rationalskepticism.org

RPizzle wrote:@Mr. Samsa:

Thanks a bunch. Your post definitely helps with differentiating the science and psuedo-science. With "brain training" being such a large industry now, it is really difficult to wade through it all. This whole time I thought the sudoku was helping. So yeah, I'm never playing that game again. Though, I will keep my shogi.

No problem

And it's not that sudoku is useless, per se, it's more just that any claims that it can produce identifiable increases in specific cognitive abilities are bullshit. But it could be useful to keep doing it, among other things, as part of environmental enrichment. I think this is the key confound that causes us to think that certain things are improving global processes even when studies suggest they aren't, because stimulating yourself every day will have positive effects on the structure of your brain and will presumably improve your cognitive abilities (assuming that your 'stimulation' is more demanding than watching quiz shows on tv).

I think the best thing to do is to really surround yourself with intelligent people, and push yourself to ask questions and to develop new skills. In sports, for example, a common sense approach to improving an athlete's ability is to put them in a team that's better than they are, so they're forced to improve to stay above water - when you put an athlete in a team or competition where they have no equal, then their abilities tend to diminish. And I think the same is true for intelligence, hence why in older people some cognitive decreases can be regained through intellectual stimulation (as some of their deficiencies are a result of not using their cognitive abilities or "exercising their brain"). This approach also allows us to get feedback on our thinking patterns, so when we start to expand our abilities we will generally receive positive feedback (e.g. "Wow that's an interesting idea, I wonder if research has been done on that!") and it can also help us identify areas that need to be improved (e.g. "Uh.. that doesn't even make sense. What are you talking about?").

I'm not sure if my IQ has increased or not since joining up here (and RD.net forum originally), but I know that my grades have improved, my writing has improved, my general understanding of concepts now far exceeds anything I used to know. For me, I find that it's best to learn the basics of a subject (just using wikipedia), and then being skeptical of claims that people make. When faced with skepticism, people will either be forced to admit that they're just making stuff up, or they'll explain in more detail information that you need to know to grasp the subject. A great example of this is to question Susu.exp's claim that evolution is random - but only do so when you have a month of spare time to wade through all the references and information he gives you

Oh, and I find a great place to start is to read a book on critical thinking. This one is an easy to understand book: Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide.