
Brain training exercises might just make you better at brain training exercises - ingve
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/10/07/brain-training-exercises-just-make-you-better-at-brain-training-exercises/
======
carleverett
This is the best article I've ever read of the subject of how you can improve
intelligence: [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-
incr...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-increase-
your-intelligence-5-ways-to-maximize-your-cognitive-potential/)

Kind of like how people have to be reminded that the best way to lose weight
is to diet and exercise, the real answer for intelligence is challenging
yourself frequently and putting yourself in uncomfortable situations that you
need to think your way through.

At the end of the article there's a beautiful definition:

 _" Intelligence isn’t just about how many levels of math courses you’ve
taken, how fast you can solve an algorithm, or how many vocabulary words you
know that are over 6 characters. It’s about being able to approach a new
problem, recognize its important components, and solve it—then take that
knowledge gained and put it towards solving the next, more complex problem.
It’s about innovation and imagination, and about being able to put that to use
to make the world a better place. This is the kind of intelligence that is
valuable, and this is the type of intelligence we should be striving for and
encouraging."_

~~~
it_learnses
this article also references the Dual-N-Back study which suggested that it
could be used to increase cognitive skill that was transferable. But that
study was debunked. Here's a Scientific American article on that:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-
do...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-
you-smarter/)

~~~
hilop
It there a term for this phenomenon, where a researcher publishes an
extraordinary result, some how gets past peer review, and then avoids pursuing
the research further, to avoid embarrassing themselves and losing the fame and
credit? Often there is a bonus step where they create a company to
commercialize a product based on the conclusions.

~~~
heptathorp
The scientific method.

------
grandalf
I played around with Lumosity as part of a research project a few years ago.
The games were somewhat fun and it was possible to improve one's score by
repeated play.

So little of what humans do is similar to those games, so I don't see how
"context" could possibly be similar unless those sorts of brain
speed/recognition tasks were part of your day to day work.

I'd be curious about scenarios like:

\- Practice identifying the semantic bug in a 20 line snippet of code. How
effectively would practicing this help a person identify real bugs in actual
code?

\- Chess problems with 5 pieces on the board. How helpful would practicing
these be to solving problems with 6 pieces?

\- Essay writing. Suppose for a moment that a human essay could be judged
accurately enough to create a 500 word essay trainer. How effective would
training on it be to quickly being able to articulate one's thoughts?

Similarly, I'd be curious about a sunk cost rationality trainer, logical proof
trainer, and reading comprehension trainer. These would be harder to build
than the simple video games on Lumosity, but I suspect the competency obtained
could be a bit more useful in real world tests of ability.

However, there are fairly few cases where specific characteristics of human
intellect or rationality are measurable by longer term human performance. If
your job entails long term project planning, trade-offs, etc., it's pretty
hard to prepare in a meaningful way using short-term training sessions.

~~~
nathan-wall
> Chess problems with 5 pieces on the board. How helpful would practicing
> these be to solving problems with 6 pieces?

Another anecdote: I experienced a noticeable improvement in my abilities at
Chess by studying and playing Go. I'm still not real good at Chess because I
haven't studied it, but I can now beat people I didn't used to be able to
beat.

~~~
karmakaze
I've had a similar experience where playing Go made be better at living life,
and being away from the game and living made me better at Go when I expected
to be set back. This probably only applies at kyu levels but I did find it
surprising.

~~~
randall
A completely arbitrary related concept: I'm much better at running my startup
now than before I played StarCraft seriously.

StarCraft made me a more strategic thinker and it's why I think it might not
surprise people that Emmett Shear (ceo of twitch) is really good at StarCraft.

I played casually in the early days, but a few years back I wanted to get
decent enough to play online regularly, and it changed our company for the
better.

~~~
summarite
Is it your skill at StarCraft, or could it be that you developed strategies
for learning, resilience, etc while trying get better, and those are the
actual success factors?

~~~
randall
Conceptual stretching is my guess. More strategy than normal for me.

------
j2kun
My wife teaches math at a community college level, meaning she often needs to
teach students who are paralyzed by fear of fractions (or worse, negative
numbers). Many of her students are also adults. She tells me things like "If I
ask one of these adult students a question involving negative numbers, and I
phrase it in terms of money and debt, they answer it immediately. If I ask
them using just numbers, they have no clue." These students do not know how to
take a concept they've used their entire lives to balance their checkbooks,
and abstract it beyond money.

