I've been researching neuroscience, especially short term memory, and I have come up with an app that can improve IQ by 10 points in 12 weeks for 15 minutes a day.
I believe I can improve on the design and in the future develop an app that could boost IQ by 50 points in as little as 3 years.
I would like to know if anyone would be interested in a product like this? I'm planning on selling it for $3 USD and want to release it within the week.
App and sauce, or it didn't happen.
go b8 somewhere else
Let's talk about price though.
What is a 10 point IQ increase worth? Now my app also boosts short-term memory and long-term memory retention, so for a few sessions the user would be able to memorise say formulas or definitions or anything needed for an exam or studies, dramatically boosting results in those areas.
It also has a side benefit of increasing attention, focus and inhibition-control - which all also increase the ability to study and stay focused.
My app can also be used by brain damage victims to regain cognitive functions or to fight degenerative brain diseases. There is also evidence that shows that it can fight the onset of Alzheimers and dementia.
It's based on a cognitive assessment tool called 'n-back' created by Wayne Kirchner, but through my research I've improved on Kirchner's original design and have made it more accessible.
Price wise I'd like to keep it affordable, but I also don't want to sell myself short - as the proceeds all go into further research. Ultimately I want to create a whole suit of intelligence boosting apps that increase a wide range of cognitive functions, not just memory.
No offense op, but I don't think people here will take you seriously unless you post some kind of proof that you have actually developed a real, functioning application. Can you perhaps give us a screenshot of the app homescreen or maybe take a video and post it to YouTube?
I second this.
>improve IQ by 10 points in 12 weeks for 15 minutes a day.
>boost IQ by 50 points in as little as 3 years.
>increasing attention, focus and inhibition-control - which all also increase the ability to study and stay focused.
>regain cognitive functions or to fight degenerative brain diseases.
>fight the onset of Alzheimers and dementia.
Well, you certainly know how to market to the uneducated masses. Good luck to you on scamming them into practicing a working memory test.
Additionally, has this been shown to work with equal effect among all IQ ranges? Something tells me it would be vastly easier to go from 100 to 110 then from 130 to 140. Much like how in many activities going from 50'th to 75'th percentile is easier than going from 75'th percentile to 90'th.
I want to publish first before marketing and sharing my design.
I've been thinking about videos, but I've never done anything like that before.
But rest assured, within a week I will post another thread with all the details.
I've been working with an organisational psychologist and he already sells n-back to professional organisations for those stated purposes. The main issue with n-back though is that its boring, and people don't stick to it.
That's where I come in with my game design background, I've taken n-back and made it more fun and engaging.
Here is the citation to Kirchner's original work.
Kirchner, W. K. (1958), Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology
You are correct. There is a reduced effect depending on the users IQ relative to the median IQ.
Someone with a low IQ; for example 70, would see an increase of anywhere from 15-20 points in the same time span it takes for an average user (IQ 100) to gain 10 points. There seems to be a plateau point with higher IQs.
I know advanced N-Back (Quint N-Back) can push an average 100 point IQ to the high 150s, but I don't have enough data to know what happens when say someone with an IQ of 160 trains with Quint N-Back for 3 years.
My app is more efficient than traditional N-back and covers multiple intelligences, so the effect may even be more pronounced.
Though I will caveat this by saying that the IQ model is ultimately flawed and obsolete, the only reason I use it for marketing is because everyone knows what it is.
>I would like to know if anyone would be interested in a product like this?
Few people would trust you, so no.
Are there any recent scientific evidence proving that n-back activities actually work? Thanks.
be a chap and release it for free :^)
Do you know what'll increase your IQ by 50 points in three years?
Doing lots of IQ tests.
If you complete the same puzzle over and over again, of course you get better at it. Hell, if that was all we did in school all our IQ tests would be Einstein level.
Doesn't actually make you any smarter though. Just really good at shuffling red and white patterned blocks.
>I've been researching neuroscience
>IQ
You mean you've been researching psychology. Which would also explain this whole thread.
>all this pseudoscience
>but muh circlejerk is widely acepted!
Holy fuck my sides!
>I know advanced N-Back (Quint N-Back) can push an average 100 point IQ to the high 150s
Ha, what the fuck, that's not close to being true.
>I've been working with an organisational psychologist and he already sells n-back to professional organisations for those stated purposes.
