3 May 2013 | 5 Comments | posted by Mark A. Smith | in Biohacking, Brain Training & Mindware, Increase IQ, Mindhacking, N-Back Training, Self Quantification, Smart Drugs, tDCS, Working Memory Training
Our intelligence measured by valid IQ tests is our ability to grasp situations, reason, problem solve, and learn and act efficiently and effectively. David Wechsler – the creator of the most widely used IQ test, the WAIS – defined intelligence as:
“the global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment.”
Intelligence is better conceived as being switched on and competent rather than being just ‘book smart’ or ‘good at math’. As Napoleon Hill put it: “Action is the real measure of intelligence”.
The value of IQ
IQ level is known to be positively correlated with many valuable things. Some that have been demonstrated in peer reviewed research are: achievement motivation, altruism, artistic ability, creativity, dietary preference, educational attainment, emotional sensitivity, health, sense of humor, income, breadth and depth of interests, leadership, longevity, linguistic abilities, memory, moral reasoning, motor skills, occupational status and success, and social skills. IQ is inversely associated with accident proneness, obedience, alcoholism, authoritarianism, crime, dogmatism, neurosis, impulsivity, racial prejudice, smoking and obesity.
The practical advantage of having a high IQ increases as our work/career environments become more changeable and complex – more novel, ambiguous, unpredictable, or multifaceted. A high IQ is key to strategic thinking in which planning, decision making and problem solving unfolds in the midst of complexity and uncertainty. IQ is thus of prime value for entrepreneurs who are strategizing and problem solving their way to success in far from stable environments.
“The more new situations you experience, the greater your ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. For a long-term employee, being laid off may come as a serious blow. But for a long-term entrepreneur, losing a particular client is just par for the course. The entrepreneur has learned [how to] make it easy to add new income streams, while the employee may have much lower intelligence in this area. Similarly, people who interact socially with new people every day will develop much greater social intelligence than those who interact with the same people over and over.”
IQ Increasing Technologies: A Review
This article reviews three of the most effective IQ-increasing interventions that have a firm scientific basis – a basis in experimental laboratories and the exacting standards of peer reviewed scientific journals. The methods described below are part of the accumulated understanding of the scientific community about what can increase IQ – not just temporarily but long-term. Cognitive-enhancing nutrition, exercise and meditation is not covered in this review, which focuses on the use of intervention technologies.
1. Brain Training Software
Far-reaching advances in cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience over the past decade have identified a close link between frontal lobe ‘working memory’ circuitry, and fronto-parietal problem solving, self-control and fluid reasoning circuitry. Our working memory is used for holding information in mind (images, concepts, language, numbers) for brief periods while engaging in active, goal-focused thinking or comprehension, while screening out distracting information. Working memory has a limited capacity, and the bigger that capacity the more the cognitive ‘RAM’ power a person has for processing information – to make connections, generate alternatives, and grasp relationships. This brainpower lies at the core of being smart. If super brain Eddie Morra in Limitless changed one thing in his brain, it was his working memory circuitry!
Software has now been developed for selectively targeting working memory circuitry, resulting in long term neuroplasticity changes increasing short term memory capacity, problem solving ability, self-control and overall IQ. This software is based on a training exercise called the n-back. A scientifically credible product is found at IQMindware.
A review published this year on the effectiveness of n-back working memory training by an old grad school friend, Dr Jason Chein, concludes:
“core working memory training studies seem to produce far-reaching transfer effects, likely because they target domain-general mechanisms of working memory. The results of individual studies encourage optimism regarding the value of working memory training as a tool for general cognitive enhancement.”
In choosing an n-back working memory training application, ensure that you have a version and training program that has been demonstrated to increase IQ in a published scientific study – such as the landmark paper by Dr. Susan Jaeggi and colleagues (link) that first drew public attention to the benefits of n-back training. There are a number of n-back training programs on the market that do not replicate what is known to work. Avoid them.