I would conjecture that in most cases of "activities that stimulate your
brain", the key to generalization requires another skill: being able to
abstract a skill you have learned from one situation, and then specialize it
to another situation. And this skill needs practicing. I also conjecture that
a small fraction of the population actively does this, and this could explain
why the results aren't statistically significant. E.g. meditation actively
encourages introspection and generalized mindfulness in any situation, whereas
crosswords and Chess are played for their own sake.

~~~
CoryG89
So meditation is actively improving your "introspection and generalized
mindfulness", but people doing crosswords and playing Chess are just being
silly and wasting time?

I was with you until I read that. Maybe I just don't buy into the whole
meditation thing, but from where I stand, at least Chess seems like it
actively improves/encourages/practices strategic thinking skills.

~~~
ivm
Playing chess builds up your strategic thinking in chess and it's barely
transferable to other activities, even to other games.

Meditation is about watching your mind and training to recognize your subtle
thoughts and emotions. It's universal and can be applied to any activity in
one's life because everything is being processed inside our minds.

------
tonystubblebine
Here's a mystery to me: the failure of brain training games vs. the success of
meditation.

The science for brain training games is not encouraging. A number of studies
have found that they do not produce generalizable mental improvements.

Meanwhile, every time I turn around I run into a study of mindfulness
meditation that did produce a generalizable improvement to mental abilities.

For example, I was just reading one about how meditation can reduce pain
perception by 40% and that measurement was backed up by MRI imaging of reduced
brain activity in pain centers.

Let's call meditation a brain game that works.

The mystery then is why is there only one game that works? Will we ever find a
second?

~~~
hannob
I think I can explain the mystery to you: You have a skewed view of the
scientific evidence.

The evidence for mindfulness and meditation is questionable at best. There's a
lot of bad science, undeclared conflicts of interest and weak studies in that
space.

> For example, I was just reading one about how meditation can reduce pain
> perception by 40% and that measurement was backed up by MRI imaging of
> reduced brain activity in pain centers.

This is a completely meaningless statement. What kind of study is that based
on? An RCT or observational data? How many participants? A single study or a
metaanalysis? Has it been replicated? Was it preregistered? All of that
matters to decide whether that's just "a study" or reliable science.

There are plenty of studies showing that brain games work, too. They're just
of low quality.

~~~
gf263
Have you ever meditated?

~~~
corecoder
If he had, would the points he made be stronger or weaker? Do meditation today
improve the reliability of past studies conducted by other people?

~~~
gf263
I was just wondering.

------
hmahncke
The article begins from the premise that psychology has shown that brain
training can not cause generalized benefits, and then goes on to review more
than 130 peer-reviewed publications, meticulously finding fault with each one,
and concluding that nothing can be learned from the entire field. It's as if
the authors went through an entire forest, finding fault with each tree, but
never noticed there was an entire forest (of evidence).

I'm an author on one of the studies discussed, and for what it's worth, there
are two factual errors in their review of my study alone.

The authors then go on to state that people seeking to improve cognitive
function would be better served by exercising or going to college. Exercising
is an excellent idea, but the evidence for cognitive improvement is certainly
no better than for cognitive training, and is arguably worse [1]. College is
fine as well, but from a methodological perspective there's never been a
randomized controlled trial showing that college improves cognitive function,
and arguably all college does is select high-achievers and then further filter
them with low-performers dropping out. Endorsing college (with no RCTs) over
brain training (with RCTs) suggest a biased review.

Disclosure: I work at Posit Science, where we make a brain training program.
My work is specifically criticized in the article.

[1] [http://www.cochrane.org/CD005381/DEMENTIA_aerobic-
exercise-t...](http://www.cochrane.org/CD005381/DEMENTIA_aerobic-exercise-to-
improve-cognitive-function-in-older-people-without-known-cognitive-impairment)

~~~
Gatsky
You describe the process of meta-analysis as of there is something wrong with
it.

The point about exercise or college is they are guaranteed to have some
benefit, unlike playing a brain training game, which has at least a 50-50
chance of being a waste of time.

