You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 13 July 2015 06:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (297)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 17 July 2015 01:18:21PM 2 points [-]

They took IQ tests before and after and gained 12 IQ points after the training. A control group also took the tests before and after but did not receive training, and did not improve. The sample sizes are small, but the effect sizes might be large enough to justify it. They give a p value of 0.008.

The second sentence surprises me a little--there should be training effects increasing the tested IQ of the control group if only 9 weeks passed. That's some evidence for this being luck--if your control group gets unlucky and your experimental group gets lucky, then you see a huge effect.

I want to know if it would be better to try letter level associations or word level ones.

There are 26 letters, but... lots of words.

Comment author: gjm 17 July 2015 01:37:08PM 0 points [-]

There are 26 letters, but.... lots of words.

Dozens!