All of these issues are resolved by having controls and by the variance within control.

Using different tests, given that the results don't correlate very well, would be a mistake.

Increasing blood flow to the large masseter muscles seems to have a broadly stimulating effect on blood flow to the head in general. You can buy unflavored gum for cheap, or xylitol gum which has a positive side effect on decreasing cavity formation.

Never thought about this one, quite interesting 🙃

So, if we are trying to prove something like:

• Plane A flies faster than plane B

We do indeed need to make sure plane A and plane B are the same in all instances, I'd say that engineering not science, but in the last 50 years little science has happened so people seem to confuse the two.

If we are trying to prove something like:

• Planes can fly

Then the specific plane design is less important.

My point here is something like "I did a thing, and people seem to have higher IQs upon retesting than control, and I'm controlling for things like motivation, memorization, exercise and diet" therefore, given that we don't expect anything (maybe sans stimulants?) to increase IQ, or at least anything besides going from slob to active lifestyle wise, this finding is interesting.

If you already believe that this sort of increase is possible and easy then without me comparing it with other such experiments and outlining my method precisely in a way that a 3rd party can replicate -- the claim would be useless. 

But that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying "Nobody has ever tried to take a cohort of adults at +1 to +3 STDs of IQ and have it improve", I did (well, people did it and I collected the data) and it seems possible, therefore something interesting is happening. Given that most people here would say this thing is not possible, this should be an update that it's possible.

I don't want to update on the precise step-by-step method by which it's possible, much like, if I had a crappy plane design and saw it fly, I wouldn't want people to replicate my crappy plane design, I'd want people to try and design better planes, after updating on the fact that building planes is, in principle, possible.

This goes doubly so if by publishing the exact plane design the FAA would sue me.

pinged you in DMs :) Happy to share, I don't need a liability waver just making sure people understand this is not medical advice, I am not a doctor+ not being assholes

That all sounds to me like increasing IQ ?

Like, if shape rotation is an underlying component of many valuable cognitive processes (e.g. math) and you get better at it in a generic way (not learning for the test)... that's getting smarter

memory tests are included within the FSIQ evaluation

That's learning effects (: The tests are the same because psychometry is BS and IQ tests aren't designed to be retaken (even though people, for some reason, make claims about IQ increases/decreases)

actually -- dmed you my signal, ping there

Can you send me your email and phone number? 

If you can get a motivated group together I might be able to fund you replicating it as long as you're ok being scrappy because I don't have that much money to throw at this

I agree, that's why I did that :)

Within the article you can find examples of that:

-> Control before vs control after p values are provided (not looking good, p value within group alone is insufficient, can capture learning, hence why I do a between group % change test)

-> Control before vs after for verbal IQ (significant -- learning effect / motivation / shorter time between tests ?)

-> Intervention before vs after for verbal IQ (no significant -- backs up hypothesis that this works for fluid IQ only, and the control effect is learning + the advantages on time & motivation)