[Davidp00]

The problem with the authors principles is that they are based on a study[0] that has failed to replicate and was faulty to begin with[1].

[0] Susanne M. Jaeggi, M. B. (2008). Improving Fluid intelligence With Training on Working Memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801268105

[1] Courtesy of it_learnses: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-do...

[projektir]

I'm trying to address the issue without relying on how well given studies replicated, since that's a bit of a minefield in general. A lot of the principles in the parent are much older than the studies. While it would be really great to have solid studies that would confirm one or the other position, it doesn't seem like they exist, so I'm addressing it on a more philosophical level.

[mamon]

If the study result cannot be replicated then the "principles" you refer to are nothing more than superstitions and you can "address them on philosophical level" all you want, that won't make them any more true.

The fact that those things (like challenging yourself, seeking novelty, etc.) are often quoted in context of IQ increase just comes from observing the behaviour of highly intelligent people and then confusing the cause with effect.