2. Nootropics (‘Smart Drugs’)
The issue of using medication for cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, but the ethics of smart drugs is not discussed in this article. I’m simply presenting the facts.
Nootropics – also known as smart drugs, memory enhancers, cognitive enhancers and intelligence enhancers – are drugs, supplements, nutraceuticals (a product isolated or purified from foods) that are designed to improve cognitive functions such as memory, attention and intelligence. The use of nootropics for cognitive performance is widespread.
In January, the prestigious science journal Nature launched an informal survey into readers’ use of cognition-enhancing drugs, and found large-scale use (link). One in five respondents said they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.
In 2008, Nature ran a commentary on this topic: Towards responsible use of cognitive enhancing drugs by the healthy. This article is well worth the time it takes to read. The authors outline the evidence in favor of the effectiveness of “smart drugs” and I will quote at length from the section “Paths to Enhancement” which reviews the nootropics known to boost brain power:
Ritalin and Adderall
Many of the medications used to treat psychiatric and neurological conditions also improve the performance of the healthy. The drugs most commonly used for cognitive enhancement at present are stimulants, namely Ritalin (methyphenidate) and Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and are prescribed mainly for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Because of their effects on the catecholamine system, these drugs increase executive functions in patients and most healthy normal people, improving their abilities to focus their attention, manipulate information in working memory and flexibly control their responses…
A newer drug, Modafinil (Provigil), has also shown enhancement potential. Modafinil is approved for the treatment of fatigue caused by narcolepsy, sleep apnoea and shift-work sleep disorder. It is currently prescribed off label for a wide range of neuropsychiatric and other medical conditions involving fatigue as well as for healthy people who need to stay alert and awake when sleep deprived, such as physicians on night call. In addition, laboratory studies have shown that modafinil enhances aspects of executive function in rested healthy adults, particularly inhibitory control. Unlike Adderall and Ritalin, however, Modafinil prescriptions are not common, and the drug is consequently rare on the college black market. But anecdotal evidence and a readers’ survey both suggest that adults sometimes obtain modafinil from their physicians or online for enhancement purposes.
A modest degree of memory enhancement is possible with the ADHD medications just mentioned as well as with medications developed for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease such as Aricept (donepezil), which raise levels of acetylcholine in the brain. Several other compounds with different pharmacological actions are in early clinical trials, having shown positive effects on memory in healthy research subjects.
The authors focus at length on the potential risks and ethical concerns of using nootropic cognitive enhancers, but conclude:
Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly. We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human workspans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools — including the pharmacological — will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal and pathological age related cognitive declines23. Safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.
3. Cortical Stimulation
A number of studies in the last few years have shown very promising results from applying electrical current to the brain using a technology known as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). tDCS is a noninvasive technique in which a weak current is applied to the brain constantly over time to excite or inhibit the activity of neurons.
In late 2010, a group of researchers from University College London and Oxford University published a study showing that tDCS applied to the parietal lobes enhanced a person’s mathematical ability selectively, without influencing other cognitive functions. The improvement was found to have persisted six months after the training, showing the IQ gain was long-lasting.
Earlier this year a study was published in Clinical Neurophysiology showing that tDCS of a the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) improves working memory functioning. The dlPFC is a region in the frontal lobes toward the top and side: hence dorso (top) and lateral (side). The researchers report that there was significant improvement in speed of performance following tDCS on an n-back working memory task.
In another study published earlier this year, a team at Centre for the Mind at the University of Sydney demonstrated that tDCS can dramatically improve insight problem solving. Three times as many cortically stimulated individuals succeeded in solving puzzles needing creative insight. People find it difficult to think outside of the box because their problem solving ‘mind set’ becomes crystallized by past experience. By inhibiting the activity of the left temporal lobe, and stimulating activity in the right temporal lobe, this team changed the balance between the two hemispheres of the brain, leading to better release from mental sets and better creative insight. One of the team, Professor Snyder, believes brain boosting headgear could be widely used.
