Definitely mainstream. No one knows how to raise intelligence in a robust fashion. Most optimistic & still legit researcher is @JProtzko.
-
-
-
Replying to @deeogrady909 @Samfr and
Raise IQ != raise general intelligence.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @Samfr and
then why do they use IQ tests centrally in their resesrch?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deeogrady909 @KirkegaardEmil and
a) necessary condition for showing you raised intelligence b) they don't know or want to do the latent variable analysis
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JProtzko @KirkegaardEmil and
oh it's b) that got me - why do you psychologists always assume that you are speaking to another psychologyst
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deeogrady909 @KirkegaardEmil and
the statistical analyses to show increases in general intelligence instead of just IQ are complicated and require lots of subjects and tests
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JProtzko @deeogrady909 and
The easiest method that doesn't require a lot of fancy stats is examining far transfer gains. E.g. WM training -> vocab gains.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @JProtzko and
Evidence does not support far transfer claims, however. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691616635612 …pic.twitter.com/TDtC7hjH1a
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @deeogrady909 and
Agreed on no transfer to g, but as I've argued no far transfer is not evidence for the immutability of intelligence http://www.johnprotzko.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Protzko-2016.-Cog-training-and-the-structure-of-g.pdf …pic.twitter.com/qlmNR3gqPY
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Excellent article, John. Brought out some questionable implicit assumptions.
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.