3.89 score from hupso.pl for:
mindhacks.com



HTML Content


Titlemind hacks – neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 62, Words: 8
Description neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 43, Words: 6
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 4726
Text/HTML 38.93 %
Headings H1 1
H2 16
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
mind hacks
H2
how liars create the illusion of truth
reinforcing your wiser self
do students know what’s good for them?
false beliefs impede learning
the solution: balancing guided and discovery learning
the hidden history of war on terror torture
does ‘brain training’ work?
the chairman says it works
a bit premature
hallucinating sleep researchers
a literary case of the exploding head
posts navigation
pages
contact
free ebooks
links & ads policy
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
b
i
repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
em repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
Bolds strong 1
b 0
i 1
em 1
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 29
Pliki CSS 7
Pliki javascript 22
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 122
Linki wewnętrzne 2
Linki zewnętrzne 120
Linki bez atrybutu Title 122
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

Linki zewnętrzne

mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
how liars create the illusion of truth https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/
typical https://www.researchgate.net/profile/grant_harris/publication/256486791_credibility_of_repeated_statements_memory_for_trivia/links/0deec5230e01875774000000.pdf
experiment https://www.researchgate.net/profile/grant_harris/publication/256486791_credibility_of_repeated_statements_memory_for_trivia/links/0deec5230e01875774000000.pdf
lisa https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
fazio https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
of https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
vanderbilt https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
university https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
here http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds https://www.amazon.com/dp/b010o1z018
here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/557577
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/
reasoning https://mindhacks.com/category/reasoning/
1 comment on how liars create the illusion of truth https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/#comments
reinforcing your wiser self https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/
- http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
experiments we did http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222895.2013.806108?journalcode=vjmb20
new news http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=1908
unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
post about reinforcement schedules, and how they might be used to break technology compulsion https://mindhacks.com/2006/09/19/why-email-is-addictive-and-what-to-do-about-it/
breakdown of will http://ww.picoeconomics.org/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/
learning https://mindhacks.com/category/learning/
leave a comment on reinforcing your wiser self https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/#respond
do students know what’s good for them? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/
constructivist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/constructivism_%28philosophy_of_education%29
basal ganglia http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/basal_ganglia
activates the same subcortical circuitry http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/8/963.short
curiosity enhances memory http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0896627314008046
augmented with a drive to explore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4158798/
simple skills http://www.tomstafford.staff.shef.ac.uk/?p=48
complex ideas http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6230/91
mistaken reliance on our familiarity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3062901/
different cognitive processes http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-why-names-and-faces-are-so-vexing
experiments http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/bf03194055
generate the answers from the questions http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5865/966.full
reacted against http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
one review summarising the findings http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doilanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14
one experiment http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/papers/0425/paper0425.pdf
previous research http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/143/1/94/
‘science of learning’ community https://npjscilearncommunity.nature.com/users/21128-tom-stafford/posts/12584-do-students-know-what-s-good-for-them
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/
learning https://mindhacks.com/category/learning/
leave a comment on do students know what’s good for them? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/#respond
the hidden history of war on terror torture https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/09/the-hidden-history-of-war-on-terror-torture/
interviewed http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/prof-tim-shallice-on-interrogation-in-depth/
tim shallice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tim_shallice
article http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90004-2
‘five techniques’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/five_techniques
research project http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/
article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/world/cia-torture-guantanamo-bay.html
link http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/blog/prof-tim-shallice-on-interrogation-in-depth/
link http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/world/cia-torture-guantanamo-bay.html
vaughanbell https://mindhacks.com/author/vaughanbell/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/09/the-hidden-history-of-war-on-terror-torture/
remembering https://mindhacks.com/category/remembering/
leave a comment on the hidden history of war on terror torture https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/09/the-hidden-history-of-war-on-terror-torture/#respond
does ‘brain training’ work? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/03/does-brain-training-work/
major new review, published in psychology in the public interest http://m.psi.sagepub.com/content/17/3/103
dan simons http://www.dansimons.com/
jne valokuvaus/shutterstock.com http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-335283932/stock-photo-an-elderly-woman-is-doing-crossword-puzzle-with-a-pencil-this-is-a-good-exercise-for-older-people-to-train-their-brains.html?src=8v_dvhu5-m4uqckhsh3gma-1-45
cognitive training data http://www.cognitivetrainingdata.org/
this paper https://theconversation.com/at-last-a-gold-standard-study-on-brain-training-50210
bad science http://www.badscience.net/
better scientific support http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v9/n1/abs/nrn2298.html
tom stafford https://theconversation.com/profiles/tom-stafford-91781
university of sheffield http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147
the conversation http://theconversation.com
original article https://theconversation.com/does-brain-training-work-66245
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/03/does-brain-training-work/
