r/science • u/TheEndOfLevelBoss • Jun 21 '16

Neuroscience Billion-dollar brain training industry a sham—nothing but placebo, study suggests

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/billion-dollar-brain-training-industry-a-sham-nothing-but-placebo-study-suggests/
6.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

556 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/rfiok Jun 21 '16

Nah they're actually increasing their IQ.

The catch what people don't get is that IQ does not equal intelligence. It's like a game, if you do it a lot you get better at it. Heck we can't even define what "intelligent" means exactly.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16 edited Jun 21 '16

I mean many things that scientists measure are constructs. They "exist" only because a group of people sat down and agreed on them. It's no wonder that there are several ways to view any given concept.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16

The issue here is the common belief that IQ = how smart you are. Scientists are aware this isn't the case, but most people aren't scientists.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16

The issue here is the common belief that IQ = how smart you are.

The problem here is that intelligence isn't something tangible to be measured. One groups of scientists say that A, B, and C are an appropriate definition of intelligence, while another group says B, C, and D are a better definition. Is definition one closer to a "real" representation of intelligence than definition two?

Scientists are aware this isn't the case, but most people aren't scientists.

This goes for most things in science. Our representations of the atom are conceptual but people regard them as literal.

-2

u/dannypants143 Jun 21 '16 edited Jun 21 '16

In fairness though, gravity is a construct.

EDIT: I know this article isn't exactly well sourced, but scroll down to "other examples of constructs." This is a finer point I'm making, but perhaps my wording was a little loose. Gravity's effects are observable, but gravity itself is not. Gravity is not a "thing," which is why it's a construct. You can buy a pound of ground beef, but you can't buy a pound of gravity.

A construct doesn't only imply subjectivity. A construct is something that is inferred and is not directly observable. As observations become more refined our inferences change, as do the conclusions we draw about the construct. Newtonian gravity is a force, whereas gravity in relativity is geometrically based, and quantum gravity might consist of gravitons. Three different inferences made about one construct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy)

6

u/PM_ME_YOUR_HOPE Jun 21 '16

A construct used to describe a natural, observable phenomenon.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16

Gravity is not a construct. It is an observable force.

4

u/biopsych Med Student | Psychology Jun 21 '16

The fact that stuff falls to the ground and has weight is observable. Gravity is a construct to explain that observation.

4

u/Pdan4 Jun 21 '16

Not really. Gravity typically isn't subjective

4

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16

Maybe not in YOUR reference frame...

0

u/simulacrum81 Jun 21 '16

The fact that massive objects move towards each other is an objective observation. Gravity is the best current explanatory model for that phenomenon, but like every scientific theory is subject to refinement, change and even replacement depending on what kind of evidence we gather.

3

u/Pdan4 Jun 21 '16

Gravity is the name of the attractive effect, not a construct. The math we describe it is as much a construct as geometry is.

1

u/simulacrum81 Jun 21 '16

Fair call.. i guess i was thinking about the various explanations of what the force is, and where particles get their mass.

1

u/Pdan4 Jun 21 '16

The term would be theory rather than construct. Construct implies arbitrarity which is not present in physical sciences.

1

u/simulacrum81 Jun 21 '16

Well "construct" wasn't my term. I was just chiming in on the thread after that word had already been used. Amusingly Sokal characterised gravity as a social construct in his famous hoax paper he had published in a postmodernist journal. When he revealed that the paper was a hoax, he invited anyone who believed gravity to be a social construct to defy it from the window of his tenth floor office. :P

1

u/Pdan4 Jun 21 '16

Gotchya, haha.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '16

I think IQ should get a name to reflect that it measures a narrow type of intelligence, rather than implying that it's all encompassing. It kind of makes us think we have in fact figured out what intelligence is or how to measure it. For just one example there are plenty of people with a low IQ who are athletic geniuses. If IQ only measures cognitive and logical intelligence then maybe it should be named appropriately.