> once the "training" stopped, they went right back to their previously low cognitive levels... not to create a lasting change.
This article criticizes previous methods for lacking enduring effect, but does not claim enduring improvement for any of the promoted methods (including for the boy with PDD-NOS, and dual n-back) nor revisit the issue. On the contrary, it later claims that on-going training is required. This is not "lasting change".
This article is written enthusiastically rather than scientifically. It reminds me of "In Search of Excellence", that had sensible, intuitively appealing advice, but whose supporting data turned out to be fabricated.
Also, quoting Einstein is a red flag. He wasn't a polymath (unless you count several areas of theoretical physics as wide learning).
Still, it's interesting, and what more can you expect from popsci Scientific American?
This article criticizes previous methods for lacking enduring effect, but does not claim enduring improvement for any of the promoted methods (including for the boy with PDD-NOS, and dual n-back) nor revisit the issue. On the contrary, it later claims that on-going training is required. This is not "lasting change".
This article is written enthusiastically rather than scientifically. It reminds me of "In Search of Excellence", that had sensible, intuitively appealing advice, but whose supporting data turned out to be fabricated.
Also, quoting Einstein is a red flag. He wasn't a polymath (unless you count several areas of theoretical physics as wide learning).
Still, it's interesting, and what more can you expect from popsci Scientific American?