learning https://mindhacks.com/category/learning/
6 comments on does ‘brain training’ work? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/03/does-brain-training-work/#comments
hallucinating sleep researchers https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/24/hallucinating-sleep-researchers/
paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00011-9
allan hobson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/allan_hobson
medulla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/medulla_oblongata
robert stickgold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/robert_stickgold
oscillopsia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oscillopsia
link http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00011-9
vaughanbell https://mindhacks.com/author/vaughanbell/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/24/hallucinating-sleep-researchers/
inside the brain https://mindhacks.com/category/inside-the-brain/
2 comments on hallucinating sleep researchers https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/24/hallucinating-sleep-researchers/#comments
a literary case of the exploding head https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/19/a-literary-case-of-the-exploding-head/
exploding head syndrome https://mindhacks.com/2009/05/07/exploding-head-syndrome/
goodreads http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5857.the_enigma_of_arrival
exploding head syndrome https://mindhacks.com/2009/05/07/exploding-head-syndrome/
exploding head syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/exploding_head_syndrome
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/19/a-literary-case-of-the-exploding-head/
inside the brain https://mindhacks.com/category/inside-the-brain/
1 comment on a literary case of the exploding head https://mindhacks.com/2016/09/19/a-literary-case-of-the-exploding-head/#comments
page 2 https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
page 736 https://mindhacks.com/page/736/
next page https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
book https://mindhacks.com/book/
links https://mindhacks.com/links/
mindhacks.com wiki http://mind-hacks.wikia.com/wiki/mind_hacks_wiki
- https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
find out more https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
at amazon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinter02
at amazon uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinterco
@mindhacksblog https://twitter.com/mindhacksblog
@vaughanbell https://twitter.com/vaughanbell
@tomstafford https://twitter.com/tomstafford
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/118271
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/110777
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
https://mindhacks.com/ https://mindhacks.com/
creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 19
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 15
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 19
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/phone.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/interrogation.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139991/width754/image-20161002-9475-12lwyyh.jpg
https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66245/count.gif
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/hobson.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/e.jpg?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://i2.wp.com/i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/interrogation.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139991/width754/image-20161002-9475-12lwyyh.jpg
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/hobson.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

skip to content mind hacks neuroscience and psychology news and views. how liars create the illusion of truth repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford. “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the nazi joseph goebbels. among psychologists something like this known as the “illusion of truth” effect. here’s how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like “a prune is a dried plum”. sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn’t true (something like “a date is a dried plum”). after a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. the key finding is that people tend to rate items they’ve seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar. so, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. and if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology. but a reliable effect in the lab isn’t necessarily an important effect on people’s real-world beliefs. if you really could make a lie sound true by repetition, there’d be no need for all the other techniques of persuasion. one obstacle is what you already know. even if a lie sounds plausible, why would you set what you know aside just because you heard the lie repeatedly? recently, a team led by lisa fazio of vanderbilt university set out to test how the illusion of truth effect interacts with our prior knowledge. would it affect our existing knowledge? they used paired true and un-true statements, but also split their items according to how likely participants were to know the truth (so “the pacific ocean is the largest ocean on earth” is an example of a “known” items, which also happens to be true, and “the atlantic ocean is the largest ocean on earth” is an un-true item, for which people are likely to know the actual truth). their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility. to cover all bases, the researchers performed one study in which the participants were asked to rate how true each statement seemed on a six-point scale, and one where they just categorised each fact as “true” or “false”. repetition pushed the average item up the six-point scale, and increased the odds that a statement would be categorised as true. for statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable. at first this looks like bad news for human rationality, but – and i can’t emphasise this strongly enough – when interpreting psychological science, you have to look at the actual numbers. what fazio and colleagues actually found, is that the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was… whether it actually was true. the repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. with or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies. this shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn’t over-ride that knowledge the next question has to be, why might that be? the answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. if every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you’d still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time. because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. relying on how often you’ve heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts. if repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we’d be in trouble, but it isn’t. we can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. often this works. sometimes it is misleading. once we know about the effect we can guard against it. part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? this is why scholars are so mad about providing references – so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith. but part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. we live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. if you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. so, please, think before you repeat. this is my bbc future column from the other week, the original is here. for more on this topic, see my ebook : for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds (smashwords link here) author tomstaffordposted on november 11, 2016categories reasoning1 comment on how liars create the illusion of truth reinforcing your wiser self nautilus has a piece by david perezcassar on how technology takes advantage of our animal instinct for variable reward schedules (unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out). it’s a great illustrated read about the scientific history of the ideas behind ‘persuasive technology’, and ends with a plea that perhaps we can hijack our weakness for variable reward schedules for better ends: what is we set up a variable reward system to reward ourselves for the time spent away fro our phones & physically connecting with others? even time spend meditating or reading without technological distractions is a heroic endeavor worthy of a prize which isn’t a bad idea, but the pattern of the reward schedule is only one factor in what makes an activity habit forming. the timing of a reward is more important than the reliability – it’s easier to train in habits with immediate than delayed rewards. the timing is so crucial that in the animal learning literature even a delay of 2 seconds between a lever press and the delivery of a food pellet impairs learning in rats. in experiments we did with humans a delay of 150ms we enough to hinder our participants connecting their own actions with a training signal. so the dilemma for persuasive technology, and anyone who wants to free themselves from its hold, is not just how phones/emails/social media structure our rewards, but also the fact that they allow gratification at almost any moment. there are always new notifications, new news, and so phones let us have zero delay for the reward of checking our phones. if you want to focus on other things, like being a successful parent, friend or human the delays on the rewards of these are far larger (not to mention more nebulous). the way i like to think about it is the conflict between the impatient, narrow, smaller self – the self that likes sweets and gossip and all things immediate gratification – and the wider, wiser self – the self than invests in the future and carers about the bigger picture. that self can win out, does win out as we make our stumbling journey into adulthood, but my hunch is we’re going to need a different framework from the one of reinforcement learning to do it nautilus article: unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out mindhacks.com: post about reinforcement schedules, and how they might be used to break technology compulsion (from 2006 – just sayin’) george ainslie’s book breakdown of will is what happens if you go so deep into the reinforcement learning paradigm you explode its reductionism and reinvent the notion of the self. mind-alteringly good. author tomstaffordposted on october 31, 2016categories learningleave a comment on reinforcing your wiser self do students know what’s good for them? of course they do, and of course they don’t. putting a student at the centre of their own learning seems like fundamental pedagogy. the constructivist approach to education emphasises the need for knowledge to reassembled in the mind of the learner, and the related impossibility of its direct transmission from the mind of the teacher. believe this, and student input into how they learn must follow. at the same time, we know there is a deep neurobiological connection between the machinery of reward in our brain, and that of learning. both functions seem to be entangled in the subcortical circuitry of a network known as the basal ganglia. it’s perhaps not surprising that curiosity, which we all know personally to be a powerful motivator of learning, activates the same subcortical circuitry involved in the pleasurable anticipation of reward. further, curiosity enhances memory, even for things you learn while your curiosity is aroused about something else. this neurobiological alignment of enjoyment and learning isn’t mere coincidence. when building learning algorithms for embedding in learning robots, the basic rules of learning from experience have to be augmented with a drive to explore – curiosity! – so that they don’t become stuck repeating suboptimal habits. whether it is motivated by curiosity or other factors, exploration seems to support enhanced learning in a range of domains from simple skills to more complex ideas. obviously we learn best when motivated, and when learning is fun, and allowing us to explore our curiosity is a way to allow both. however, putting the trajectory of their experience into students’ hands can go awry. false beliefs impede learning one reason is false beliefs about how much we know, or how we learn best. psychologists studying memory have long documented such metacognitive errors, which include overconfidence, and a mistaken reliance on our familiarity with a thing as a guide to how well we understand it, or how well we’ll be able to recall it when tested (recognition and recall are in fact different cognitive processes). sure enough, when tested in experiments people will over-rely on ineffective study strategies (like rereading, or reviewing the answers to questions, rather than testing their ability to generate the answers from the questions). cramming is another ineffective study strategy, with experiment after experiment showing the benefit of spreading out your study rather than massing it all together. obviously this requires being more organised, but my belief is that a metacognitive error supports students’ over-reliance on cramming – cramming feels good, because, for a moment, you feel familiar with all the information. the problem is that this feel-good familiarity isn’t the kind of memory that will support recall in an exam, but immature learners often don’t realise the extent of that. in agreement with these findings from psychologists, education scholars have reacted against pure student-led or discovery learning, with one review summarising the findings from multiple distinct research programmes taking place over three decades: “in each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer”. the solution: balancing guided and discovery learning this leaves us at a classic “middle way”, where pure student-led or teacher-led learning is ruled out. some kind of guided exploration, structured study, or student choice in learning is obviously a necessity, but we’re not sure how much. there’s an exciting future for research which informs us what the right blend of guided and discovery learning is, and which students and topics suit which exact blend. one strand of this is to take the cognitive psychology experiments which demonstrate a benefit of active choice learning over passive instruction and to tweak them so that we can see when passive instruction can be used to jump-start or augment active choice learning. one experiment from kyle macdonald and michael frank of stanford university used a highly abstract concept learning task in which participants use trial and error to figure out a categorisation of different shapes. previous research had shown that people learned faster if they were allowed to choose their own examples to receive feedback on, but this latest iteration of the experiment from macdonald and frank showed that an initial session of passive learning, where the examples were chosen for the learner boosted performance even further. presumably this effect is due to the scaffolding in the structure of the concept-space that the passive learning gives the learner. this, and myriad experiments, are possible to show when and how active learning and instructor-led learning can be blended. education is about more than students learning the material on the syllabus. there is a meta-goal of