Comments for BrainHQ from Posit Science

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Henry W. Mahncke

Henry W. Mahncke — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:55:02 +0000

I agree – brain science is still a new science, and it’s important that we’re open to new ways of thinking. And of course, at the same time, we should maintain rigorous scientific standards so we know that we we’re doing works. Well-designed and well-executed initial studies are key to building momentum. In the US, I’d recommend partnering with a university based research group, NIH SBIR/STTR grants (I don’t know what the equivalent is in New Zealand), or finding a individual who can make a donation to support an initial study.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Henry W. Mahncke

Henry W. Mahncke — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:46:04 +0000

In reply to Anthony Savickas.

Those two exercises are very challenging because they are what we called “continuous performance exercises” – they do require not only fast and accurate cognitive processing, but fast and accurate physical responses – you have to click quickly! They are really meant for advanced users. If you’re keeping up, then great – keep at it! If you’re finding them too challenging, I would recommend focusing on core speed exercises like Hawk Eye or Auditory Sweeps that give you all the time you need to respond, while still challenging your fundamental brain speed.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Henry W. Mahncke

Henry W. Mahncke — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:39:46 +0000

In reply to Lois Friss. That's an interesting web site - thanks for the link!

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by T. Marshall

T. Marshall — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:02:13 +0000

In the early 1980s, from my teen to late 20s, I struggled academically. While high school wasn’t a problem, college was. I could not keep up and felt that I was in a continual mental fog.
But the one thing I had was a determination to succeed. So, long before I knew there was such as thing as Neuroplasticity, I ”naively” set out to find ways to become smarter. I took supplements, ran 5 miles a day, listen to motivational tapes, meditated, and read lots of books (especially biographies of successful business people).
In my late 20s and beyond, things started to click. I wrote and directed a play which combined live action and 3 video screens, long before digital media. It was performed and did well. I made a few films here and there. I started a business, which was really a pre-Internet version of Facebook. I 1997, I wrote a 600 page book on a mathematical algorithm for predicting the behavior of the financial markets…and I was given a $5000 advance by a publisher for it.
Then, in 1990s, held executive positions in several companies, one of which is fairly well known in the financial markets realm. Today, I own several successful business and I am a founding partner of a publicly traded company.
Did I just overcome some hormonal imbalance or did I actually become smarter? Or maybe a little of both? Either way, if you knew the person I was back then in the 70s and early 80s, I have no doubt that you realize that I am a different person today.
Today, I am an avid user of the BrainHQ because I believe I have already experienced some degree of Neuroplasticity early in my life.
The work you guys are doing is extremely important because I believe that, while BrainHQ is not about performing unrealistic miracles as we all have whatever genetic potential we’re born with, I do believe that, here and there, there might some folks who cross the same kind of borderline that I crossed.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Sylvia Guest Carter

Sylvia Guest Carter — Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:36:53 +0000

Dear Henry,
I read your blog on Brain Training and its Critics with great interest and much emphatic nodding of my head!
I am as passionate about the work I do as you obviously are about yours – I do Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) Therapy, empowering people to achieve rapid, lasting change in any mind issue that is not useful for them.
My colleagues and I in New Zealand face similar limiting beliefs from the majority of psychologists, CBT Therapists, counsellors and others with vested interests in maintaining the existing paradigm. These are the people who have the influence with the powers-that-be who are in control of public funding, meaning that NLP work is not funded and many people are missing out on its benefits.
In parallel with the paper to which you refer, some Psychologists in debunking NLP quote a meta-study that fails to correctly identify the purpose, methods and application of NLP, and is consequently flawed from start to finish.
Further, there is a study currently underway in the US, using NLP with returned service people to clear entrenched PTSD. They are achieving the dramatic results we have come to expect, however they have had to remove all mention of the origins of the treatment because whenever “NLP” appeared on the funding applications, any Psychologists who had any sway in the funding would turn it down. Now there is no trace of the true modality of the work relating to this study. This sort of thing makes it incredibly difficult for those of us wishing to promote the benefits of NLP in any area.
So finally I get to my point! NLP processes are so rapid (as a very small sample, clearing PTSD in an average of 5 x 1 hourly sessions, or a phobia in less than an hour) that I and others would be intrigued to know just what is happening in the brain. Can plasticity occur at an even faster rate than that posited in Norman Doidge’s wonderful book, The Brain That Changes Itself? The results we get from NLP work suggest just that.
We simply do not have the resources, expertise or backing to conduct studies on this, and my purpose in writing to you is twofold:
1. Simply to reach out and say “Yes! I get it! We must open our minds to new paradigms and persistently and consistently chip away at those whose belief structures (and in many cases, fears) prevent them from acknowledging the benefits of something ‘different’ to what they know.
2. Can you offer any advice on how a small group of people in a small country might do this in a more effective way?
I discovered your brain training programs from Doidge’s book and am keen to use them to increase my own acuity skills in my work, and to discover how some of my clients could be helped to engage parts of their brains that for a variety of reasons may be ‘underused’.
Thank you for your work.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Anthony Savickas

Anthony Savickas — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:35:29 +0000

I tend to agree with the WSJ article that one is able to get better at particular exercises by playing them often.I don’t know if i am just getting better at playing the exercise or actually helping my brain.The exercises that I believe are most rewarding are exercises such as Right Turn and Mind Bender. These exercises require one to not only deduce the proper solution, but to communicate very quickly to one’s hand to select the proper solution. I often see the correct solution, but am not able to choose it fast enough, very frustrating. To really see how much co-ordination is required in these exercises, attempt to play them using the non-dominant hand.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Lois Friss

Lois Friss — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:08:08 +0000

Thanks for the analysis. I just read the WSJ article. They did acknowledge that there can be improvement in eye hand coordination which is a problem for me. A small point but nice.
Are you familiar with HealthNewsReview.org–feedback@healthnewsreview.org?
I suggest you send your comment to them for inclusion in the U. of Minnesota quality in journalism star series.

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Vic Lindal

Vic Lindal — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:04:34 +0000

Great article
Prevent those car crashes
Vic
How do I determine the best program
I have been on Lumosity

Comment on Brain Training and Its Critics by Dr Michael J Grey

Dr Michael J Grey — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:12:36 +0000

Excellent post, thank you. I will be using it to facilitate discussion in my classroom.