“The thinking cap of the future is not one that helps us to remember facts as the internet has solved that problem, but one that facilitates learning and unlearning mindsets. It’s all about being original.”
Some of the most recent work on tDCS was presented in September this year by Professor Prof Heidi Johansen-Berg and her colleagues at Oxford University. They found that just ten minutes of motor cortex brain stimulation increases the speed of learning motor skills. In their study a musical keyboard sequence was the learning task.
“While the stimulation didn’t improve the participant’s best performance, the speed at which they reached their best was significantly increased.”
The researchers envisage the technique could be used to help in the training of athletes and suggest that the same method could be applied to other parts of the brain (such as the frontal or parietal cortex) to improve educational learning simply by positioning the electrodes in different locations so the current is focused on the correct area.
The potential for self-experimentation is exciting. As this BBC report on cortical stimulation states:
“The relative simplicity, low price (around £2,000 per unit), and portability of the technology may mean that, following further research, a device could be designed to be automated for use at home.”
One of my research areas is IQ and methods for increasing IQ. In this article I have reviewed three technologies that have been shown to have a substantial IQ increasing effect by the exacting standards of peer reviewed scientific research. The most effective technologies directly target working memory – the general purpose RAM power of our brain. But technologies can be effectively applied in a targeted way to enhance more specialized aspects of cognitive function such as motor learning, numerical ability or insight problem solving.
Intelligence augmentation is a cultural enterprise that is gaining momentum, but the technologies reviewed above take us into largely unexplored territory. The risks have not been fully quantified. It is our privilege to be in an era of both imaginative brain science, and biohackers’ responsible self-experimentation, to forge ahead in mapping out this territory in the spirit of pioneers.
Please join me in this journey by subscribing to our blog’s RSS feeds (right panel) or my CogPsyLab cognitive intervention research group for updates on our research and beta testing.
In this article you will be given a tutorial on deductive reasoning and how to reason deductively.
“What is an argument? Well, first it is necessary to say what an argument is not. An argument is not what you witness on talk shows and talk radio. Media will often bombard us with opinions and heart-felt emotions but we are seldom presented with arguments. No matter how loudly you state your opinion, no matter how sincerely you believe in your opinion, an opinion is not an argument. So what is an argument? An argument is a conclusion that is supported by a premise or premises. It may be helpful to imagine a roof supported by columns. Without the columns (the supporting premises) the roof (the conclusion) cannot stand. Arguments, like buildings, can be constructed properly and improperly. Like buildings that are constructed poorly, arguments that are built improperly will fall apart easily.”
We recognize the conclusions within an argument by words such as: ‘therefore’, ‘hence’, ‘thus’, ‘proving that’, ‘implying’. We recognize the premises within an argument with words such as: ‘for’, ‘because’, ‘in so far as’, ‘as supported by’.
Syllogistic reasoning and IQ
A study in this month’s edition of Intelligence has demonstrated with a large Japanese twin sample “a close association between syllogistic reasoning ability and general intelligence”. (Article reference here). Syllogistic reasoning is an important type of deductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning is a key fluid intelligence ability. Training deductive reasoning may be an effective method for helping increase IQ.
What is syllogistic reasoning and what is a syllogism?
This content builds on Glymour’s Thinking Things Through (Chapter 2) – an old colleague from Carnegie Mellon university.
Here is an example of a syllogism:
All humans are animals.
All animals are mortal.
Therefore, all humans are mortal.
A syllogism is a type of logical argument in which a pair of sentences serve as the premises and a third sentence serves as the conclusion. The example above is a valid syllogism. What makes it valid is that if the premises are true, then it follows necessarily that the conclusion is also true.
We can see how deductive arguments are valid by drawing circles. For Syllogism 1, let circle ‘H’ represent the set of all humans, circle ‘A’ represent the set of all animals, and circle ‘M’ represent the set of all mortal things. The first premise says the set of all men is contained in the set of all mortal things – so we can put circle H inside circle A to represent what would be needed for the first premise to be true.
