Comment · Thu, August 29, 2013 · Ceretropic
If Dual-N-Back training can truly improve working memory, why doesn't it appear to improve Gf?
Original post in this thread
[deleted] · 8 points
After perusing some of the relevant literature, it appears that the general consensus on DNB training is that it's able to increase WM (or at least some aspect of WM), but does not seem to increase fluid intelligence in young, healthy adults (although a lot more research in this area is clearly needed).
It's well established that WMC is highly correlated with Gf. I personally don't think that fluid intelligence and the capacity for learning is purely WMC, but WM certainly seems to be a large contributor to fluid intelligence. I would find it hard to believe that a significant increase in working memory, at its core, would not correspond to a significant increase in Gf.
So, why doesn't DNB appear to increase Gf, as measured by tests of "far transfer" like RAPM? Does this suggest that DNB training is only improving on a certain aspect of WM? Are DNB gains simply a product of learning/practice effects? Is WMC merely a correlate of Gf? etc.
Thoughts?
What they were answering
ThoughtfulJoker · 1 points
Just a side note, when you say disjunct do you mean, fluid memory doesnt get used in those high tasks? Or do you mean that a high memory, doesnt necessitate a high fluid intelligence.
Because that would be really obvious and not worth arguing.
Good memory =/= intelligence.
Although I didnt think thats what you meant.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
I'm not sure what you are arguing. I am not equating all types of information. I am making the distinction between memory and intelligence. I am simply saying that memory does not have a causal relationship with intelligence; at least not linearly. We were commenting on why brain training like dual N back can improve short term memory, but not improve fluid intelligence. I stipulated that is because there is not a direct causal relationship between the two mechanisms.
I used the word disjunction because you had. Perhaps I should not have, as our own personal definitions of that word might differ. I think you are claiming that memory and intelligence are causally linked, or at the very least that the use of one reduces the efficiency of the other. You say that it's easier to remember information when you are doing less intensive tasks. I am assuming you are using that as an indication of the causal relationship between memory and intelligence. However, could that not simply be that higher level processing uses the brain's ATP stores quickly, leaving less for information storage tasks? Why do the mechanisms have to be directly linked? Maybe you are not even arguing a direct mechanism, and we are pretty much in agreement.
My point was that the reason increases in memory capacity do not lead to increases in fluid intelligence, is because the two mechanisms are not causally linked. Yes, they use the same source of energy, so taxing the use of one will temporarily lead to the detriment of the other. I agree with you on that. When I have to get deep into a subject to write certification exams, my short term memory for things that would normally be easy to remember goes down. However, someone with increased fluid intelligence may not necessarily have increased memory capacity, and vice versa. If you are saying that is really obvious and not worth arguing, I agree. I was not meaning to get into an argument. I was merely explaining why brain training like dual N back does not lead to increases in fluid intelligence.