producing students who are better able to learn for themselves. the same cognitive machinery in all of us might push us towards less effective strategies. the simple fact of being located within our own selfish consciousness means that even the best performers in the world need a coach to help them learn. but as we mature we can learn to better avoid pitfalls in our learning and evolve into better self-determining students. ultimately the best education needs to keep its focus on that need to help each of us take on more and more responsibility for how we learn, whether that means submitting to others’ choices or exploring things for ourselves – or, often, a bit of both. this post originally appeared on the npj ‘science of learning’ community author tomstaffordposted on october 10, 2016categories learningleave a comment on do students know what’s good for them? the hidden history of war on terror torture the hidden persuaders project has interviewed neuropsychologist tim shallice about his opposition to the british government’s use of ‘enhanced interrogation’ in the northern ireland conflict of the 1970s – a practice eventually abandoned as torture. shallice is little known to the wider public but is one of the most important and influential neuropsychologists of his generation, having pioneered the systematic study of neurological problems as a window on typical cognitive function. one of his first papers was not on brain injury, however, it was an article titled ‘ulster depth interrogation techniques and their relation to sensory deprivation research’ where he set out a cognitive basis for why the ‘five techniques’ – wall-standing, hooding, white noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink – amounted to torture. shallice traces a link between the use of these techniques and research on sensory deprivation – which was investigated both by regular scientists for reasons of scientific curiosity, and as we learned later, by intelligence services while trying to understand ‘brain washing’. the use of these techniques in northern ireland was subject to an official investigation and shallice and other researchers testified to the parker committee which led prime minister edward heath to ban the practice. if those techniques sound eerily familiar, it is because they formed the basis of interrogation practices at guantanamo bay and other notorious sites in the ‘war on terror’. the hidden persuaders is a research project at birkbeck, university of london, which is investigating the history of ‘brainwashing’. it traces the practice to its use by the british during the colonisation of yemen, who seemed to have borrowed it off the kgb. and if you want to read about the modern day effects of the abusive techniques, the new york times has just published a disturbing feature article about the long-term consequences of being tortured in guantanamo and other ‘black sites’ by following up many of the people subject to the brutal techniques. link to hidden persuaders interview with tim shallice. link to nyt on long-term legacy of war on terror torture. author vaughanbellposted on october 9, 2016october 9, 2016categories rememberingleave a comment on the hidden history of war on terror torture does ‘brain training’ work? you’ve probably heard of “brain training exercises” – puzzles, tasks and drills which claim to keep you mentally agile. maybe, especially if you’re an older person, you’ve even bought the book, or the app, in the hope of staving off mental decline. the idea of brain training has widespread currency, but is that due to science, or empty marketing? now a major new review, published in psychology in the public interest, sets out to systematically examine the evidence for brain training. the results should give you pause before spending any of your time and money on brain training, but they also highlight what happens when research and commerce become entangled. the review team, led by dan simons of the university of illinois, set out to inspect all the literature which brain training companies cited in their promotional material – in effect, taking them at their word, with the rationale that the best evidence in support of brain training exercises would be that cited by the companies promoting them. the chairman says it works a major finding of the review is the poverty of the supporting evidence for these supposedly scientific exercises. simons’ team found that half of the brain training companies that promoted their products as being scientifically validated didn’t cite any peer-reviewed journal articles, relying instead on things like testimonials from scientists (including the company founders). of the companies which did cite evidence for brain training, many cited general research on neuroplasticity, but nothing directly relevant to the effectiveness of what they promote. the key issue for claims around brain training is that practising these exercises will help you in general, or on unrelated tasks. nobody doubts that practising a crossword will help you get better at crosswords, but will it improve your memory, your iq or your ability to skim read email? such effects are called transfer effects, and so called “far transfer” (transfer to a very different task than that trained) is the ultimate goal of brain training studies. what we know about transfer effect is reviewed in simons’ paper. doing puzzles make you, well, good at doing puzzles. jne valokuvaus/shutterstock.com as well as trawling the company websites, the reviewers inspected a list provided by an industry group (cognitive training data of some 132 scientific papers claiming to support the efficacy of brain training. of these, 106 reported new data (rather than being reviews themselves). of those 106, 71 used a proper control group, so that the effects of the brain training could be isolated. of those 71, only 49 had so called “active control” group, in which the control participants actually did something rather than being ignored by the the researchers. (an active control is important if you want to distinguish the benefit of your treatment from the benefits of expectation or responding to researchers’ attentions.) of these 49, about half of the results came from just six studies. overall, the reviewers conclude, no study which is cited in support of brain training products meets the gold standard for best research practises, and few even approached the standard of a good randomised control trial (although note their cut off for considering papers missed this paper from late last year). a bit premature the implications, they argue, are that claims for general benefits of brain training are premature. there’s excellent evidence for benefits of training specific to the task trained on, they conclude, less evidence for enhancement on closely related tasks and little evidence that brain training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or everyday cognitive performance. the flaws in the studies supporting the benefits of brain training aren’t unique to the study of brain training. good research is hard and all studies have flaws. assembling convincing evidence for a treatment takes years, with evidence required from multiple studies and from different types of studies. indeed, it may yet be that some kind of cognitive training can be shown to have the general benefits that are hoped for from existing brain training exercises. what this review shows is not that brain training can’t work, merely that promotion of brain training exercises is – at the very least – premature based on the current scientific evidence. yet in a 2014 survey of us adults, over 50% had heard of brain training exercises and showed some credence to their performance enhancing powers. even