Adding the second premise we get:
You can see from the diagram that necessarily H is inside M – which is what the conclusion asserts.
What makes a syllogism valid is that in any way you represent the two premises as true, the conclusion is true as well.
Here is another syllogism that has two possible diagrams for the premises.
All humans are primates.
Some humans have tattoos.
Therefore, some things with tattoos are primates.
Let H = the set of humans, P = the set of primates, and T = the set of things with tattoos.
Two possibilities are:
You can see that every way of representing the first two premises of the syllogism as both true has Q intersecting H and H contained in A. And you can see that Q must intersect A, which is what the conclusion asserts.
Here is an example of a syllogism that is not valid, and we can see this even though all the premises and the conclusion are true:
All humans are primates.
Some primates are mortal.
Therefore, all humans are mortal.
To see why this is not valid, we can find a way of arranging the circles in a way that the premises are true but the conclusion is false. The figure below represents a state of affairs that can be imagined in which all humans are primates, some primates are mortal, but all humans are immortal – the opposite of what the conclusion asserts.
In this invalid syllogism, the truth of the premises does not necessitate the truth of the conclusion.
The validity of a syllogism clearly does not imply that its premises are true or its conclusion is true. The validity of a syllogism doesn’t have anything to do with what the terms of the sentences mean. A valid syllogism could have true premises and a true conclusion, true premises and a false conclusion, or false premises and a true conclusion. But it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion! If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. This is what is meant by logical arguments being truth preserving. (For this reason, if you can find an example where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, you can show that a syllogism is invalid – see below.)
By giving an example in which the premises are clearly true and the conclusion is clearly false, show that each of the following syllogistic forms is invalid:
No A are B
All B are C
Therefore: No A are C
No A are B
All B are C
Therefore: Some A are C
Syllogism 6No A are B
all B are C
Therefore: Not all A are C
For more exercises : http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Syllogisms.pdf
Aristotle’s Theory of the Syllogism
In Aristotle’s theory there are four expressions (called quantifiers) that are prefixed to a subject-predicate phrase (‘A is B’). These are ‘all’, ‘no, ‘some’ and ‘not all’.
Stating that ‘not all A is B’ is logically equivalent to ‘Some A is not B’, so these 4 quantifiers can be represented as:
There are 4 quantifiers that can attach to any of 3 sentences of each figure. Thus there are 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 distinct syllogistic forms for each figure. Since there are 4 figures there are 64 x 4 = 256 distinct forms of syllogistic arguments. Only some of these are valid. Most are invalid.
Here is a valid one that Aristotle identified (using Figure 3):
All B are A
Not all B are C
Not all A are C
- By providing an example in which the premises are clearly true and the conclusion is clearly false, show that each of the following syllogistic forms is invalid.
No A are B No A are B No A are B
All B are C All B are C All B are C
————– —————– ——————
No A are C Some A are C Not all A are C
- Find two valid syllogisms for the 2nd figure.
Note: The following rules may also be helpful in trying to figure out if syllogistic arguments are valid or invalid:
Rule 1: From ‘No X are Y’ infer ‘No Y are X’.
Rule 2: From ‘All X are Y’ infer ‘Some X are Y’
Rule 3: From ‘Some X are Y’ infer ‘Some Y are X’
Syllogisms involving instances
Another logical principle is that from a universal claim one can infer an instance of it.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal
What is spiritual is immortal.
The human soul is spiritual.
The human soul is immortal
Whatever makes unions more democratic is good for unions
The open shop is something that makes unions more democratic
The open shop is good for unions.
A proposition is a whole sentence that can be true or false.
If P then Q
(Sentences of the form ‘if…then…’ are called conditionals.)
If P then Q
Conditional Syllogisms (Chain Rule)
If P then Q
If Q then R
If P then R
P or Q
Are these valid form of reasoning (try to find counter examples)?
If A is true, then B becomes more plausible.
B is plausible
Therefore, A becomes more plausible
If A is true then B is true
B is true
A is true