SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Can 'brain games' really help you improve the way your brain functions?
You've probably seen ads for apps promising to make you smarter in just a few minutes a day. Hundreds of so-called "brain training" programs can be purchased for download. These simple games are designed to challenge mental abilities, with the ultimate goal of improving the performance of important everyday tasks.
But can just clicking away at animations of swimming fish or flashed streets signs on your phone really help you improve the way your brain functions?
Two large groups of scientists and mental health practitioners published consensus statements, months apart in 2014, on the effectiveness of these kinds of brain games. Both included people with years of research experience and expertise in cognition, learning, skill acquisition, neuroscience and dementia. Both groups carefully considered the same body of evidence available at the time.
Yet, they issued exactly opposite statements.
One concluded that "there is little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive abilities, or that it enables one to better navigate a complex realm of everyday life."
The other argued that "a substantial and growing body of evidence shows that certain cognitive training regimens can significantly improve cognitive function, including in ways that generalize to everyday life."
[...]The most important lesson from the literature on training is this: If you want to improve your performance on a task that's important to you, practice that task. Playing brain games may only make you better at playing brain games.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:54AM (9 children)
Part of the problem is the combined dumbing down and mangling of science by intermediaries, journos included. One thing that's essential to teach people is that when you hear a dumbed-down version of science that you understand, and your understanding leads to something contradictory or absurd, then that doesn't mean there's a problem with the science, the problem is probably with the dumbing down. Alas, the dumbing down is necessary in order to get any idea of the science accross. It's a tightrope - how much dumbing down, and inevitable mangling, is acceptable. As long as people are told they're not being told the whole story, damage is minimised. The keen will investigate deeper, going from popular texts to high-school texts to college-level texts
But that's not always true. I've never been happy with the supernova model for the creation of large quantities of transferric elements. There was scientific consensus on that - we are star stuff! I can't say I understand stellar dynamics, but it just didn't seem to pass the sniff test to me - requiring particle capture in an expanding medium. Imagine my happiness when the more recent admission that probably most of the heavier elements come from neutron stars (mergers thereof) was announced. That absolutely passes the sniff test - requiring breakdown of things larger than nuclei.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @05:36PM (8 children)
Hey-ho, no, you surely got it wrong.
How about, before expanding, part of the now ejecta was compressed by the shock-wave to the point of forming heavier-than-iron elements.
Because, you see iron nucleus is the bottom nuclear energy - there's no chance to form a heavier element by "free capture", you'll have to "squeeze" the two fragments together and keep them long enough until they "cool down" (emit the excess of energy as radiation, without fission).
You know? Similar with the making of diamonds using explosives.
(how do you like my dumbing down of science? Large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @07:47AM (7 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:00AM (6 children)
(when you ask "Why is..." you implicitly inject the assumption it is)
So, is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @08:05AM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:19AM
"Prove" it! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:39AM (3 children)
You know that the guys at Dubna spend their time accelerating lighter elements to energies comparable with the shockwaves in novae and slam them against heavy targets to synthesize transuranic elements, right? That "proves" that energetic-enough collision is a valid mechanism for the creation of transironic elements (grin)
The fact that neutron-star collisions create the same doesn't automatically mean that it is the sole mechanism for creation of transferrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @10:11AM (2 children)
Take your time, I'm not in a rush.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @10:33AM (1 child)
Confused. Help. How should I interpret this, then?
Is it just that the fact that heavier elements can be produced in a supernova and you accept it in spite of the unhappiness that causes to you? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @12:57PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves