Re: The Only Things I Know Are What I Read In The Papers

1

Heh. Oh, dear.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
2

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.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
3

The sidebar says, 164+ 1 in 30,000; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the chess champion Bobby Fischer.

How do we know this about WAM?


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
4

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
5

3: We don't. They made it up.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
6

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.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
7

Mozart was a Call of Duty virtuoso.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
8

5. Sooo disappointing. Along with the rest of that sidebar, which seems to be designed to enhance the self-esteem of NYT readers.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
9

to be

My feeble IQ cannot do concise English.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
10

I did better on the audio than the visual despite not having speakers attached. Maybe I should check that instructions again.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
11

9 ok not twitter


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
12

...which seems to be designed to enhance the self-esteem of NYT readers.

You mean the codpieces embossed with "The Fourth Estate"?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
13

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.


Posted by: Stranded in Lubbock | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
14

tl;dr


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
15

13: And were you suddenly globally far more intelligent? I mean, they wouldn't make something like that up.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
16

On veldt, you had to remember which square had the decaying meat.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
17

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.


Posted by: Stranded in Lubbock | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
18

That was when you started commenting here, right? Probably couldn't have kept up without the training.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
19

1 in 10,000; Nobel Prize winners

Um, dear NYTimes blurb-writing person, I have a little counting exercise I would like to suggest...


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
20

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.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
21

The only effective way to become more intelligent is the paleo diet and crossfit.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
22

18: If by "kept up" you mean "started commenting once every three months or so," I think you're on to something...


Posted by: Stranded in Lubbock | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
23

70,000 Nobel prize winners can't be wrong.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
24

The involvement of Steven Levitt mentioned at the end of the article does not inspire confidence in that particular research program.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
25

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.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
26

23 because nobody will tell me the URL to Standpipe's other blog.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
27

25: You probably also hate puppies and ice cream.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
28

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.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
29

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
30

NMM to allstar fucknut Chuck Colson.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 5:31 PM
horizontal rule
31

Wow, I really suck at that game. That means I'm a replicant, right?


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
32

25: Yeah, but Cabin in the Woods rules.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 04-21-12 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
33

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 3:19 AM
horizontal rule
34

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'.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 3:21 AM
horizontal rule
35

30: But really could anybody every have masturbated to this guy while he was alive? Especially given how evil he was.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 4:36 AM
horizontal rule
36

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.)


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 4:54 AM
horizontal rule
37

||

Paradoxically, I am pretty sure that preparing for fifteen hour exam numero dos is actually making me dumber.

|>


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 5:47 AM
horizontal rule
38

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.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
39

I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure about a lot of things.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
40

39: Right.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 6:10 AM
horizontal rule
41

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


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
42

34: Hit "print" and read it in that form. You don't have to print it.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
43

I don't actually want to read the article.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
44

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".


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
45

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).


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-22-12 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
46

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...


Posted by: Cosma Shalizi | Link to this comment | 04-23-12 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
47

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.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-23-12 6:48 PM
horizontal rule