the name “brain training”, the authors of the review admit, is a concession to marketing – this is how people know these exercises, despite their development having little to do with the brain directly. the widespread currency of brain training isn’t because of overwhelming evidence of benefits from neuroscience and psychological science, as the review shows, but it does rely on the appearance of being scientifically supported. the billion-dollar market in brain training is parasitic on the credibility of neuroscience and psychology. it also taps into our lazy desire to address complex problems with simple, purchasable, solutions (something written about at length by ben goldacre in his book bad science). the simons review ends with recommendations for researchers into brain training, and for journalists reporting on the topic. my favourite was their emphasis that any treatment needs to be considered for its costs, as well as its benefits. by this standard there is no commercial brain training product which has been shown to have greater benefits than something you can do for free. also important is the opportunity cost: what could you be doing in the time you invest in brain training? the reviewers deliberately decided to focus on brain training, so they didn’t cover the proven and widespread benefits of exercise for mental function, but i’m happy to tell you now that a brisk walk round the park with a friend is not only free, and not only more fun, but has better scientific support for its cognitive-enhancing powers than all the brain training products which are commercially available. tom stafford, lecturer in psychology and cognitive science, university of sheffield this article was originally published on the conversation. read the original article. author tomstaffordposted on october 3, 2016october 3, 2016categories learning6 comments on does ‘brain training’ work? hallucinating sleep researchers i just stumbled across a fascinating 2002 paper where pioneering sleep researcher allan hobson describes the effect of a precisely located stroke he suffered. it affected the medulla in his brain stem, important for regulating sleep, and caused total insomnia and a suppression of dreaming. in one fascinating section, hobson describes the hallucinations he experienced, likely due to his inability to sleep or dream, which included disconnected body parts and a hallucinated robert stickgold – another well known sleep researcher. between days 1 and 10 i could visually perceive a vault over my supine body immediately upon closing my eyes. the vault resembled the bottom of a swimming pool but the gunitelike surface of the vault could be not only aqua, but also white or beige and, more rarely, engraved obsidian or of a gauzelike nature mixed with ice or glass crystals. there were three categories of formed imagery that appeared on these surfaces. in the first category of geologic forms the imagery tended to be protomorphic and crude but often gave way to the more elaborate structures of category two inanimate sculptural forms. the most amusing of these (which occurred on the fourth night) were enormous lucite telephone/computers. but there were also tables and tableaux in which the geologic forms sometimes took unusual and bizarre shapes. one that i recall is a tv-set-like representation of a tropical landscape. in category three, the most elaborate forms have human anatomical elements, including long swirling flesh, columns that metamorphosed into sphincters, nipples, and crotches, but these were never placed in real bodies. in fact whole body forms almost never emerged. instead i saw profiles of faces and profiles of bodies which were often inextricably mixed with penises, noses, lips, eyebrows; torsos arose out of the sculptural columns of flesh and sank back into them again. the most fully realized human images include my wife, featuring her lower anatomy and (most amusingly) a peter pan-like robert stickgold and two fairies enjoying a bedtime story. while visual disturbances are quire common in wallenberg’s syndrome, they have only been reported to occur in waking with eyes open. blurring of vision (which i had), and the tendency of objects to appear to move called oscillopsia (which i did not have), are attributed to the disturbed oculomotor and vestibular physiology. link to locked report of hobson’s stroke. author vaughanbellposted on september 24, 2016categories inside the brain2 comments on hallucinating sleep researchers a literary case of the exploding head one of the most commented-upon posts on this blog is this from 2009, ‘exploding head syndrome‘. the name stems from the 1920s, and describes an under-documented and mysterious condition in which the suffer experiences a viscerally loud explosion, as if occurring inside their own head. i’m reading v.s.naipaul’s “the enigma of arrival”, and the autobiographical main character experiences the same thing. here we are on p93 of my edition of that novel: in this dream there occurred always, at a critical moment in the dream narrative, what i can only describe as an explosion in my head. it was how every dream ended, with this explosion that threw me flat on my back, in the presence of people, in a street, a crowded room, or wherever, threw me into this degraded posture in the midst of standing people, threw me into the posture of sleep in which i found myself when i awakened. the explosion was so loud, so reverberating and slow in my head that i felt, with the part of my brain that miraculously could still think and draw conclusions, that i couldn’t possibly survive, that i was in fact dying, that the explosion this time, in this dream, regardless of the other dreams that had revealed themselves at the end as dreams, would kill, that i was consciously living through, or witnessing, my own death. and when i awoke my head felt queer, shaken up, exhausted; as though some discharge in my brain had in fact occurred. the enigma of arrival on goodreads vaughan’s 2009 post on exploding head syndrome wikipedia: exploding head syndrome author tomstaffordposted on september 19, 2016september 19, 2016categories inside the brain1 comment on a literary case of the exploding head posts navigation page 1 page 2 … page 736 next page pages book links search for: search neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain. mindhacks.com wiki - explore our back pages! mind hacks is a book by tom stafford and matt webb. find out more, or buy it: → at amazon (34% off) → at amazon uk (30% off) contact automatic blog feed on twitter @mindhacksblog. follow us individually as @vaughanbell and @tomstafford emails to tom@[thedomainnameofthissite] have been retired. tweet us instead! please do not contact us about promoting anything free ebooks links & ads policy mindhacks.com does not take sponsorship for links or reviews. everything linked here is done so because we find it interesting. as soon as i read the words "advertising", "sponsored links" or "business partnership" in an email i delete it. we will not place adverts for you, so please don't ask. all blog posts by https://mindhacks.com/ are licensed under a creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. post to cancel


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 4693

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.67% (360)
and - 2.47% (116)
for - 1.9% (89)
her - 1.45% (68)
that - 1.34% (63)
all - 1.32% (62)
you - 1.07% (50)
learn - 1% (47)
his - 0.98% (46)
our - 0.89% (42)
brain - 0.89% (42)
train - 0.81% (38)
how - 0.79% (37)
out - 0.77% (36)
this - 0.77% (36)
but - 0.75% (35)
are - 0.75% (35)
training - 0.75% (35)
learning - 0.68% (32)
which - 0.66% (31)
one - 0.66% (31)
with - 0.64% (30)
now - 0.62% (29)
– - 0.58% (27)
thing - 0.58% (27)
