Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#71

Post by colorint »

adrianN wrote: post #68
colorint wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Fair enough, and that guy's work was pretty close (in time) to the "germ revolution." The accounting of scientific revolutions is that anomalous results start getting common enough that people get uncomfortable calling them noise or faulty methodology. I'm not an expert in the history of paradigms of disease, but these results coming out were almost certainly part of what chipped away faith in miasma theory and, if you will, created the unease required for revolution.

Importantly, Semmelweis couldn't offer an explanation for why washing hands helped, which seems to have greatly hindered his credibility. I said you were offering a germ-theoretic perspective, because we do (and must do) the same thing: How else should we separate the spurious correlations from the important ones? How do we separate superstition from good practice? How do we tell the crackpots from the creative? If we suspend the germ theory, what if there was something else going on at the hospital, and hand-washing was just something this guy noticed and latched on to? Then you'd be giving people the wrong advice---which is, after all, one of many reasons that correlation is not causation.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#72

Post by magic_beans »

rayalez wrote: post #56
jmcgough wrote: post #33

I 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?

Cognitive improvement won't be found in drugs or supplements. The answer is in lifestyle change and recognizing the body and mind as one system.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#73

Post by abtinf »

ncallaway wrote: post #69
abtinf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 possi…

If I ask you, "Where did Rob go?" and you, having never even heard of Rob, respond "he might be out cheating on his wife," it would be an arbitrary statement bordering on malice. Qualifying the statement with "but I'm not sure," doesn't help you, because even the suggestion of the initial possibility needs to be based on evidence.

If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his schedule and needs, you might respond with "It's possible he went to the store; last night he mentioned he ran out of toilet paper." This is an evidence-backed claim.

A claim about the state of nature is the same. Your knowledge leads you toward certain avenues of research, so you might think, "photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it." However, it would be improper to base your research on whim, like "I think photons are little gremlins and they run really fast, but can they run slow too?" Such a claim is not a claim about reality, it is arbitrary.

Claims about the world must be grounded in knowledge, and knowledge must be based on evidence.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#74

Post by ncallaway »

abtinf wrote: post #73
ncallaway wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 possi…

If I ask you, "Where did Rob go?" and you, having never even heard of Rob, respond "he might be out cheating on his wife," it would be an arbitrary statement bordering on malice. Qualifying the statement with "but I'm not sure," doesn't help you, because even the suggestion of the initial possibility needs to be based on evidence. If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his sc…

> photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it.

No, the claim about what is possible for a photon was much stronger. I am asserting now that photons can travel at .5c, full stop. I will not look into it, as I have already determined it is possible. I am not making a hypothesis about the universe, I am making a claim about how I believe it to actually work. Anyway, that is an aside.

I still think this just comes down to semantics about what is a claim about the world and what is a statement about uncertainty.

I interpret them saying something is possible as them making a statement about their own partial knowledge. I specifically do not interpret it as a claim about the world. I do interpret it as a claim about their own research and their own partial knowledge.

Their research does not demonstrate an impossibility. That is the claim they present. I still believe you are making a semantic interpretation of the word "possibility" that is different from the intent of the researchers. I think you are interpreting a stronger claim than the researchers are making.

Here is, for example, the same qualification as reported in a different article:

> Although, in this study, the researchers found that commercial cognitive training alone would not have an influence on one's decision-making process or cognitive abilities, they believe that it was still an avenue worthy of rigorous investigation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170710135410.h...

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#75

Post by Bartweiss »

SilasX wrote: post #53
Bartweiss wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alright, fair point, given Lumosity's claims.

Yeah - it's an awkward situation. The study would be silly, except that it borrowed the silliness from what people were already asserting.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#76

Post by jmcgough »

rayalez wrote: post #56
jmcgough wrote: post #33

I 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?

I left academia about five years ago, and don't want to create the impression that I'm some brilliant academic researcher (I spent three years doing rat/staining/counting work in a lab and wrote an honors thesis on the topic). I try to keep up on current research when I can though, the work pretty much consumed my life and I kind of miss it sometimes.

Regular aerobic exercise (stuff that elevates your heart rate) is still the best thing we know of. It's good for upregulation of neurogenesis and BDNF.

There are dozens of papers out there showing that a certain treatment/activity/drug increases neurogenesis. It's funny, I was talking about neuroscience to a lyft driver a way back who was curious about neurogenesis/neuroplasticity, and I told him that exercise is your best bet, but we also had some good results treating our brain-damaged rats with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. He shrugged off the exercise bit but of course asked me to spell out ACh inhibitor for him (which I really wouldn't recommend any random person off the street taking).

I experimented for a bit with nootropics after I graduated. Gwern's posts are really interesting if you haven't read him (https://www.gwern.net/Nootropics). A number of people have found success with a basic choline and -racetam stack. As much as tech blogs love blogging about how we're all hooked on nootropics in the valley, it's unlikely that taking some pills in the morning is going to dramatically change your life (though it might nudge it in the right direction). As one of the other replies said, lifestyle changes are still the most effective approach.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#77

Post by overgard »

Bartweiss wrote: post #38
overgard wrote: post #29

I 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…

Admittedly I have no evidence, but anecdotally when I started taking my health and diet seriously I feel like I gained about 10 IQ points just from fueling things better. Similarly, learning various mnemonics's and learning strategies has really helped my ability to learn more rapidly. You could argue that I'm simply capitalizing on my innate ability better -- and that would be true -- but the same argument would apply to gaining strength by training muscles. Nobody sees a muscular person thats ripped and thinks they just are lucky to be that way -- we recognize that there is both biology and effort in play, but for some reason people seem to think intelligence is pure biology. I cant prove my case, but im skeptical of that proposition.

No doubt people have different ceilings for their potential, but I feel like most people who are viewed as smart arent just leaning on natural talent, rather they've cultivated skills that get the most out of what they have

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#78

Post by Bartweiss »

overgard wrote: post #77
Bartweiss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Admittedly I have no evidence, but anecdotally when I started taking my health and diet seriously I feel like I gained about 10 IQ points just from fueling things better. Similarly, learning various mnemonics's and learning strategies has really helped my ability to learn more rapidly. You could argue that I'm simply capitalizing on my innate ability better -- and that would be true -- but the same argument would app…

I did dance around the lifestyle point a bit, for this reason. I've never seen a study on "we took otherwise-healthy people with bad habits and got them to eat, sleep, and exercise better", but I'd have higher hopes for that boosting healthy-adult IQ than literally anything else.

And I agree on the ambiguity around 'innate ability'. One could argue that general health is 'subtractive', that bad sleep/diet/exercise are drawing down potential that would exist otherwise. But that's far less clear-cut than something like "only works in dementia patients" or "only helps with Korsakoff Syndrome". I think there's something to it - lifting heavier weights and sleeping more are not unbounded sources of improvement - but I think it's also kind of a copout. If those things operate on a continuum, and people we consider "healthy adults" can still see benefits from them, that's what we wanted to find.

Re: Study finds Lumosity users show no improvements in cognitive performance

#79

Post by rodiger »

abtinf wrote: post #66
rodiger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 logi…

I believe you're incorrectly conflating belief in possibility, and belief in reality. I don't believe there are tiny gnomes, but nothing about tiny gnomes causes me to disbelieve in the possibility of them. A hard claim, and a claim of possibility are entirely different.
Post reply on HN