Yes, I'm aware there are plenty of "brain training" organizations misleading uneducated people already.
>That's where I come in with my game design background, I've taken n-back and made it more fun and engaging.
Which is an existing industry niche.
>Though I will caveat this by saying that the IQ model is ultimately flawed and obsolete, the only reason I use it for marketing is because everyone knows what it is.
It's good for you to admit this.
Not trying to say you're a bad person, I'm simply frustrated at how common these kinds of misleading claims are. It definitely helps you perform better at IQ tests, and I'd be willing to believe it's good for recovering cognitive abilities, but that's really about all I'd take as fact
Of course, that's business.
This is the main thing I'm worried about. I don't have any psychology or neuropsychology qualifications, so I need to back up my work with studies and so on.
I need to make money so I can fund further research and development.
You are correct. IQ is a flawed system, but it is widely used and can give a general measure of intelligence. I tested very highly on IQ tests, but did quite poorly on psychometric testing for workplaces and organisations until I started studying psychometrics.
Gardner's multiple intelligence model shows that intelligence is much more complex than was believed and that there are many different kind of intelligences, some of which do not correlate or compliment each other.
N-back however increases short-term memory, attention, focus and inhibition control, all of which are the underlying basis for higher order intelligences (logical, mathematical, musical and so on). Short term memory is like a computers RAM. A larger capacity can offset weaknesses in CPU, Video memory and processes allowing a relatively weak system perform at a higher effective operational level.
There are a few.
Kearney-Ramos, TE, Fausett, JS, Gess, JL, Reno, A, Peraza, J, Kilts, CD, & James, GA 2014, 'Merging clinical neuropsychology and functional neuroimaging to evaluate the construct validity and neural network engagement of the n-back task', Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 736-750.
''The n-back test and the attentional network task as measures of child neuropsychological development in epidemiological studies': Correction to Forns et al. (2014)', 2014, Neuropsychology, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 529.
Jaeggi, SM, Buschkuehl, M, Perrig, WJ, & Meier, B 2010, 'The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure', Memory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 394-412.
I've been delving into the neuroscientific principles, though I'm still getting to terms with it.
Admittedly my academic knowledge in that area is not as advanced as my ability to turn those principles into applicable constructs.
The results are validated by peer review.
I have evidence to the contrary. Though, I question whether it was purely due to n-back or a mix of different learning strategies.
I'm an ex-Naval Officer.
What got me into n-back was my inability to perform complex mathematical equations in high stress environments, remembering long lists of numbers (headings for fixes) and memorising rules of the road (maritime) verbatim. I was about to fail my training when I started using n-back. In a few weeks I had boosted all my cognitive facilities in these areas and completed my training near the top of my class.
I strongly believe in the validity of n-back as a cognitive training tool and I think it can help others, just as it helped me.
In fact my app is even more efficient than the stuff I used to get where I am today, so I think it would be even more useful.
I want to open doors for people, and boosting cognitive ability and fluid intelligence is one way I can do that.
>I have evidence to the contrary.
Source. I know of no cognitive training methods that get gains of more than 5 iq points, and even that is suspect.
>peer review
>correlations
HEH
please
I'm still very skeptical of the breadth of claims for this activity, but as my short-term memory isn't too great and I have been having difficulty with focusing on study lately, I'd be willing to try out your app if it ends up
Speed reading?
I've actually got something for this.
I'm working on a Japanese learning app and I stumbled onto the fact that Japanese readers can speed read incredibly fast, like pages in seconds, because Japanese kanji uses pictographs, ideographs and images; so Japanese readers get a snapshot by just looking at a page.
We read English in a similar manner. Children learn to read words by stringing letters together, but as you become more proficient at reading English the words are actually formed into silhouettes. So our brain takes a shortcut by looking at the first letter of the word, the last letter of the word, and the general shape of the word.
For icntnsae, if I wtroe a sntnecee lkie this it wloud siltl be rbdealae. In cfta, neev isht si llsti beareadl whti a titlel bit of toefrf, but it's a lot more difficult because the general structure of the word is scrambled.
The best way to learn to speed read, is to draw blotted out silhouettes of words and put them into sentences you have memorised, and just read them over and over again until you get an instinctive feel for the shape of the word, rather then what the letters say.
I'll add a speed reading app to my list and I'll see what I can do.