know - 0.58% (27)
here - 0.55% (26)
they - 0.53% (25)
fro - 0.53% (25)
use - 0.53% (25)
led - 0.51% (24)
from - 0.51% (24)
effect - 0.49% (23)
some - 0.49% (23)
tim - 0.49% (23)
more - 0.47% (22)
not - 0.47% (22)
like - 0.45% (21)
search - 0.45% (21)
war - 0.43% (20)
can - 0.43% (20)
about - 0.4% (19)
lie - 0.4% (19)
own - 0.4% (19)
its - 0.4% (19)
research - 0.4% (19)
over - 0.4% (19)
true - 0.4% (19)
what - 0.38% (18)
ice - 0.36% (17)
end - 0.36% (17)
was - 0.36% (17)
their - 0.34% (16)
post - 0.34% (16)
review - 0.34% (16)
than - 0.32% (15)
read - 0.32% (15)
time - 0.32% (15)
very - 0.32% (15)
tom - 0.32% (15)
mind - 0.3% (14)
have - 0.3% (14)
student - 0.3% (14)
able - 0.3% (14)
even - 0.3% (14)
reward - 0.3% (14)
truth - 0.3% (14)
fact - 0.3% (14)
rate - 0.3% (14)
part - 0.28% (13)
see - 0.28% (13)
ben - 0.28% (13)
these - 0.28% (13)
into - 0.28% (13)
other - 0.28% (13)
has - 0.28% (13)
on, - 0.28% (13)
cognitive - 0.26% (12)
them - 0.26% (12)
self - 0.26% (12)
evidence - 0.26% (12)
when - 0.26% (12)
something - 0.26% (12)
benefit - 0.26% (12)
any - 0.26% (12)
often - 0.23% (11)
your - 0.23% (11)
show - 0.23% (11)
were - 0.23% (11)
people - 0.21% (10)
link - 0.21% (10)
where - 0.21% (10)
new - 0.21% (10)
just - 0.21% (10)
also - 0.21% (10)
there - 0.21% (10)
support - 0.21% (10)
exercise - 0.19% (9)
researcher - 0.19% (9)
students - 0.19% (9)
repetition - 0.19% (9)
item - 0.19% (9)
study - 0.19% (9)
good - 0.19% (9)
experiment - 0.19% (9)
need - 0.19% (9)
repeat - 0.19% (9)
head - 0.19% (9)
benefits - 0.19% (9)
hacks - 0.19% (9)
stafford - 0.19% (9)
known - 0.19% (9)
only - 0.19% (9)
being - 0.19% (9)
seem - 0.19% (9)
most - 0.17% (8)
sleep - 0.17% (8)
take - 0.17% (8)
dream - 0.17% (8)
late - 0.17% (8)
way - 0.17% (8)
comment - 0.17% (8)
participants - 0.17% (8)
techniques - 0.17% (8)
will - 0.17% (8)
make - 0.17% (8)
could - 0.17% (8)
things - 0.17% (8)
scientific - 0.17% (8)
author - 0.17% (8)
categories - 0.17% (8)
because - 0.17% (8)
exercises - 0.17% (8)
logical - 0.15% (7)
book - 0.15% (7)
actual - 0.15% (7)
cover - 0.15% (7)
curiosity - 0.15% (7)
researchers - 0.15% (7)
illusion - 0.15% (7)
error - 0.15% (7)
every - 0.15% (7)
real - 0.15% (7)
items - 0.15% (7)
used - 0.15% (7)
cite - 0.15% (7)
phone - 0.15% (7)
psychology - 0.15% (7)
find - 0.15% (7)
test - 0.15% (7)
win - 0.15% (7)
2016categories - 0.15% (7)
help - 0.15% (7)
task - 0.15% (7)
isn’t - 0.15% (7)
set - 0.15% (7)
well - 0.13% (6)
reason - 0.13% (6)
article - 0.13% (6)
rely - 0.13% (6)
true, - 0.13% (6)
forms - 0.13% (6)
psychologist - 0.13% (6)
off - 0.13% (6)
studies - 0.13% (6)
best - 0.13% (6)
paper - 0.13% (6)
page - 0.13% (6)
human - 0.13% (6)
did - 0.13% (6)
torture - 0.13% (6)
does - 0.13% (6)
october - 0.13% (6)
had - 0.13% (6)
each - 0.13% (6)
different - 0.13% (6)
whether - 0.13% (6)
better - 0.13% (6)
under - 0.13% (6)
important - 0.13% (6)
lab - 0.13% (6)
blog - 0.13% (6)
tomstaffordposted - 0.11% (5)
rewards - 0.11% (5)
invest - 0.11% (5)
delay - 0.11% (5)
occur - 0.11% (5)
experience - 0.11% (5)
get - 0.11% (5)
rather - 0.11% (5)
origin - 0.11% (5)
between - 0.11% (5)
enough - 0.11% (5)
both - 0.11% (5)
belief - 0.11% (5)
bit - 0.11% (5)
think - 0.11% (5)
statement - 0.11% (5)
effective - 0.11% (5)
why - 0.11% (5)
active - 0.11% (5)
transfer - 0.11% (5)
explosion - 0.11% (5)
less - 0.11% (5)
likely - 0.11% (5)
mature - 0.11% (5)
university - 0.11% (5)
shallice - 0.11% (5)
sound - 0.11% (5)
heard - 0.11% (5)
hidden - 0.11% (5)
discovery - 0.11% (5)
knowledge - 0.11% (5)
familiar - 0.11% (5)
exploding - 0.11% (5)
claim - 0.11% (5)
mental - 0.11% (5)
power - 0.11% (5)
control - 0.11% (5)
guide - 0.11% (5)
times - 0.11% (5)
would - 0.11% (5)
plea - 0.11% (5)
companies - 0.09% (4)
practice - 0.09% (4)
training, - 0.09% (4)
terror - 0.09% (4)
found - 0.09% (4)
neuroscience - 0.09% (4)
who - 0.09% (4)
idea - 0.09% (4)
schedule - 0.09% (4)
phones - 0.09% (4)
effects - 0.09% (4)
body - 0.09% (4)
simons - 0.09% (4)
cited - 0.09% (4)
‘brain - 0.09% (4)
press - 0.09% (4)
deprivation - 0.09% (4)
reading - 0.09% (4)
experiments - 0.09% (4)
gold - 0.09% (4)
email - 0.09% (4)
guided - 0.09% (4)
false - 0.09% (4)
beliefs - 0.09% (4)
memory - 0.09% (4)
long - 0.09% (4)
same - 0.09% (4)
recall - 0.09% (4)
ability - 0.09% (4)
related - 0.09% (4)
education - 0.09% (4)
feel - 0.09% (4)
product - 0.09% (4)
choice - 0.09% (4)
free - 0.09% (4)
is, - 0.09% (4)
passive - 0.09% (4)
called - 0.09% (4)
learner - 0.09% (4)
performance - 0.09% (4)
general - 0.09% (4)
want - 0.09% (4)
become - 0.09% (4)
allow - 0.09% (4)
structure - 0.09% (4)
media - 0.09% (4)
themselves - 0.09% (4)
break - 0.09% (4)
tasks - 0.09% (4)
psychologists - 0.09% (4)
inside - 0.09% (4)
believe - 0.09% (4)
world - 0.09% (4)
technology - 0.09% (4)
original - 0.09% (4)
ocean - 0.09% (4)
links - 0.09% (4)
science, - 0.09% (4)
back - 0.09% (4)
actually - 0.09% (4)
judge - 0.09% (4)
appear - 0.09% (4)
been - 0.09% (4)
finding - 0.09% (4)
describe - 0.09% (4)
first - 0.09% (4)
once - 0.09% (4)
before - 0.09% (4)
mindhacks.com - 0.09% (4)
against - 0.09% (4)
sometimes - 0.09% (4)
history - 0.09% (4)
report - 0.09% (4)
syndrome - 0.09% (4)
problem - 0.06% (3)
bad - 0.06% (3)
immediate - 0.06% (3)
kind - 0.06% (3)
puzzles - 0.06% (3)
pure - 0.06% (3)
doing - 0.06% (3)
place - 0.06% (3)
three - 0.06% (3)
main - 0.06% (3)
posts - 0.06% (3)
ends - 0.06% (3)
cramming - 0.06% (3)
next - 0.06% (3)
answer - 0.06% (3)
cut - 0.06% (3)
standard - 0.06% (3)
might - 0.06% (3)
question - 0.06% (3)
six - 0.06% (3)
shows - 0.06% (3)
reviewers - 0.06% (3)
treatment - 0.06% (3)
include - 0.06% (3)
facts - 0.06% (3)
understand - 0.06% (3)
without - 0.06% (3)
case - 0.06% (3)
group - 0.06% (3)
here’s - 0.06% (3)
words - 0.06% (3)
moment - 0.06% (3)
training. - 0.06% (3)
taking - 0.06% (3)
papers - 0.06% (3)
may - 0.06% (3)
interrogation - 0.06% (3)
look - 0.06% (3)
seems - 0.06% (3)
tend - 0.06% (3)
ban - 0.06% (3)
little - 0.06% (3)
those - 0.06% (3)
formed - 0.06% (3)
sites - 0.06% (3)
day - 0.06% (3)
published - 0.06% (3)
widespread - 0.06% (3)
matt - 0.06% (3)
date - 0.06% (3)
works - 0.06% (3)
torture. - 0.06% (3)
studies. - 0.06% (3)
(so - 0.06% (3)
blend - 0.06% (3)
results - 0.06% (3)
happens - 0.06% (3)
takes - 0.06% (3)
example - 0.06% (3)
threw - 0.06% (3)
“the - 0.06% (3)
shown - 0.06% (3)
due - 0.06% (3)
reliable - 0.06% (3)
standing - 0.06% (3)
instead - 0.06% (3)
team - 0.06% (3)
products - 0.06% (3)
“a - 0.06% (3)
up, - 0.06% (3)
persuaders - 0.06% (3)
news - 0.06% (3)
obviously - 0.06% (3)
still - 0.06% (3)
simple - 0.06% (3)
round - 0.06% (3)
direct - 0.06% (3)
rule - 0.06% (3)
variable - 0.06% (3)
powers - 0.06% (3)
emphasis - 0.06% (3)
follow - 0.06% (3)
law - 0.06% (3)
two - 0.06% (3)
plausible - 0.06% (3)
wiser - 0.06% (3)
reinforcement - 0.06% (3)
(which - 0.06% (3)
schedules - 0.06% (3)
column - 0.06% (3)
having - 0.06% (3)
regardless - 0.06% (3)
future - 0.06% (3)
focus - 0.06% (3)
september - 0.06% (3)
occurred - 0.06% (3)
lies - 0.06% (3)
let - 0.06% (3)
describes - 0.06% (3)
check - 0.06% (3)
hobson - 0.06% (3)
market - 0.06% (3)
commercial - 0.06% (3)
repeated - 0.06% (3)
cell - 0.06% (3)
system - 0.06% (3)
premature - 0.06% (3)
don’t - 0.06% (3)
explore - 0.06% (3)
category - 0.06% (3)
while - 0.06% (3)
learning, - 0.06% (3)
it’s - 0.06% (3)
habit - 0.06% (3)
name - 0.06% (3)
use, - 0.06% (3)
vault - 0.06% (3)
quire - 0.06% (3)
you’ve - 0.06% (3)
please - 0.06% (3)
pages - 0.04% (2)
arrival - 0.04% (2)
emails - 0.04% (2)
wiki - 0.04% (2)
inspect - 0.04% (2)
half - 0.04% (2)
though - 0.04% (2)
amazon - 0.04% (2)
geologic - 0.04% (2)
hope - 0.04% (2)
stroke - 0.04% (2)
stickgold - 0.04% (2)
“brain - 0.04% (2)
scientifically - 0.04% (2)
2009 - 0.04% (2)
exercises. - 0.04% (2)
simons’ - 0.04% (2)