~~~
hmahncke
I like meta-analyses quite well, but the APS article was not a meta-analysis -
it was more like a broad review. Here are a few meta-analyses that disagree
with the APS article:

Computerized Cognitive Training with Older Adults: A Systematic Review
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040588)

Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25405755](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25405755)

I liked college and benefited from it, but it the US (at least) it costs tens
of thousands of dollars, and 45% of people don't complete a degree in 6 years:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/19/u_s_college_d...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/19/u_s_college_dropouts_rates_explained_in_4_charts.html)

------
Bartweiss
The entire brain training market seems to be based on a willful failure to
understand Goodhart's Law.

The basic pitch is "performance on these games correlates with intelligence,
so practice these games to become more intelligent". That's not how _anything_
works! If you influence a metric directly, it stops being a good proxy for all
the things it used to correlate with.

It's like fly-by-night companies improving retention by selling at a loss, or
running up user count with expensive perks for each new client. Those numbers
are important as a _reflection_ of business health, not a _cause_ of it.

~~~
ConfuciusSay02
Thanks to fMRI and other brain scanning technologies, we now know that when we
learn, our brains physically change. This fact is the basis for the claims of
the "brain training" industry.

The reality is that our brains are constantly changing. I could memorize a
thousand fart jokes and my brain would have changed. Does that make me more
intelligent?

I think the "brain training" apps are only really good for older or other
people who are at risk of dementia, or other cognitive diseases, and even then
I'm pretty sure the science is out on most of that.

------
DiffEq
Instead of Games that may or may not map to some useful thing and some
cognitive improvement...why not just learn more math and or a 2nd language?
The time invested here will at the very least provide you with some useful
skill or a better understanding of your world.

------
Sanity_
I know people who just don't make critical thinking a part of their daily
routine, and they tend to be sloppy and thoughtless when confronted with any
sort of mental exercise. If these "Brain training exercises" can get people
thinking critically and dedicating time of the day to using parts of their
brain they wouldn't have otherwise, then it seems like a good thing to me.

------
snarf21
The weird thing is that there is an initial lift but only because you are
learning something new. You have to figure it out, it takes effort and creates
new pathways, etc. Once you have learned it, you tend to be on auto pilot. The
thing to do is keep learning new things: photography, baking, woodworking,
etc. It is the challenge and discovery that are important.

~~~
radicsge
I believe this also, if you dont learn new things/practice exercise (something
where you need to think), you will loose IQ (like in a long holiday). So in
long term brain training exercises are essential.

~~~
dhimes
I'm totally grooving on the linux bsd games like galaxies and keen that I've
recently discovered. At first there was this "high" from trying to figure out
the new patterns. Now even the more difficult stuff is becoming systematic
(although still absorbing).

------
innerspirit
Good. Now perhaps make a study about sensationalized article titles like this
one. The conclusion in the title is inaccurate.

FTA: "Overall, Simons and his colleagues conclude that the evidence [...] is
“inadequate”."

and

"it’s possible future research will provide new evidence that is more
favourable to brain training"

~~~
jmcgough
Sure, but it's impossible to prove that brain training has no benefits, all we
can say is that essentially every well-run study has failed to find any
benefits. They're just saying that stuff to cover their bases - most
neuroscience researchers don't believe that "brain training" is anything more
than just wishful thinking.

~~~
JacksCracked
It is impossible to prove, and yet the title claims it to be true.

