Hello! So I am curious if I should do Dual N Back. I am curious if it is actually effective/legitimate, or if it is simply a hoax / ineffective.
What are your experiences with Dual N Back? Was it effective for you?
I wouldn’t put too much stock in anecdotal reports and what people self report. “Correlation isn’t causation” and all that… Actual studies have been inconclusive:
“The results from the initial WM training studies were very promising, because they suggested that it is possible to improve performance not only on the trained task but also on untrained tasks measuring other cognitive functions (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002). The initial enthusiasm, however, turned into a controversy as subsequent training studies reported mixed results…”
I don’t think it will cause any NEGATIVE effects, but don’t expect it to be a magical mind booster.
1 Like
[comment removed by user]
2 Likes
Just to be clear, I’m not against anyone doing Dual N Back. That wasn’t the point of my response at all. Far from it. I think it can be good for making you think and use your brain and memory in different ways. I’ve tried it in the past and thought it was an interesting exercise. I didn’t see any drastic changes as a result, but I don’t think it was a waste of my time. I may give it another go just to re-evaluate it now that the subject has come up again and now that I’ve done more memory work, but I’m still approaching it with justified skepticism.
My point with sharing that study is that bold claims about Dual N Back are currently unproven and contested. I’m unconvinced and am withholding judgement on those claims until there’s more conclusive evidence… more than just people self-reporting their unquantifiable experiences.
A thought about “Bias…”
“Bias” is a word that gets thrown around a lot when there isn’t a clear result or when people don’t like the implication that something they believe may not be provable at the moment. It is used often by people who have a tendency to distrust “science” for whatever reason, or at least science that doesn’t back up what they hope to find. People like certainty and like being right and it can be uncomfortable and hard to accept “we don’t know yet” as the best current answer. Especially if someone has been investing lots of time and is convinced that something is having a pronounced positive effect for them. Accusing the skeptical side of having “fundamental bias” is a common tactic used to brush off and deflect honest doubt about inconclusive or unverifiable claims. It poisons the discussion and hinders further productive debate because it implies that the person expressing skepticism is just “fundamentally biased” and close-minded and that their criticisms can simply be dismissed as such.
You can almost always point to a detractor and a supporter for any position you can come up with. As I implied, and is bearing out here, you’ll find anecdotes from people touting Dual N Back’s amazing results and shrugging off ineffectiveness. The bottom line is that there isn’t a consensus, either in the scientific community or in personal experience. It’s usually pointless trying to argue things like this over the internet as people usually just accuse each other of bias, or not giving it enough of a chance, or not thinking critically enough, and then they just fall back into an echo chamber. (I’m sure I’m also guilty of doing that for lots of things, probably even in this discussion.)
Here’s how I look at this issue:
Does everyone have bias?
Yes.
Generally speaking, do those with legitimate formal scientific training try to remain objective when evaluating claims?
Yes.
Do they generally do this better than the average anonymous person on the internet, especially when it relates to their specific area of study?
Yes.
Is the mechanism of science, including the peer review and publication process, designed to account for and reduce bias whenever possible?
Yes.
If there are multiple research projects about a topic and their findings conflict or are inconclusive, is it intellectually honest to simply say “these claims haven’t been sufficiently supported enough to warrant my acceptance yet?”
In my opinion, yes.
That’s all I’ll say about that. I don’t think I’ll change anyone’s mind and I’m really not interested in debating “research bias” any further here.
To get things back on topic, as for the actual questions @GothAres posed:
“Should I do Dual N Back?”
Should you? I dunno. If you want to try it, then do it. Don’t worry about what others claim it is doing for them or if people think it does nothing. I’d recommend just trying it for yourself and seeing how you like it. If you like it, great. If not, no big loss. At the very least, it can be a fun activity to get your brain engaged. It won’t hurt you, it might provide some benefits, just don’t go in expecting miracles.
“Is it effective, ineffective, a hoax?”
Well first off, I don’t think it’s a “hoax” or scheme perpetuated by the “big dual n back” industry. The purported effectiveness depends on who you talk to and what sources you “trust” to be “unbiased.” This is a difficult question to quantify, as shown by the variety of opinions about it. Is it actually doing something to change brain structure for permanent positive improvement in those that it supposedly works for or are claims of improvement more of a “placebo” effect or something else? We don’t know. More research is needed. What is known is that it doesn’t “help” everyone, so you’ll have to try it and see if you think it is benefiting you.
“Is it worth it?”
This is not something others can answer for you and this isn’t something that you can even answer until you’ve actually tried it. I think this is a very low risk, low “cost” thing to try. The only thing you lose if you don’t like it is the time spent trying it. (Or the money you might spend on a paid app or something.) It sounds like you are interested in trying it, so give it a try and figure it out for yourself.
3 Likes
I do the old version with playing cards or some art tiles from a few match-games I have once in awhile.
It would be interesting if someone researched it, as the spatial memory benefits are fairly clear to me. And it’s just fun.
But I can’t work out for the life of me why people believe doing this on a single-dimension screen will lead to any particular benefit.
I’ve had people claim tremendous benefits, but when I invite them for an interview on my podcast about it… crickets.
1 Like
There is now a dual-n-back tag to make it easier to find posts about it.
Well, I did actually feel a benefit. I kinda have measurable results too. After doing a 20-day Dual N-back challenge, I was able to get through my regular 15-minute memory training routine without losing focus even once - something I could not do before.
I’ve switched over to single N-back done solely in my head, and I find that even more helpful.
Something I stumbled upon a while ago is the claim that dual n back helps people with schizophrenia.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925492718301227