Op is a fag and won't delivar
improving your technique on the specific questions of an IQ test is useless mental masturbation
sure, it will work, but it won't affect your general intelligence at all.
Check out PEAK on the app store it does similar as what this post says. PEAK uses a subscription based model but also adds new games every now and then.
fuck off to with your degenerate paedophile cartoons
repeating digits confirm
>I made an app that allows you to train for IQ tests and get higher scores on IQ tests.
>I want money for this
>What is a 10 point IQ increase worth?
Nothing at all. IQ tests are rubbish.
>measure of intelligence
Go find a way to measure the hate in this world, or the happiness of a child. Retarded post is retarded
It improves short-term memory which bleeds into general IQ. It's a memory development app.
I checked out PEAK and it's crap. Same shit as Luminosity, who just got sued for 40 million for misrepresenting their products.
Playing those kinds of games is a waste of time for serious cognitive development.
You can't improve IQ with a fucking app. Quit selling snake oil you fucking scammer.
>Billion-dollar brain training industry a sham—nothing but placebo, study suggests
>Sampling bias and a belief in malleable intelligence may be behind small IQ changes.
arstechnica.com
>Speed reading?
>I'm working on a Japanese learning app and I stumbled onto the fact that Japanese readers can speed read incredibly fast, like pages in seconds,
Holy crap Batman! You're a piece of shit. Quit scamming people! Speed reading doesn't work!
>bullshit youtube videos....
hahahaahah.... hahahahahaa
hey dude, see the pic you posted in OP? see that word "peer review"? why don't you post some studies that are actually peer reviewed and came out of reputable journals (all those bullshit journals that publish anything for $20 don't count).
I already did here
all proven bullshit or p-value is small.
You didn't even read them. Stop bullshitting.
Maybe he thought peer review meant the like/dislike system.
I'm the person who he responded to. You haven't looked into speed reading very much. There are bullshit concepts that are spread that encourage moving your eyes as fast as possible and failing to register the words. There are also valid concepts and real speed readers who have good comprehension. A big concept is chunking - looking at a block of words simultaneously and then moving to the next. I've used shitty auto-chunking Javascript apps and it absolutely works without killing comprehension, but I can't for the life of me learn to do it without it being done for me.
Another big concept is that over half of the population mentally reads aloud the words: subvocalization. This is is ABSOLUTE HARAM. This limits reading speed to subvocalization speed and does jack shit for comprehension.
Source: Best friend is a natural speed reader from birth, never learned to subvocalize, kicks my ass and has BETTER comprehension than me. Lots of conversations about how reading "works" for us.
>subvocalize
But what if you read novels.Wouldn't that kill your imagination or something?Also I doubt you will be able to speedread scientific/philosophical books.
Before my interest in Neuroscience I was an author.
I wrote about 60k words a month and did all my own draft editing. After about 2 years I could no longer visualise or imagine what I was reading. It just became mechanical reading for structure, grammar and prose.
I don't subvocalise either.
What am I supposed to do then?Also you said nothing about difficult texts
>Wouldn't that kill your imagination or something?
Friend in question does not have an internal monologue whatsoever (that's a literary term but I can't seem to find an appropriate term for the conscious internal monologue), and is way more into novels than me. Good imagination too. I have shitty visualization skills and subvocalize.
>Also I doubt you will be able to speedread scientific/philosophical books.
I imagine it would still be a bit applicable in the exposition but it doesn't stop you from processing more dense material slowly. They have told me they sometimes intentionally read good parts of novels slowly to pay close attention to the exact words used, as well.
I listen to audiobooks personally.
When I read I don't internalise the information because my eyes just race across the page. When I'm listening to someone else read the pace is set and it's also quite slow, so it forces me to listen and internalise.
That being said, humans are visual animals and most people are much stronger visually then aurally.
It's all about connecting the strongest parts of your brain.
With difficult texts I often find deconstruction to be very helpful. Basically take a sentence, break it up and rewrite it in your own words. This is a slow process, but if you can internalise it in your mind it may help with comprehension.
But that then comes back to the core issue of speed vs comprehension.
I believe finding a balance between the two, to be the best strategy. Though I really enjoy layering strategies until something sticks. Visualisation, chunking, deconstruction, imagination and so on layered one atop another as a net. It requires a lot of training, but once you got it, it makes a huge difference to efficiency.