elaborate - 0.04% (2)
robert - 0.04% (2)
upon - 0.04% (2)
→ - 0.04% (2)
didn’t - 0.04% (2)
ads - 0.04% (2)
sculptural - 0.04% (2)
19, - 0.04% (2)
promoting - 0.04% (2)
… - 0.04% (2)
surface - 0.04% (2)
dream, - 0.04% (2)
give - 0.04% (2)
amusing - 0.04% (2)
mixed - 0.04% (2)
supporting - 0.04% (2)
major - 0.04% (2)
felt - 0.04% (2)
practising - 0.04% (2)
including - 0.04% (2)
marketing - 0.04% (2)
suffer - 0.04% (2)
feed - 0.04% (2)
visual - 0.04% (2)
you, - 0.04% (2)
contact - 0.04% (2)
list - 0.04% (2)
data - 0.04% (2)
currency - 0.04% (2)
106 - 0.04% (2)
done - 0.04% (2)
reported - 0.04% (2)
common - 0.04% (2)
loud - 0.04% (2)
reviews - 0.04% (2)
enhancing - 0.04% (2)
promotion - 0.04% (2)
group, - 0.04% (2)
yet - 0.04% (2)
literary - 0.04% (2)
eyes - 0.04% (2)
flaws - 0.04% (2)
trained - 0.04% (2)
conclude, - 0.04% (2)
last - 0.04% (2)
experiences - 0.04% (2)
reviewed - 0.04% (2)
dreams - 0.04% (2)
never - 0.04% (2)
journal - 0.04% (2)
company - 0.04% (2)
posture - 0.04% (2)
people, - 0.04% (2)
off) - 0.04% (2)
directly - 0.04% (2)
columns - 0.04% (2)
claims - 0.04% (2)
fascinating - 0.04% (2)
crossword - 0.04% (2)
hallucinating - 0.04% (2)
comments - 0.04% (2)
head. - 0.04% (2)
transfer” - 0.04% (2)
ultimate - 0.04% (2)
goal - 0.04% (2)
profiles - 0.04% (2)
park - 0.04% (2)
faces - 0.04% (2)
tell - 0.04% (2)
bodies - 0.04% (2)
i’m - 0.04% (2)
flesh - 0.04% (2)
enigma - 0.04% (2)
imagery - 0.04% (2)
machinery - 0.04% (2)
work? - 0.04% (2)
right - 0.04% (2)
scholars - 0.04% (2)
it. - 0.04% (2)
guard - 0.04% (2)
instinct - 0.04% (2)
minds - 0.04% (2)
judging - 0.04% (2)
feels - 0.04% (2)
relying - 0.04% (2)
quick - 0.04% (2)
repeating - 0.04% (2)
everything - 0.04% (2)
information - 0.04% (2)
piece - 0.04% (2)
be, - 0.04% (2)
fundamental - 0.04% (2)
couldn’t - 0.04% (2)
influence - 0.04% (2)
psychological - 0.04% (2)
emphasise - 0.04% (2)
mad - 0.04% (2)
live - 0.04% (2)
statements - 0.04% (2)
perhaps - 0.04% (2)
actions - 0.04% (2)
food - 0.04% (2)
literature - 0.04% (2)
habits - 0.04% (2)
timing - 0.04% (2)
factor - 0.04% (2)
spend - 0.04% (2)
connecting - 0.04% (2)
ourselves - 0.04% (2)
ideas - 0.04% (2)
should - 0.04% (2)
great - 0.04% (2)
addictive - 0.04% (2)
trap - 0.04% (2)
animal - 0.04% (2)
nautilus - 0.04% (2)
reinforcing - 0.04% (2)
ebook - 0.04% (2)
easier - 0.04% (2)
helping - 0.04% (2)
can’t - 0.04% (2)
true. - 0.04% (2)
gratification - 0.04% (2)
typical - 0.04% (2)
source - 0.04% (2)
so, - 0.04% (2)
key - 0.04% (2)
saw - 0.04% (2)
new, - 0.04% (2)
after - 0.04% (2)
(something - 0.04% (2)
(like - 0.04% (2)
dried - 0.04% (2)
truth” - 0.04% (2)
around - 0.04% (2)
attributed - 0.04% (2)
propaganda - 0.04% (2)
becomes - 0.04% (2)
says - 0.04% (2)
avoid - 0.04% (2)
makes - 0.04% (2)
create - 0.04% (2)
liars - 0.04% (2)
views. - 0.04% (2)
truth. - 0.04% (2)
start - 0.04% (2)
categorised - 0.04% (2)
un-true - 0.04% (2)
scale, - 0.04% (2)
six-point - 0.04% (2)
seemed - 0.04% (2)
judgements - 0.04% (2)
unknown - 0.04% (2)
strongly - 0.04% (2)
items, - 0.04% (2)
earth” - 0.04% (2)
largest - 0.04% (2)
existing - 0.04% (2)
advantage - 0.04% (2)
affect - 0.04% (2)
prior - 0.04% (2)
fazio - 0.04% (2)
repeatedly? - 0.04% (2)
sounds - 0.04% (2)
already - 0.04% (2)
repetition, - 0.04% (2)
really - 0.04% (2)
psychology. - 0.04% (2)
persuasive - 0.04% (2)
almost - 0.04% (2)
training’ - 0.04% (2)
examples - 0.04% (2)
originally - 0.04% (2)
keep - 0.04% (2)
needs - 0.04% (2)
means - 0.04% (2)
located - 0.04% (2)
push - 0.04% (2)
material - 0.04% (2)
showed - 0.04% (2)
learned - 0.04% (2)
project - 0.04% (2)
shapes. - 0.04% (2)
trial - 0.04% (2)
concept - 0.04% (2)
frank - 0.04% (2)
macdonald - 0.04% (2)
augment - 0.04% (2)
instruction - 0.04% (2)
there’s - 0.04% (2)
multiple - 0.04% (2)
appeared - 0.04% (2)
neuropsychologist - 0.04% (2)
findings - 0.04% (2)
scientists - 0.04% (2)
2016october - 0.04% (2)
vaughanbellposted - 0.04% (2)
nyt - 0.04% (2)
interview - 0.04% (2)
many - 0.04% (2)
long-term - 0.04% (2)
guantanamo - 0.04% (2)
subject - 0.04% (2)
washing’. - 0.04% (2)
traces - 0.04% (2)
british - 0.04% (2)
white - 0.04% (2)
basis - 0.04% (2)
sensory - 0.04% (2)
problems - 0.04% (2)
systematic - 0.04% (2)
public - 0.04% (2)
wider - 0.04% (2)
ireland - 0.04% (2)
northern - 0.04% (2)
student-led - 0.04% (2)
another - 0.04% (2)
always - 0.04% (2)
them? - 0.04% (2)
subcortical - 0.04% (2)
entangled - 0.04% (2)
learning. - 0.04% (2)
neurobiological - 0.04% (2)
time, - 0.04% (2)
this, - 0.04% (2)
approach - 0.04% (2)
putting - 0.04% (2)
course - 0.04% (2)
what’s - 0.04% (2)
curiosity, - 0.04% (2)
learningleave - 0.04% (2)
deep - 0.04% (2)
unreliable - 0.04% (2)
going - 0.04% (2)
we’re - 0.04% (2)
conflict - 0.04% (2)
far - 0.04% (2)
friend - 0.04% (2)
checking - 0.04% (2)
circuitry - 0.04% (2)
enhances - 0.04% (2)
answers - 0.04% (2)
documented - 0.04% (2)
strategies - 0.04% (2)
ineffective - 0.04% (2)
sure - 0.04% (2)
tested - 0.04% (2)
it, - 0.04% (2)
familiarity - 0.04% (2)
reliance - 0.04% (2)
metacognitive - 0.04% (2)
such - 0.04% (2)
much - 0.04% (2)
memory, - 0.04% (2)
students’ - 0.04% (2)
however, - 0.04% (2)
both. - 0.04% (2)
fun, - 0.04% (2)
complex - 0.04% (2)
enhanced - 0.04% (2)
exploration - 0.04% (2)
motivated - 0.04% (2)
mere - 0.04% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.04% (2)
of the - 0.72% (34)
brain training - 0.66% (31)
in the - 0.45% (21)
at the - 0.36% (17)
to the - 0.36% (17)
on the - 0.26% (12)
of brain - 0.23% (11)
which i - 0.21% (10)
that the - 0.19% (9)
for the - 0.19% (9)
if you - 0.19% (9)
that i - 0.17% (8)
is that - 0.15% (7)
but the - 0.15% (7)
the review - 0.15% (7)
that a - 0.15% (7)
is the - 0.15% (7)
illusion of - 0.13% (6)
of truth - 0.13% (6)
we can - 0.13% (6)
of these - 0.13% (6)
the brain - 0.13% (6)
in which - 0.13% (6)
this is - 0.13% (6)
from the - 0.13% (6)
evidence for - 0.13% (6)
the illusion - 0.13% (6)
and the - 0.13% (6)
with a - 0.13% (6)
training exercises - 0.11% (5)
tomstaffordposted on - 0.11% (5)
comment on - 0.11% (5)
as the - 0.11% (5)
how we - 0.11% (5)
the effect - 0.11% (5)
benefits of - 0.11% (5)
exploding head - 0.11% (5)
we know - 0.11% (5)
learning is - 0.11% (5)
the most - 0.11% (5)
with the - 0.11% (5)
about the - 0.11% (5)
war on - 0.09% (4)
history of - 0.09% (4)
which the - 0.09% (4)
the same - 0.09% (4)
here is - 0.09% (4)
error to - 0.09% (4)
mind hacks - 0.09% (4)
the benefit - 0.09% (4)
we learn - 0.09% (4)
one of - 0.09% (4)
their own - 0.09% (4)
use of - 0.09% (4)
the hidden - 0.09% (4)
they are - 0.09% (4)
brain training, - 0.09% (4)
on october - 0.09% (4)
in fact - 0.09% (4)
know the - 0.09% (4)
neuroscience and - 0.09% (4)
all the - 0.09% (4)
a comment - 0.06% (3)
the reviewers - 0.06% (3)
the self - 0.06% (3)
and all - 0.06% (3)
– the - 0.06% (3)
related tasks - 0.06% (3)
to have - 0.06% (3)
between the - 0.06% (3)
on brain - 0.06% (3)
is not - 0.06% (3)
focus on - 0.06% (3)
want to - 0.06% (3)
that they - 0.06% (3)
training is - 0.06% (3)
training product - 0.06% (3)
the reward - 0.06% (3)
into the - 0.06% (3)
threw me - 0.06% (3)
used a - 0.06% (3)
and so - 0.06% (3)
what we - 0.06% (3)
tom stafford - 0.06% (3)
terror torture - 0.06% (3)
but they - 0.06% (3)
hidden persuaders - 0.06% (3)
university of - 0.06% (3)
you want - 0.06% (3)
of being - 0.06% (3)
my head - 0.06% (3)
out to - 0.06% (3)
used to - 0.06% (3)
can be - 0.06% (3)
there is - 0.06% (3)
so that - 0.06% (3)
benefit of - 0.06% (3)
is, and - 0.06% (3)
discovery learning - 0.06% (3)
when i - 0.06% (3)
kind of - 0.06% (3)
the best - 0.06% (3)
or how - 0.06% (3)
and other - 0.06% (3)
link to - 0.06% (3)
and psychology - 0.06% (3)
you repeat - 0.06% (3)
set out - 0.06% (3)
known as - 0.06% (3)
on this - 0.06% (3)
how the - 0.06% (3)
truth effect - 0.06% (3)
but also - 0.06% (3)
help you - 0.06% (3)
