Ten years ago, I couldn’t program, so I couldn’t do leetcode problems. Now I can. If I go on the market, I’ll probably study a bit, and get even better at leetcode problems. During that whole time, my cognitive ability will not have significantly changed.
There probably is a decent correlation between cognitive ability and performance on these tasks, but it’s obviously mediated by practice.
Thank you. But "muh IQ test" lol.
Re:In Defence of the Technical Interview
by TheOtherHobbes on Monday June 17, 2019 @06:03AM
(#20201410)
Incorrect. See e.g.
Re:In Defence of the Technical Interview
by telotortium on Monday June 17, 2019 @08:01PM
(#20208541)
https://www.gwern.net/DNB-FAQ contains a rather extensive review of this study and its follow-ups, critiques, etc, and comes to the conclusion that Dual n-Back training probably doesn't work to improve fluid intelligence.
Gwern is a person unhealthily obsessed with proving that IQ tests work and cannot be considered a reliable source.
That's quite a leap there. There is no contradiction between thinking IQ tests work and thinking that DNB increases IQ; I thought it did, and it was a bitter experience learning first-hand how exactly the Replication Crisis works.
If you think I am an unreliable source, why don't you look at the other meta-analyses like Melby-Lervåg, or Sala? Or look at the criticisms made by researchers like Redick whose experiments turned out to be nulls? (Redick's most recent comment on DNB is titled "The Hype Cycle of Working Memory Training" https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U8YNVXKM5SKF6ZY9TQBR/ful... , so you can probably guess what he thinks of DNB now.) Or look at what the field thinks in recent studies - assuming you can find any recent DNB/IQ studies, as everyone has realized that it doesn't do anything.
Where is that "good argument" substantiated?
People say exactly the same thing about IQ tests, probably because it's something they'd like to be true. But it's not backed up by the evidence.