~~~
scott_s
Given the evidence, it is a reasonable conclusion. Very little is ever
"proved". Rather, we make conclusions based on the available evidence. If the
evidence changes, we revisit our conclusions.

~~~
thr0waway1239
Whoever downvoted you, has probably never heard of the axiom: "Nothing can
ever be proven true, because that means you would have to consider every
possibility. The best that we can hope for is to prove something is not true
by finding exceptions. After many failures at finding exceptions, we just
state that some things are true until an exception is found."

------
erdevs
This is a shoddy write-up which sensationalizes the more rigorous underlying
scientific work.

The _actual_ research here appears to find methodological shortcomings in many
papers purporting a broader effect on intelligence or problem-solving ability
from some popular brain training games. It does not, however, conclude that
there is no effect.

It is unfortunate (though very common) that the article oversimplifies and
sensationalizes. The headline "brain training exercises just make you better
at brain training exercises" is far too definitive. I'm glad the "might"
qualifier at least was added here on HN. Similarly, the article saying "the
same is not true", definitively, for the benefits of physical vs mental
exercise games. Examples abound throughout the article and it reads as sloppy,
biased, and exaggerated. Not uncommon today, but always unfortunate still.

It's a shame many brain-training companies make exaggerated claims themselves.
So, in some ways, it's fine to see some counterfire in online press.
Unfortunate if that's what it comes down to, though.

------
danielweber
Nothing about N-back, which is the one braintraining thing that had evidence
for it.

------
whatup
I wonder if part of the reason brain training appears to have little benefit
is similar to the reason most people who visit the gym make little gains in
athleticism; because they don't push themselves hard enough. A lot of people
feel like simply showing up is all that's required, and they don't break a
sweat.

This is supported by the fact that many of these brain training apps/games
often have addictive traits, similar to other video games. This might lead to
their usage being met with undue reward.

I used one of them, and the goal (unduly rewarded) was simply to come back
and, essentially, play each day. It didn't matter how hard I worked.

This could be tested by measuring brain activity during brain training
(compared to some control activity) and seeing if the delta positively
correlates with increased cognitive function.

------
Vernetit
I have schizophrenia and I create a program that combines mnemotechnics with
3d n-back and facial expression memory system to understand.

[http://vernetit.blogspot.com.ar/2016/10/eo-and-peo-memory-
sy...](http://vernetit.blogspot.com.ar/2016/10/eo-and-peo-memory-system-
memorize-with.html) with 15 minutes of training my mood changes and i
understand the sitcom tv series emotions and the people around me intentions
and emotions. I experiment also more willingness to do things. Here the
program link

[http://competicionmental.appspot.com/tts3dnback](http://competicionmental.appspot.com/tts3dnback)

Sorry my poor English. I am from Argentina.

------
jackcosgrove
I worked at an academic neuroscience software company back when Lumosity first
emerged on the scene. Lumosity was spurred on by I believe statistically
significant results regarding the n-back test improving working memory. There
was a lot of hope that other games/tests might be designed to improve other
cognitive features. However the n-back test is the only one I have ever heard
of having a significant effect on cognition, and even then it's temporary.
There was a lot of disappointment in these results. Nevertheless, Lumosity et
al continued to market minigames as health elixirs.

~~~
rixarn
You're right. The amount of "exercises" that have proven to have some degree
of transfer are very limited (n-back being the most typical not the only one).
It's not only a problem of Lumosity et al, it's a problem on researchers too.
There's an alarming amount of papers that are really bad, both
methodologically and in terms of the type of tasks and training duration.

No wonder the brain training industry gets bashed every now and then when a
new study debunks most of the allegedly benefits. So we have a group of folks
that don't understand what they are doing and are publishing bad papers, and
another group of folks that read those papers without fully understanding what
is going on under the hood and create a "brain training" app. The fine on
Lumosity by FTC was fair and expected.

------
rixarn
I've been working on "brain training" stuff for almost 8 years and just
recently (around a year ago) decided to make a startup out of it. I'm a
psychologist and software engineer and my cofounder is a clinical psychologist
and neuroscientist. We've done our own research (and have a published paper),
read a lot of the stuff that's out there and have evaluated and kept track of
the existing products for years.

First thing that baffles me on most commercial products is the frequency and
duration of each training session. Let's think for a minute. On average you
have this short sessions that range from 5 to 15 minutes. Even in something as
evident as physical activity... how fit can you get by doing 15 minutes of low
intensity jogging on average 3 times a week? How fair is to say based on that
example that jogging is "worthless"?

That said, most critiques to Brain Fitness are correct.

If I could summarize what we've learned so far:

\- Transfer effect (i.e. to gain benefits outside of the activity you're
doing) is hard to achieve, it takes a lot of time, has to be a n-back and
heavy working memory activity (is the only think I can think of having a
chance to do transfer) and it doesn't work all the time. On our own experience
probably 20% of the population will never benefit from something like this.
Also, transfer is limited to some executive functions, not all of them.

