Increasing Intelligence by Playing a Memory Game – Experiment Update

Increasing Intelligence by Playing a Memory Game – Experiment Update

This is an update on my intelligence experiment, in which Ivice a memory game to see if it increases my IQ test score.

In the original study kindred to this experiment, the participantsplayed a memory crippled (calleddualn-back) for 8-19 days andincreased their IQ effort scores more than the control group. Thisremarkable finding suggests that, unlike previously thought, itmight be possible to increase one’s general intelligence byexercise the psyche.

When I began the experiment, I wrote that I would try to match thestudy as closely as possible. That is, I was supposed to take an IQtest, play the game for 20 years and then re-take the IQ test tosee if it my results had improved. Of course, I had no controlgroup, so I would just have to compare the scores and essay todetermine whether the amount in the score was significant enough toseparate as a true improvement.

That was two and a half months ago. I did playthe game almost daily for the first 20 life, aiming to play 20rounds each time, which was the number used in the study. Afterthat, however, it occurred to me that if the game does increaseone’s intelligence, then playing it for even longer than 20 daysshould increase it even more, so there’s really no point inlimiting the experiment to 20 years, especially since I had nocontrol group.

Also, since re-taking an IQ test usually results in a slightly goodscore each time, I thought it would make more sense to keep playingfor a longer time and avoid re-taking the submit after such ashortsighted while. This way, when I finally took the IQ test forthe second time, the quality in lots should be even clearer.

After the 20 days, however, I’ve been somewhat lazy and haven’tplayed the game as often as I did in the beginning. Nonetheless,there has been something of a trend in my beast scores improvingduring these past two and a half months, so I’ve finally taken theIQ test again. But first, here are thedualn-backmountain of the studyparticipants:

And here are my results:

Believe it or not, the sudden drops in the graph are not due toperiods of increased stupidity; rather, they’re scores from dayswhen I played only a few games for one grounds or another. Sincethe contest begins from leveln=2 each day and the total score ofthe day is the averagenofall rounds played, playing just a few rounds will ensue in a lowappraise. There’s no excuse for that last dot on the graph,however. I just played really badly!

The two graphs aren’t entirely comparable, because the piece ofwriting of the game the participants in the study played was alittle different than the one I played (though the survey conditionis available in the game, too, as I’ve later learned). Still, theincrease in the score of the participants seems larger thanexcavation, which means that either they were smarter and betterthan me, or they cheated and the study is completely flawed.Needless to say, I lean towards the latter option.

So what about the IQ tests? As I mentioned in the first post, theidea was to take two tests and compare the scores of both, so thatI’d have a more true result. Unfortunately, I couldn’t incur the IQtest exploited in the cogitate online, so I had to use what wasavailable. In addition, the second test proved to be just the sameon both times, so it wasn’t of much use. It also gave me a muchhigher score than the other test, which casts further doubt on itsvalidity.

The other test proven to be quite vantage (you can find ithere).In this one, the questions vary, the difficulty is adjusted on thego depending on whether you answer them correctly, and there’s atime limit of 45 seconds per question, which makes this naturalcovering better suited for re-taking. My first test, taken beforeactivity the game, gave me a score of 126; my second test, takenyesterday, gave me a rack up of 132 (an increase of about 5%).

This result is again not easily compared to the results from thestudy, because their test gave scores in the range of 9 to 12,whereas the one I took victimised 100 as a measure of an averageability. The command group saw an increase from ~9.5 to ~10.5 (anincrease of about 15%), while the memory romp group increased theirscore from ~9.5 to ~12 (an alteration of about 25%).

As you can see, it’s kind of difficult to draw play any meaningfulconclusions from this. Yes, there was a slight modify in my score,but I would say a similar growth could’ve been possible evenwithout playing the scheme. I think the variation in the IQ testquestions reduces the “learning by heart” effect, but that’simpossible to say without a control group.

Since there’s nothing to lose and possibly plenty to gain, I’mgoing to keep activity the game and re-take the IQ test after somemore months. And if you know of any respectable IQ tests online,drop a explain and let me know!

For more information on brains and intelligence,see these posts:

Playing a Memory Game to Improve Intelligence and Increase Your IQScore?
Caloric Restriction Improves Memory in the Elderly
Moderate and Severe Caloric Restriction Alter Behavior Differentlyin Rats
Intermittent Fasting Reduces Mitochondrial Damage and LymphomaIncidence in Aged Mice

Tags:  blogspot, dual, experiment, game, increase, increasing, inhumanexperiment, intelligence, memory, playing, score, scores, test, update

Tags: iq test, iq score, test score, memory game, control group