Not clear to me we have a robust way to correlate anything concrete like performance on specific tasks with what you're proposing to measure.
Does intensive exercise make you dumber?
- Thread starter hamstar
- Start date
- Status
Not clear to me we have a robust way to correlate anything concrete like performance on specific tasks with what you're proposing to measure.
Compare them how? With what instruments? Notable differences?
There is, again, nothing testable here. And I write that as someone who rejects as utterly inadequate the conception of science as hypthesis testing (even in the Popperian 'disconfirmation' formulation). The most possibly-similar scientific approach here would be something like a Faraday empiricism where one creates phenomena, learns to create them consistently, then learns to manipulate them reliably, and then starts to draw conclusions about what must be going on in order for those phenomena to be and behave as instantiated.
But you don't even have that, since you don't have a phenomenon. You have a vague question: does 'swol' correlate with 'dumber'? You won't tell us what either term means in anything like a concrete way, and are both deliberate and offensive in your refusal to do so. You've squandered a resource here, and wasted a whole lot of other people's time.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
Le sigh.... Look, I'm done here. I've tried to help, but you are spouting words and imbuing meaning as if they were precise or something that can be measured. We can't go from "dumber" to "swoll" vs. "unswoll" and pretend as if they are precise definitions that we can have a meaningful conversation with. What you described as shock therapy is a summary I'd expect to see in a pamphlet or the back of a crackerjacks box, it is so superficial as to be utterly meaningless.
You might have the nuggets of a good idea here, but you are throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks with no attempt to make something useful.
- Status