cmd+f luminosity results in nearly as many occurrences as lumosity. That name is cursed. Probably doesn't help that the correct name gets auto-corrected to the incorrect.
Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
61–70 of 79 posts
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't need germ theory to notice that washing your hands before performing surgery improves outcomes.
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."
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#63If luminosity challenges have any consistency at all, then you would think that users must perform better on luminosity challenged themselves.
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#64I dont think abstract games like luminosity work, but I think its fatalistic to assume that your intelligence is fixed at a certain point. You can no doubt expand your intelligence (not just knowledge) by expanding your horizons, but learning is a difficult process.
This... feels more like optimism than evidence. You can improve your performance on almost any single task, which is great news. Certain forms of learning (e.g. language) help defer dementia, exercise and meditation improve focus, memory tricks improve recall, learning diverse topics improves synthesis. But in terms of 'intelligence' in the clinical sense? Despite many people's efforts, I've never seen a single convi…
As you hint at in the last paragraph, IQ isn't the most important factor.
What one can actually accomplish is what matters most. If one is able to improve the layer above raw IQ, the fundamental mental models that provide the base for interpreting, analyzing, and synthesizing everything that happens to them, that would provide immense benefits.
It seems to me that is possible, to an extent. This is something I strive for, and I think I have made a bit of encouraging progress. Of course, evaluating this is... uh... not quite straight-forward, to say the least :)
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 treatm…
> It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. This is actually two statements. > It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it. Sure, I'd agree with that. > It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it. Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need stro…
A claim of possibility or impossibility are both claims about the nature of the universe and both require evidence.
If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value.
For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evidence whatever in support of the claim either way.
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 treatm…
>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.
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.
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 treatm…
> 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.
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?
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need germ theory to notice that washing your hands before performing surgery improves outcomes.
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."
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.
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. This is actually two statements. > It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it. Sure, I'd agree with that. > It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it. Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need stro…
A claim of possibility or impossibility are both claims about the nature of the universe and both require evidence. If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value. For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evid…
I suppose there are two different claims of possibility that are getting confused.
There is a hard claim of possibility, that is a claim of the state of nature (e.g. it is possible for a photon to travel at 0.5c). This hard claim is one where we definitively say that it is _certain_ that it's a physical possibility.
Then there is a soft claim of possibility, that is a claim of our state of knowledge. (e.g. It's possible that Rob went to the store, but I'm not sure).
These are two different claims. One is a hard claim that should only be made with evidence. The other is a statement of our uncertainty and an open mind; that doesn't need any evidence to make.
It's a shame that these two different meanings of these words exist, but such is the English language. They are saying that their research does not close the door on that eventuality, and that their state of knowledge on that topic is uncertain.
Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance
#70I spent three years of undergrad working on neurogenesis research - was actually able to show that voluntary exercise could help ameliorate memory deficits caused by a model of a neurodegenerative disease we'd induced in rats. A Luminosity recruiter contacted me after I left, and I asked for evidence that their research is actually helpful. They were very kind and passed along a number of studies that they'd done. I…
Can you share some more recommendations or advice on how one can increase neuroplasticity/neurogenesis? Aside from the diet/exercise/socialization/meditation, what should people be aware of? Are there some effective supplements/nootropics, or some promising research to look into?
As far as your question about taking drugs/supplements to increase cognitive function, I can say with certainty any positive effect in the short term will eventually fall to long term dependencies and addictions which will, in turn actually decrease your resting cognitive function.