\- Training duration and frequency. Think of a physical activity like jogging
but instead of doing 15 minutes of low intensity jogging 3 times a week, do 35
high speed jogging 4 times a week for two months. You will get fit.

\- Training activity. Most n-back and working memory stuff is boring and hard
to do for players. It's difficult to engage on a "game" like that and the
dropout rate for users is very high.

Most games out there that are part of the package of games in brain training
softwares are based on stuff that has not been proved to have any transfer
effect.

Our mobile app will focus mostly on working memory and sustained attention
games (fewer but with more complex game dynamics that current ones). And I
don't think we will advertise it as a "life changer" or a way to "make you
smarter". We just want to build a suite of games for people to be challenged
and have fun while doing so.

------
surrey-fringe
I don't doubt it, but people shouldn't take this to mean that there aren't any
possible exercises to strengthen mental ability. You've just got to listen to
people who are actually successful, and not some corporate-funded research
that might be null in three years. I don't see anyone at the World Memory
Championships citing Lumosity.

------
rebootthesystem
Yup. Just like being great at Chess just makes someone great at Chess, and not
much more.

I taught my kids to play Chess early on. My first-born was beating 12 year
old's when he was 6. They had to move him up the age groupings. I insisted
they keep moving him up until he lost. Knowing how to deal with losing is very
important.

In all cases I pulled my kids from competitive Chess after a few seasons and a
good balance between winning and losing. Past a certain point, getting better
at Chess requires becoming a human database engine. That, for me, is when
Chess demonstrates this idea that getting better at some of these games
teaches nothing useful.

BTW, I apply this to the type of programming puzzles typically used in
interviews. It's pure nonsense that says nothing about how creative someone
can be about solving new problems. Anyone can become a human database with
enough effort. True creative intelligence is a quite a different matter.

~~~
CoryG89
I would disagree. I am not much into Chess, but I used to play a fair amount
and consider myself fairly good.

At the very least, playing a sufficient amount of Chess against sufficiently
skilled opponents will teach you things that are easily generalizable.

Just one example, thinking strategically over the long term (several moves
ahead), rather than short term (only thinking about your next move).

~~~
rebootthesystem
No, I think we agree. The level of proficiency you are describing can be
attained by a kid in six months to a year. Going past that to become a human
chess database is a waste of time.

Example: I taught my kids to ask themselves "Is there a better move?" before
making a move. I also taught them to apply that idea to non-chess situations.
And they do.

------
devy
Honest question: so if brain training exercises don't work, then what else can
genuinely improve brain functions?

~~~
TulliusCicero
I remember reading studies about a few different video games improving
cognitive performance: Rise of Nations, Starcraft, and an FPS (maybe Unreal
Tournament?).

~~~
zizzles
Could this perhaps just be a rationalization for some to play video games
under a doctrine of "I'm getting smarter" when in turn it's just mindless
consumption of media? I am all for FPS games improving my cognitive
performance, but we should not be delusional about this.

If I wanted to (at least try) improving cognition, I would spend hours reading
math textbooks and doing exercises, learning languages, perhaps reading about
philosophy in my off-time; not strafing left and right with my WASD keys and
trashing on kids all day in Counter-Strike.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Sounds like you already made up your mind.

------
briandw
Dual n-back training is the only thing that I've read about that shows
transference to unrelated tasks.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-back](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-back)

There are some good apps out there:

Desktop ->
[http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net](http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net)

Android ->
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tyrske.dua...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tyrske.dualnback&hl=en)

And I make a pitch for my app, IQ boost for iOS ->
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iq-
boost/id286574399?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iq-
boost/id286574399?mt=8)

~~~
natdempk
This article actually points out that the IQ/fluid intelligence increase
findings from the original Jaeggi paper about dual n-back failed to be
replicated.

> Finally, at the end of the study, we gave everyone different versions of the
> cognitive ability tests. The results were clear: the dual n-back group was
> no higher in fluid intelligence than the control groups. Not long after we
> published these results, another group of researchers published a second
> failure to replicate Jaeggi and colleagues’ findings.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-
do...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-
you-smarter/)

------
hamhamed
Does this research also consider actual real Brain training games like
Elevate? It teaches you techniques like how to get better at estimating,
improving your WPM, your thesaurus, etc. Nothing to do with memorizing a
pattern or serving coffee to customers as fast as possible.

