -- I'd be perfectly willing to believe that someone who could do that easily for n>2 was much smarter than I am.
Is it as novel a result as they imply that this training exercise improved performance on a different intelligence test?
It's neat, and make an impact, but if I recall somebody else showed that you could get the same effects by playing a lot of first-person shooters.
5. Sooo disappointing. Along with the rest of that sidebar, which seems to be designed to enhance the self-esteem of NYT readers.
to be
My feeble IQ cannot do concise English.
I did better on the audio than the visual despite not having speakers attached. Maybe I should check that instructions again.
...which seems to be designed to enhance the self-esteem of NYT readers.
You mean the codpieces embossed with "The Fourth Estate"?
I'd be perfectly willing to believe that someone who could do that easily for n>2 was much smarter than I am.
You'd be surprised how quickly you can improve once you get the gist. When I played for a couple of days several years ago, I pretty quickly got to four or five back despite feeling flummoxed initially.
13: And were you suddenly globally far more intelligent? I mean, they wouldn't make something like that up.
On veldt, you had to remember which square had the decaying meat.
15: Oh, no question. That's why I've accumulated such a prodigious amount of money, power, and social capital since. It's really allowed me to choose my own destiny--not to mention the place where I live--in a way I couldn't possibly have imagined before.
I mean, I know squat about the science, but I would imagine the effects are pretty similar to the effects of learning many new and unfamiliar tasks--great improvement at the task at hand, and perhaps a modest, temporary improvement at other related tasks. But I'll gladly defer to someone with actual expertise.
That was when you started commenting here, right? Probably couldn't have kept up without the training.
1 in 10,000; Nobel Prize winners
Um, dear NYTimes blurb-writing person, I have a little counting exercise I would like to suggest...
I mean, that may or may not be the average IQ score of Nobel Prize winners, about which I have neither knowledge nor interest, but there is an implication here which is dumb.
The only effective way to become more intelligent is the paleo diet and crossfit.
18: If by "kept up" you mean "started commenting once every three months or so," I think you're on to something...
70,000 Nobel prize winners can't be wrong.
The involvement of Steven Levitt mentioned at the end of the article does not inspire confidence in that particular research program.
Does Knut Hamson count as a Nobelist still? It makes me feel better to imagine that Knut the polar bear was given Hamsun's Nobel.
O.T.: I suppose some of you reprobates are sufficiently weak-minded sentimental about the young Sarah Michelle Gellar's hair not to hate Joss Whedon, but, you know, come on, man, even the most devoted of '90s devotees has to be embarrassed by this.
23 because nobody will tell me the URL to Standpipe's other blog.
25: You probably also hate puppies and ice cream.
I've seen this before - wonder where if not here. Played it for a day or two, think I got to 4 or 5 as well. I liked it, perhaps I should practice every day and become brilliant.
21: Well, another article* in this week's themed NYTimes Magazine addresses half of that.
but there is another, easy-to-achieve, scientifically proven way to make yourself smarter.
Answer left as an exercise for the reader.
*Actually I was mostly trying to get my head around the picture at the start of the article. I guess I nead more BDNF.
NMM to allstar fucknut Chuck Colson.
Wow, I really suck at that game. That means I'm a replicant, right?
25: Yeah, but Cabin in the Woods rules.
I'm skeptical of "some researchers say."
Researchers, S. (2012). "This game might make you smarter, if you do well on it and play it every day." Finding this journal's name is an exercise: Best left to the reader.
Now it's convincing.
Wow, that idiotic sidebar appears on each page if you try to click through the pages instead of using the single-page view. In other words, every time you "turn" the page, make sure to press 'A'.
30: But really could anybody every have masturbated to this guy while he was alive? Especially given how evil he was.
I look forward to Charles Murray's forthcoming book on how the youth of today aren't playing enough video games to raise their IQ and compete with the Chinese.
(Although apparently his latest is all WILL! so the cogdis is obviously bearable. Mind you, that just leads back to the conclusion that he is the US's most committed and consistent Marxist, someone who really does believe that his books are acts of violence by which one class overthrows another.)
||
Paradoxically, I am pretty sure that preparing for fifteen hour exam numero dos is actually making me dumber.
|>
I look forward to Charles Murray's forthcoming book on how the youth of today aren't playing enough video games to raise their IQ and compete with the Chinese.
I'm pretty sure he would not be terribly excited by research into ways that IQ is more of an indicator of practice on certain types of tasks and less of an indicator of innate general intelligence.
I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure about a lot of things.
38: Yeah, Murray isn't a "improve IQ to compete with the Chinese" guy. He's a "you can't make black people smart so there's no point in funding the public schools" sort of guy. Although just as toolish as Friedman, he is diametrically opposed to him
34: Hit "print" and read it in that form. You don't have to print it.
I don't actually want to read the article.
I know, but reviews of his latest book seem to be very much about the "barking at people to take a cold shower and give it the old college try".
The figures in the sidebar appear to be off. For example it claims 143+ is 1% but according to this site it is more like .2% (assuming a normal distribution with 100 mean and 15 standard deviation as is conventional).
45: 0.2% would indeed be right for a Gaussian distribution. On the other hand, the largest study of IQ in the general population I know of, namely this, found a decidedly non-Gaussian distribution. (The stuff about sex differences is not very well done, the interesting bit in the paper is the data.) This implies that the sample of test-takers used to devise the scoring rules are not all that representative...
46
The cited paper is behind a paywall.
However I thought IQ was normally distributed by definition so if it isn't normally distributed on a particular test that just indicates problems with the test.