ThinkFast
ThinkFast
Reading the section "8.7 Chronometric testing" in http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/MCReport/mcreport3.html overwhelms me with a desire to get my hands on ThinkFast. Has anyone managed to do this? Do they have any thoughts on this software considering its possible use for brain training in general? The only place I've seen it up for sale is here: http://www.mindalive.com/2_0/thinkfast.htm
Yes, I would like to see if I can reach BM+11 level...
Yes, I would like to see if I can reach BM+11 level...
anotherPhD | 2 years ago
Reply
Thinkfast is now owned mybraintrainer. Go to www.mybraintrainer.com and for a reasonably inexpensive price you can play the same exercises that you could play on thinkfast as well as many more. I do them fairly regularly there.
The chronometric battery at mybraintrainer is called "brain master challenge" and even though
I never played thinkfast I've read the levels are roughly equivalent at brainmaster levels for both. As a battery, one can play either brainmaster or ultrabrainmaster. I've hit the same levels on both (a high of +8) but my usual score on an average run is around +6. I imagine that if I played the old thinkfast, my scores would be about the same. I often focus on individual exercises these days rather than the battery.
As for chronometrics relationship to G, it's very well established in a battery such as can be found at mybraintrainer -- evidence that G is not specifically about problem solving or being verbal or being good at math or whatever is commonly thought. Each of the excercises have a pretty weak correlation with G, and only when taken together as a battery does the correlation become as strong as any other IQ test, fluid or crystallized. The problem with chronometric testing is that it goes against so many assumptions about what we consider intelligence is. The Mega society's interview with Jensen is a case in point and there is some resistence from Langan on this (who, of course, champions high range testing). Ultra high IQ Test designer Paul Cooijmans goes so far as to see reverse correlation of Thinkfast level and IQ - again perhaps revealing obvious bias in favor of higher order processing as a more meaningful measure than lower level.
The chronometric battery at mybraintrainer is called "brain master challenge" and even though
I never played thinkfast I've read the levels are roughly equivalent at brainmaster levels for both. As a battery, one can play either brainmaster or ultrabrainmaster. I've hit the same levels on both (a high of +8) but my usual score on an average run is around +6. I imagine that if I played the old thinkfast, my scores would be about the same. I often focus on individual exercises these days rather than the battery.
As for chronometrics relationship to G, it's very well established in a battery such as can be found at mybraintrainer -- evidence that G is not specifically about problem solving or being verbal or being good at math or whatever is commonly thought. Each of the excercises have a pretty weak correlation with G, and only when taken together as a battery does the correlation become as strong as any other IQ test, fluid or crystallized. The problem with chronometric testing is that it goes against so many assumptions about what we consider intelligence is. The Mega society's interview with Jensen is a case in point and there is some resistence from Langan on this (who, of course, champions high range testing). Ultra high IQ Test designer Paul Cooijmans goes so far as to see reverse correlation of Thinkfast level and IQ - again perhaps revealing obvious bias in favor of higher order processing as a more meaningful measure than lower level.
milestones | 2 years ago
Reply
http://www.mybraintrainer.com/board/topic.asp?topic_id=1263&page_number=0&sort_direction=asc
This proves (without details that I'd like to see) that ThinkFast and BMC are not equivalent in terms of scoring.
This proves (without details that I'd like to see) that ThinkFast and BMC are not equivalent in terms of scoring.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Not strictly, you're right. But given the TF and MBT runs are comprised of mostly the same exercises, then there would have to be a high correlation between the two levels.
milestones | 2 years ago
Reply
Yes, but the point is, BM in TF does not necessarily equal BM in MBT. The reasoning centers around wanting to reach BM+11 (TF); what would that be in MBT? We would need to know this in order to satisfy OP's thirst for BM+11.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Could you cite those instances about Langan and Cooijmans?
It's interesting because some of the items in the Brain Master Challenge aren't particularly "low level", though perceptual processing is definitely a must.
I cannot find arguments against low-level processing as a proxy for intelligence (were it at all meaningfully conceived) rather pathetic and unconvincing.
And one gets honors for a high score at MBT!
http://www.mybraintrainer.com/challenge/circle.asp?challenge_id=1
It's interesting because some of the items in the Brain Master Challenge aren't particularly "low level", though perceptual processing is definitely a must.
I cannot find arguments against low-level processing as a proxy for intelligence (were it at all meaningfully conceived) rather pathetic and unconvincing.
