/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6482350
are you seriously that retarded?

>>6482367
interested in this as well

>>6482580
topkek

>>6481659
"Two studies published in 2012 failed to reproduce the effect of dual n-back training on fluid intelligence. These studies found that the effects of training did not transfer to any other cognitive ability tests.[10][11]"

>>6481527
>Only come on /sci/ to ask specific questions. General questions will just bring about of bullshit, both from you and other readers.
>telling me what to do
fuck off, nigger. i'm literally going to do whatever i want.

>implying i'm going to heed your shit tier advice.
laughinggirls.7z

>>6481466
Rubik's Cube. Oops.

>>6481422
>Brain training games will not work. It has already been disputed.
This is good to know; I thought that was all BS anyway.

Are there any known tasks that improve any discreet capabilities in the brain that may be applicable/beneficial when doing something else?

For instance, does becoming skilled at Tetris benefit a person outside of playing Tetris? Maybe pattern recognition or something? The same question goes for anything like this: Chess, Rubix Cube, Piano (bimanual tasks), etc.
I'm looking for anything that has cognitive benefits outside of the particular, specific task itself.

>>6481318
>All those brain training games are apparently scientifically proven to improve brain function and performance
Really? Like Lumosity? I thought that Lumosity was based on shaky science and that the benefits are inconclusive.

Last time I read about that was about a year ago, so the science may have caught up. Can you/anyone confirm/deny that something like Lumosity is factually beneficial to the brain and process of thinking?

>>6481377
Maybe not conclusive proof, but suggestive evidence. Such as: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n8/full/nn.2596.html

>>6480935
>What things have you found that work?
Not much, yet. That's why I made this thread: to discover these methods.

>>6481024
I don't really mean methods of increasing g, but just things (that are backed by science) that are shown to do what I've mentioned in the OP. Like how bookworms are very skilled at rapidly synthesizing info, etc.

I've recently read in a publication that conflicting bimanual tasks do something (I forget what exactly) to exercise "higher-order" motor control.

>>6480991
>>6480935
brb 2 hrs, have class

>>6480890
Some of this sounds like new-age hogwash.

Evidence for meditation benefits is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

I'm looking for science-based, contemporary findings.

bumpan

bump

>>6477528
their* work

I'm extremely interested in tasks that have benefits for the brain such as improving information processing ability, speed, bimanual motor acquisition (eg piano), pattern identification etc.

I've read in publications that making connections between the macro-scale regions of the brain is key to increasing information processing ability, but what exactly can a person do to work towards this?

What are things found in research to be *over-archingly beneficial*? What I mean by that is practicing some task makes/strengthens connections that improve overall brain function (towards any specific thing such as info processing) and thinking ability.

Some side notes: I've noticed that people who read *a lot* are able to synthesize information very quickly from all sorts of different angles. I've also noticed that people who talk all day with different people, as part of there work, have great mental agility.

discuss

>>6325993
This is entirely true. Same goes for things like piano, chess, etc.. Practice only gets you so far.

>>6326167
"you can't measure intelligence!1one!1! we're all smart in our own special way!!1!" hurrrr durrrr keep talking

>>6326074
Stay mad and retarded. People as dumb as you never realize it anyway.

>>6325946
You are really really dumb.

The IQ measure isn't supposed to account for individual and arbitrary spectrums of intellect like emotional or musical. It's a composite score of intellect. Do you know what that means? Go do some research before you spew more shit from your mouth, sperglord.

>>6325920
>Ever think our species missed its chance at uplifting itself and now we are just at the start of the descent back to primitive life?
Lol. Nope. This will literally never happen, despite how convenient of an "end" it is to assume for mankind.

>>6325882
Holy christ you're dumb.

Anyone claiming "you can't measure intelligence" is clearly misinformed.

Intelligence can in fact be measured with a great deal of accuracy. A little bit of research would show you that.

I've found that the only people who ever claim that "you can't measure intelligence" are people who are considered dumb or unintelligent to begin with.

>>6036803
That's kind of how it works here. Many engineers are brought in as interns and Intel sort of "breeds" them into super-engineers.

A lot of the "regular" engineers are brilliant too. You can tell they're going to climb the corporate ladder, but just don't have the experience quite yet (newhires, etc)

>>6036744
>lack almost all empathy
You couldn't be more wrong. The people hired into executive positions are very keen to others. This is another misconception that people have about what happens inside big corporations like Intel. Once you talk with these people, you realize what's going on.

I guess some of the lead lab techs are pretty smart too, but it's very different with them.

>>6036737
I never said project managers were genius tier.