~~~
Naritai
I applaud your pinpoint application of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

~~~
cgag
We've never seen truly flawed studies before right?

------
dghughes
It wasn't my intention to train my brain but I started using DuoLingo (it's
free) language learning and I find my concentration has improved.

Maybe it's just because I do a different activity at a regular rate per day
but I do feel brainy plus I am learning three languages.

------
dschiptsov
Why, _any_ training, it seems, has the same nature. Highly specialized task,
such as joggling will make you better only at joggling (and, perhaps, will
improve coordination of your hands) while training at, say, triathlon will
make one generally stronger, more coordinated, with better stamina and
endurance.

Similarly, mindfulness (awareness) and concentration (focusing) meditation
techniques in general will make one better at variety of tasks, while
specialized training, lets say, math tricks, will only affect specialized
areas of the brain.

The training of a musician requires a lot of _listening_ to the classical
music, not just trying to play "mechanically" . All this is known for ages by
Greeks and by Indians.

------
robg
Title change suggestion: Bad brain training has limited scope. The question
remains what good brain training would is. Paired with electrical or magnetic
stimulation? There's almost all fertile ground here and, I believe, our great
advances as humans this century will come from better ways to grow brains.
Consider mobile apps that adapt to your cognitive strengths and weakness, when
you haven't slept well or are under stress or need coffee, and where learning
becomes lifelong and personalized. By building our intelligence we also become
good at developing artificial forms. To me it's the problem of our time, these
early attempts just help to develop better approaches.

------
taneq
A guy I used to play soccer with always said "train as you play!" Now, he was
upset because on cold rainy Thursdays a lot of us were wearing tracksuit pants
to training, and he felt we should be wearing shorts... and for some reason he
felt that shin pads were exempt from the "train as you play" ethos. Which was
funny, because he was a good lad but he was _always_ getting injured. I think
he played three matches the whole time I was at the club, and that was a few
years, because the rest of the time he was sidelined by injury. But I digress.

I think "train as you play" is excellent advice. We don't learn the training.
We learn the playing.

------
fsiefken
It seems that meta-analysis confirms the usefulness of things like dual-N-back
training. Does anyone disagree?

[https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis](https://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-
analysis) [https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-
increase...](https://www.quora.com/How-does-dual-n-back-actually-increase-IQ)

For an n-back like exercise:
[http://cognitivefun.net/test/22](http://cognitivefun.net/test/22)

~~~
mark_kalvelage
You need to read gwern's link more closely. Second paragraph:

 _This indicates that the medium effect size is due to methodological problems
and that n-back training does not increase subjects’ underlying fluid
intelligence_

~~~
Bartweiss
Most damningly, the review didn't turn up dose-dependent results. If n-back
works, I would expect either "more is better" or "flat gain past some
minimum". Instead, the effect vs training graph is a shapeless cloud, which
seems like a major warning sign.

------
Y201K
A friend showed me Lumosity and I thought "there's no way this can work", when
in life do you have to distinguish the direction moving colored arrows are
pointing? The reason I so quickly came to this conclusion is because of the
concept of specificity in strength training -- your exercises have to be
picked so that they support your goals. I imagine that an approach like this
in the brain-enhancing-games space would look a lot more like what we think of
as homework.

~~~
tux1968
What caught my eye in your post is that you have accumulated some useful
knowledge from strength training that you just applied elsewhere in your life.
Don't you think it's possible that the exact same could happen to people
solving puzzles? I doubt that a scientific study would find that strength
training leads to improved problem solving skills, and yet it has for you.

~~~
EliRivers
_I doubt that a scientific study would find that strength training leads to
improved problem solving skill_

Here are some that do.

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691814...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691814001577)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26456233](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26456233)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155655](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155655)

