= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FiftyTwo comments on LessWrong gaming community - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
SAID principle is the one that garners the most acceptance in my circles. I go back and forth on this. I was encouraged to play chess and advised chess practice would increase my general thinking power. I invested a lot of work into this and I have no idea how much I got out of it, beyond getting better at playing chess.
It seems most prominent in exercise and fitness circles and my opinion is that it is not valid in that domain. My most valuable tennis coach told me jumping rope was the best training for tennis and I am 80% certain that in my case a lot of jumping rope made me a better tennis player. It is rather daunting to me to consider how to design a research study to determine if chess playing or go playing could be beneficial (in proportion to its cost) for young mathematicians or physicists or engineers.
In order to determine whether they were beneficial we'd first have to be more precise in what we mean by 'making you smarter' and then test that skill in tasks unrelated to the training that use the same faculty.
For example, if we hypothesise Chess benefits working memory we would do a series of unrelated working memory tests on a sample of individuals and look for correlations with their chess ability (for ease of testing, the same individuals as they progress across time would be best). Similarly, if we hypothesise Poker contribute to probability estimation ability we would test them on non-poker related statistics questions.