part of - 0.06% (3)
likely to - 0.06% (3)
on how - 0.06% (3)
of this - 0.06% (3)
to how - 0.06% (3)
the answer - 0.06% (3)
variable reward - 0.06% (3)
but it - 0.06% (3)
to make - 0.06% (3)
need to - 0.06% (3)
whether it - 0.06% (3)
the origin - 0.06% (3)
the actual - 0.06% (3)
where the - 0.06% (3)
active control - 0.04% (2)
so called - 0.04% (2)
make a - 0.04% (2)
lie sound - 0.04% (2)
half of - 0.04% (2)
of those - 0.04% (2)
the results - 0.04% (2)
in support - 0.04% (2)
training products - 0.04% (2)
general benefits - 0.04% (2)
training are - 0.04% (2)
and if - 0.04% (2)
the benefits - 0.04% (2)
the truth. - 0.04% (2)
training can - 0.04% (2)
often enough - 0.04% (2)
review shows - 0.04% (2)
need for - 0.04% (2)
phone use, - 0.04% (2)
than being - 0.04% (2)
for brain - 0.04% (2)
9, 2016categories - 0.04% (2)
does ‘brain - 0.04% (2)
training’ work? - 0.04% (2)
heard of - 0.04% (2)
“brain training - 0.04% (2)
to keep - 0.04% (2)
the idea - 0.04% (2)
ocean is - 0.04% (2)
but is - 0.04% (2)
a major - 0.04% (2)
of your - 0.04% (2)
to support - 0.04% (2)
it affect - 0.04% (2)
support of - 0.04% (2)
be that - 0.04% (2)
the companies - 0.04% (2)
being scientifically - 0.04% (2)
the company - 0.04% (2)
will help - 0.04% (2)
you already - 0.04% (2)
is what - 0.04% (2)
transfer effect - 0.04% (2)
as well - 0.04% (2)
that practising - 0.04% (2)
more likely - 0.04% (2)
that brain - 0.04% (2)
the enigma - 0.04% (2)
in this - 0.04% (2)
what i - 0.04% (2)
things like - 0.04% (2)
rate how - 0.04% (2)
something like - 0.04% (2)
attributed to - 0.04% (2)
my brain - 0.04% (2)
it becomes - 0.04% (2)
lie often - 0.04% (2)
the explosion - 0.04% (2)
and when - 0.04% (2)
of arrival - 0.04% (2)
literary case - 0.04% (2)
september 19, - 0.04% (2)
a literary - 0.04% (2)
case of - 0.04% (2)
the exploding - 0.04% (2)
of whether - 0.04% (2)
true, regardless - 0.04% (2)
at amazon - 0.04% (2)
→ at - 0.04% (2)
seem more - 0.04% (2)
because we - 0.04% (2)
blog at - 0.04% (2)
hacks blog - 0.04% (2)
items are - 0.04% (2)
2016categories inside - 0.04% (2)
seems to - 0.04% (2)
which are - 0.04% (2)
the name - 0.04% (2)
author vaughanbellposted - 0.04% (2)
psychological science, - 0.04% (2)
in brain - 0.04% (2)
that people - 0.04% (2)
for its - 0.04% (2)
well as - 0.04% (2)
the key - 0.04% (2)
time you - 0.04% (2)
to focus - 0.04% (2)
items they - 0.04% (2)
october 3, - 0.04% (2)
vaughanbellposted on - 0.04% (2)
comments on - 0.04% (2)
hallucinating sleep - 0.04% (2)
researchers i - 0.04% (2)
hobson describes - 0.04% (2)
i could - 0.04% (2)
the first - 0.04% (2)
geologic forms - 0.04% (2)
most amusing - 0.04% (2)
profiles of - 0.04% (2)
but this - 0.04% (2)
(which i - 0.04% (2)
the participants - 0.04% (2)
the largest - 0.04% (2)
subject to - 0.04% (2)
effects of - 0.04% (2)
subcortical circuitry - 0.04% (2)
2016categories learningleave - 0.04% (2)
students know - 0.04% (2)
what’s good - 0.04% (2)
for them? - 0.04% (2)
of course - 0.04% (2)
and of - 0.04% (2)
course they - 0.04% (2)
sounds plausible - 0.04% (2)
the mind - 0.04% (2)
this, and - 0.04% (2)
know about - 0.04% (2)
which we - 0.04% (2)
be used - 0.04% (2)
to explore - 0.04% (2)
– so - 0.04% (2)
but we - 0.04% (2)
explore our - 0.04% (2)
curiosity is - 0.04% (2)
false beliefs - 0.04% (2)
how much - 0.04% (2)
often than - 0.04% (2)
which include - 0.04% (2)
reliance on - 0.04% (2)
well we - 0.04% (2)
what happens - 0.04% (2)
and how - 0.04% (2)
in experiments - 0.04% (2)
delay of - 0.04% (2)
can also - 0.04% (2)
get us - 0.04% (2)
us into - 0.04% (2)
rewards trap - 0.04% (2)
for variable - 0.04% (2)
reward schedules - 0.04% (2)
the time - 0.04% (2)
advantage of - 0.04% (2)
the timing - 0.04% (2)
that in - 0.04% (2)
even a - 0.04% (2)
learning in - 0.04% (2)
reinforcement learning - 0.04% (2)
your wiser - 0.04% (2)
the fact - 0.04% (2)
create the - 0.04% (2)
how liars - 0.04% (2)
evidence that - 0.04% (2)
or human - 0.04% (2)
the original - 0.04% (2)
a world - 0.04% (2)
self – - 0.04% (2)
need a - 0.04% (2)
to take - 0.04% (2)
when tested - 0.04% (2)
ineffective study - 0.04% (2)
ocean on - 0.04% (2)
it was - 0.04% (2)
needs to - 0.04% (2)
on more - 0.04% (2)
scale, and - 0.04% (2)
six-point scale, - 0.04% (2)
participants were - 0.04% (2)
the researchers - 0.04% (2)
northern ireland - 0.04% (2)
torture. shallice - 0.04% (2)
the wider - 0.04% (2)
study of - 0.04% (2)
of his - 0.04% (2)
techniques and - 0.04% (2)
even the - 0.04% (2)
the use - 0.04% (2)
on earth” - 0.04% (2)
research on - 0.04% (2)
sensory deprivation - 0.04% (2)
these techniques - 0.04% (2)
addictive cell - 0.04% (2)
largest ocean - 0.04% (2)
be true, - 0.04% (2)
earth” is - 0.04% (2)
the practice - 0.04% (2)
the british - 0.04% (2)
to help - 0.04% (2)
a statement - 0.04% (2)
the answers - 0.04% (2)
guided and - 0.04% (2)
more often - 0.04% (2)
liars create - 0.04% (2)
findings from - 0.04% (2)
pure student-led - 0.04% (2)
students learn - 0.04% (2)
and discovery - 0.04% (2)
we need - 0.04% (2)
some kind - 0.04% (2)
of guided - 0.04% (2)
in learning - 0.04% (2)
for research - 0.04% (2)
something you - 0.04% (2)
would be - 0.04% (2)
you heard - 0.04% (2)
do with - 0.04% (2)
active choice - 0.04% (2)
passive instruction - 0.04% (2)
and to - 0.04% (2)
macdonald and - 0.04% (2)
have to - 0.04% (2)
experiment from - 0.04% (2)
that an - 0.04% (2)
– and - 0.04% (2)
this effect - 0.04% (2)
learning and - 0.04% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.04% (2)
of brain training - 0.23% (11)
illusion of truth - 0.13% (6)
brain training exercises - 0.11% (5)
author tomstaffordposted on - 0.11% (5)
the illusion of - 0.11% (5)
war on terror - 0.09% (4)
in which the - 0.09% (4)
brain training is - 0.06% (3)
brain training product - 0.06% (3)
tomstaffordposted on october - 0.06% (3)
a comment on - 0.06% (3)
of truth effect - 0.06% (3)
if you want - 0.06% (3)
or how we - 0.06% (3)
neuroscience and psychology - 0.06% (3)
of war on - 0.06% (3)
brain training companies - 0.04% (2)
half of the - 0.04% (2)
liars create the - 0.04% (2)
in support of - 0.04% (2)
we know about - 0.04% (2)
‘brain training’ work? - 0.04% (2)
the hidden history - 0.04% (2)
author vaughanbellposted on - 0.04% (2)
will help you - 0.04% (2)
brain training products - 0.04% (2)
as well as - 0.04% (2)
that i was - 0.04% (2)
mind hacks blog - 0.04% (2)
→ at amazon - 0.04% (2)
of the exploding - 0.04% (2)
a literary case - 0.04% (2)
2016categories inside the - 0.04% (2)
the enigma of - 0.04% (2)
of the most - 0.04% (2)
of brain training. - 0.04% (2)
case of the - 0.04% (2)
hobson describes the - 0.04% (2)
but it does - 0.04% (2)
that brain training - 0.04% (2)
shown to have - 0.04% (2)
benefits of brain - 0.04% (2)
of the brain - 0.04% (2)
effects of the - 0.04% (2)
learningleave a comment - 0.04% (2)
use of these - 0.04% (2)
if you repeat - 0.04% (2)
ocean on earth” - 0.04% (2)
is the largest - 0.04% (2)
earth” is an - 0.04% (2)
largest ocean on - 0.04% (2)
ocean is the - 0.04% (2)
a lie often - 0.04% (2)
more likely to - 0.04% (2)
do with the - 0.04% (2)
in the first - 0.04% (2)
is a dried - 0.04% (2)
rate how true - 0.04% (2)
lie often enough - 0.04% (2)
whether it is - 0.04% (2)
true, regardless of - 0.04% (2)
to know the - 0.04% (2)
more often than - 0.04% (2)
of these techniques - 0.04% (2)
a delay of - 0.04% (2)
hidden history of - 0.04% (2)
known as the - 0.04% (2)
mind of the - 0.04% (2)
know what’s good - 0.04% (2)
unreliable rewards trap - 0.04% (2)
self – the - 0.04% (2)
also get us - 0.04% (2)
we need to - 0.04% (2)
but they can - 0.04% (2)
cell phone use, - 0.04% (2)
us into addictive - 0.04% (2)
variable reward schedules - 0.04% (2)
reinforcing your wiser - 0.04% (2)
a world where - 0.04% (2)
of this is - 0.04% (2)
hacks blog at - 0.04% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.