~~~
tux1968
Heh, well that'll teach me for not being more precise in my wording. Of course
your fitness level will have a positive effect on your mental abilities. What
i meant to highlight was his use of specific insights _about_ strength
training that he then found could be abstracted and applied elsewhere. The
same possibility of which he had dismissed in the puzzle solving case.

~~~
Y201K
I do think that collecting anecdotes from other fields can help you think
better in your own field of work. I'm just not so sure that, for example,
doing Sudoku makes you any better at thinking about things. Brain training
exercises aren't general enough.

------
thr0waway1239
A friend of mine believes that the reason she didn't do her best in academics
is because the "subject was presented in a very boring way". I tried to
persuade her that overcoming that feeling of boredom is already a good sign
that you are learning the material well - granted, it is really hard to read
poorly written stuff, but academic material isn't exactly a heart pounding
thrill ride and it is quite a task to make it interesting, particularly as the
material gets more advanced. But you know that you can rarely change people's
views on such abstract things.

I once mentioned a plan to develop a little learning app (based on spaced
repetition) for her kids and asked her if she felt it was something worth
paying for. She pointed out this new app called Lumosity and asked me "Why
don't you make something like this? It is very interesting, and kids will
actually want to use it." I sort of gave up at that point because I didn't
quite believe that it was all that effective. After a little while, the topic
of this article started floating around the internet and last I heard, my
friend had stopped using Lumosity.

On a more cheery note, I am surprised to find no one mentioned the book "Make
it stick" by Peter Brown et. al. which would probably be a hard pill to
swallow for the Lumosity fans. Someone should find a way to "appify" the
principles in the book. It would be one seriously boring app, but very
effective. :-)

------
trendia
Commenting on HN just makes you better at commenting in HN.

~~~
lfowles
Perfect^W Purposeful practice makes perfect.

------
svjsdjfnskj
If you really want to increase you intelligence just get a good night's sleep,
eat well and go outside and walk

------
sebringj
I've always found that if I want to get good at some endeavor, partaking in
that endeavor does the trick. I wonder how much time and brain power is wasted
on preparing. Maybe that's why the really good ones leave school early.

------
SubiculumCode
Opportunity costs are damning. Even if brain training games were modestly
effective, they hold an opportunity cost: The time you could have been spent
doing cardiovascular exercise that has demonstrated robust positive effects on
cognition.

~~~
andrewprock
It's possible to be both physically and mentally active. You don't need to
choose.

~~~
SubiculumCode
yes yes. Of course, but there people have only so much time...and many people
are NOT physically active. Sure do your 'brain training' (if it works) AFTER
you've done a decent amount of cardio, but cardio should be the goto.

------
faragon
Should be similar for IQ tests, I guess. So if new generations have better
"IQ", some part of it could come just because of being more prepared/trained
for those kind of tests.

------
h4nkoslo
Interestingly, this is the primary explanation for the Flynn effect, and why
culture-loaded questions do not show the same improvements that completely
abstract, non-culture-loaded questions do.

------
EddieSpeaks
Just like playing chess makes you better at playing chess, no generic
Intelligence boost from specific activities with narrow problem spaces

------
kruhft
Kinda like practicing math, just makes you good at math?

/s

~~~
josefresco
I had the same reaction. For example, does taking a lot of "tests" make you
good at ... tests? To me it calls into question the validity of tests to
measure intelligence.

~~~
CoryG89
I would say that taking lots of tests may indeed make you better at taking
tests.

You may find that working under pressure or under a time limit is something
that you get better at with practice.

------
perseusprime11
This has to become some kind of meme...reading books might just make you
better at reading books :)

------
tetrep
incentives incentivize...

The entire "I'll find a mental analogue that's easier/more fun than real
exercise" industry smacks if an industry dedicated to perpetual motion.
Extreme scientific discoveries aside, it's not going to happen.

------
maheshs
I think this proves that If we practice anything we will make the improvement.

------
afinlayson
Anyone who has used these could tell you that. If they are mindful enough to
notice.

------
kefka_p
But then ... is life much more than a brain training exercise?

------
davidgerard
Neither headline nor URL contains the word "might".

~~~
throwawayReply
Yup, hn has a rule about original headlines except where inconvenient.

In this case though they slipped up, "might just make you better" means
"likely to make you better" and the "just" no longer conveys "only" at all
anymore.

------
projektir
Maybe those brain training exercises are just not very good?

------
zump
Well, what about spaced repitition?

------
andrewguy9
Just like the SAT.

------
emodendroket
Wow, shocking.

------
mridulmalpani
I knew it :)