And one gets honors for a high score at MBT!
http://www.mybraintrainer.com/challenge/circle.asp?challenge_id=1
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Yes, here is the interview with Jensen where he discusses chronometrics:
Link:
http://eugen.leitl.org/tt/msg12769.html
Here is the Cooijman's perspective on inverse correlation of thinkfast at the high end of intellectual ability: To be fair, Cooijman's does state he is speculating -- his awareness of his own bias is evident.
I don't think that short term memory could ever be a handicap. Perhaps he is thinking from an evolutionary perspective humans traded short term memory for abstract thinking and so short term memory could hinder their abstract thinking if developed highly, but -- if gifted already with abstract thinking --I doubt that it would be be any sort of impediment.
Specifically, working memroy (rather than just short term item span memory) is obviously highly correlated with IQ all the way to the top of the scale...beyond measurable levels (Cooijman's main interest is in measuring the very highest levels) is thus unclear and this enables Cooijman's to speculate on this matter with impunity.
Link:
http://www.iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/faq.html
(excerpt):
"Why'd you get a negative correlation between Thinkfast Brain Power and IQ if both are supposed to be related to intelligence?
"I can only speculate now; I suspect the correlation is positive below Theta Silver, and becomes negative above that. BP and I.Q. go different ways above a certain level because they tap different sets of factors. I suspect the inclusion of long-term memory in Thinkfast would make the correlation positive up to higher BP levels. Also it may be that certain Elementary Cognitive Tasks, like simple reaction speed, perceptual threshold and short-term memory, actually become a handicap in intellectual work if one has "too much" of them. In this respect I mention a person known to me who had perfect scores on Forms A and B of the Cattell Culture Fair Scale 3, corresponding to IQ 183 (or higher) with S.D.=16. The CCF is a very speeded test with easy content, which in my perception does not measure I.Q. anymore above about 130-140 (the speed factor is far too important in that test, while it is known that speed does not correlate well with g). This person performed very poorly on tasks requiring concentration, accuracy, use of language and higher-level logic. Too superficial.
Another thing to consider is that the higher BP levels may mostly be achieved after very much practicing, and that such increased BP levels lose their "g" loading and become "crystallized" ability. The people who go on practicing and increasing their BP may be not intelligent enough to understand this, which may explain the negative correlation. In other words, the smartest people will not go on practicing so long because they do understand that practiced, learnt, crystallized skill loses its g loading. Also see my above answer to "Whats the correlation between chronometrics and intelligence?"
Link:
http://eugen.leitl.org/tt/msg12769.html
Here is the Cooijman's perspective on inverse correlation of thinkfast at the high end of intellectual ability: To be fair, Cooijman's does state he is speculating -- his awareness of his own bias is evident.
I don't think that short term memory could ever be a handicap. Perhaps he is thinking from an evolutionary perspective humans traded short term memory for abstract thinking and so short term memory could hinder their abstract thinking if developed highly, but -- if gifted already with abstract thinking --I doubt that it would be be any sort of impediment.
Specifically, working memroy (rather than just short term item span memory) is obviously highly correlated with IQ all the way to the top of the scale...beyond measurable levels (Cooijman's main interest is in measuring the very highest levels) is thus unclear and this enables Cooijman's to speculate on this matter with impunity.
Link:
http://www.iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/faq.html
(excerpt):
"Why'd you get a negative correlation between Thinkfast Brain Power and IQ if both are supposed to be related to intelligence?
"I can only speculate now; I suspect the correlation is positive below Theta Silver, and becomes negative above that. BP and I.Q. go different ways above a certain level because they tap different sets of factors. I suspect the inclusion of long-term memory in Thinkfast would make the correlation positive up to higher BP levels. Also it may be that certain Elementary Cognitive Tasks, like simple reaction speed, perceptual threshold and short-term memory, actually become a handicap in intellectual work if one has "too much" of them. In this respect I mention a person known to me who had perfect scores on Forms A and B of the Cattell Culture Fair Scale 3, corresponding to IQ 183 (or higher) with S.D.=16. The CCF is a very speeded test with easy content, which in my perception does not measure I.Q. anymore above about 130-140 (the speed factor is far too important in that test, while it is known that speed does not correlate well with g). This person performed very poorly on tasks requiring concentration, accuracy, use of language and higher-level logic. Too superficial.
Another thing to consider is that the higher BP levels may mostly be achieved after very much practicing, and that such increased BP levels lose their "g" loading and become "crystallized" ability. The people who go on practicing and increasing their BP may be not intelligent enough to understand this, which may explain the negative correlation. In other words, the smartest people will not go on practicing so long because they do understand that practiced, learnt, crystallized skill loses its g loading. Also see my above answer to "Whats the correlation between chronometrics and intelligence?"
milestones | 2 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
