Hacker News Reader

Comment by winfred | Hacker News Reader

But I'd invite others to follow along, using my instructions and publishing their findings (for example, before and after IQ tests), that would increase the number of participants, but not solve the control group problem.

However, if you are willing to participate, you could be part of the control group, doing only the Dual-N-Back workshop for example.

I know we should be doing blind controls, but that's really too hard to implement at this stage and we have the research papers to fall back on anyway, which have tested and proven that the tDCS device does indeed have all sorts of beneficial effects.

View on HN

You could try to implement a blind test by doing tDCS with currents below those known to be effective as a control. From what I've heard under 0.5 mA should have negligible effects, though its worth looking into more studies for that. You should also implement some sort of double-blind by having another person set control the Amps for you. It wouldn't be too hard to design an experiment around this principle. I would check out some of the stuff on http://gwern.net for reference on designing quantified-self experiments to establish an effect strength.

Yeah, I know, I'm a follower of Gwern, however, like I outline elsewhere in this thread, I think that the effectiveness of the device is already proven by the research papers. IQ tests in my opinion form a good enough basis for measuring change, if they aren't taken too often (I'd suggest once every 3 years or so).

I'm really in it for the gains. I don't even care if half of it is placebo! As long as I can measure an increase in intelligence, preferably through testing, then that's good enough for me. I will always maintain a hefty bit of skepticism towards my own intelligence, just in case I'm fooling myself, but so far it seems like the gains are real.

Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced?

> Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced?

If that happens, then you've learned something very useful: whatever methods and conclusions led you or those 100 people to the conclusion that their intelligence increased - is rubbish.

Sounds great! Definitely interested - I'll keep tabs on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com