Nudge Podcast Episode Summary Title: Did Nintendo Brain Training Make Me Smarter? Host: Phil Agnew Release Date: October 14, 2024

Introduction

In this episode of Nudge, host Phil Agnew delves into the popular claim that Nintendo's Brain Training games can enhance cognitive abilities. Drawing from personal experience, expert insights, and empirical experiments, Phil investigates whether playing these games truly makes individuals smarter or if it's merely effective marketing.

Nintendo’s Brain Training Claim

Phil begins by recounting his extensive childhood engagement with Nintendo's Brain Training game, motivated by the promise of reducing his "brain age." He states:

"I played the game day after day, hooked on its puzzles, desperately trying to reduce my brain age. I'm not alone."
(00:24)

An Everyday Player echoes this sentiment:

"I feel like this game could positively impact my memory. I think games like this help keep your memory active."
(00:24)

However, skepticism arises with input from Professor Dan Simons, who challenges the scientific validity behind these claims:

"I have no idea what brain age is supposed to even mean or how you'd measure it. There was no neuroscience involved in this, really."
(00:39)

Psychological Tactics in Nintendo's Advertising

Phil analyzes Nintendo's advertising strategies, highlighting several cognitive biases leveraged to persuade consumers:

1. Authority Bias: By featuring Japanese neuroscientist Dr. Kawashima, Nintendo positioned their claims as scientifically backed, enhancing credibility.

2. Negativity Bias: Early ads depicted scenarios where cognitive decline could be mitigated by Brain Training, capturing audience attention by highlighting potential negative outcomes of inaction.

   "We pay attention to negative traits and we remember them. In a 1991 study by Felicia Prater at Berkeley..."
   (04:37)

3. Reactance Avoidance: To counteract resistance to direct claims, Nintendo featured everyday players sharing their positive experiences, making the message more relatable and less authoritative.

   "We don't like being told what to do. If a company says playing this game will improve your memory, we experience reactance."
   (06:12)

4. Halo Effect: By involving celebrities like Nicole Kidman and Patrick Stewart, Nintendo capitalized on the association between celebrity credibility and product effectiveness.

   "These ads really became the silver bullet for Nintendo. Each of these type of ads with the celebrities and the Halo effect..."
   (08:15)

Phil also points out that while some ads effectively engaged viewers, others failed, such as an ad that was quickly pulled due to triggering reactance and disbelief.

Public Perception and Beliefs

To gauge public belief in Brain Training's efficacy, Phil utilized Voxpop Me, conducting a survey with 25 British individuals. The findings revealed overwhelming support for the game's benefits:

• 24 out of 25 participants believed Brain Training kept their minds sharp.
• 13 specifically felt it improved their memory.

An Everyday Player shared:

"I do think that playing this game regularly could influence your mental sharpness."
(12:44)

Phil remarks:

"The voxpopme survey has confirmed what I thought. The vast majority of us genuinely believe that Nintendo brain training works."
(14:51)

Expert Analysis: Professor Dan Simons

Phil interviews Professor Dan Simons, a psychology expert, who provides a critical examination of Brain Training claims:

• Lack of Evidence: Most companies, including Nintendo, failed to provide peer-reviewed evidence supporting broad cognitive benefits.

  "When they did cite peer reviewed work, often it had nothing to do with their product."
  (20:10)

• Narrow Improvements: Simons explains that cognitive training typically leads to improvement only in the specific tasks practiced, not in general cognitive abilities.

  "If you practice a task, you get better at that task with those materials. And changing the materials, you might not show any benefit."
  (16:51)

He draws parallels with the Mozart Effect, another overhyped cognitive enhancement claim that was later debunked:

"The idea that listening to 10 minutes of Mozart could change something that's as stable as IQ... doesn't hold up."
(30:49)

Simons concludes that while brain training games can be enjoyable and improve performance in specific tasks, they do not translate to generalized intelligence or memory enhancement.

Phil’s Experiment: Testing Brain Training Efficacy

To personally test the claims, Phil conducts a five-day experiment:

1. Baseline Measurement: Plays chess against an AI to establish initial cognitive performance, receiving an accuracy score of 70.7 (00:12).

2. Daily Brain Training: Engages in daily Brain Training sessions focused on mathematical puzzles aimed at enhancing the prefrontal cortex.

3. Final Assessment: Repeats the chess game, achieving an improved accuracy score of 86.4 with fewer mistakes (21:18).

Despite this improvement, Phil remains skeptical:

"But does it actually say that brain training made me smarter? Well, I'm not so sure."
(21:40)

He acknowledges that the observed improvement could be due to factors like chance, placebo effect, or prior chess practice, rather than the Brain Training itself.

Conclusions and Takeaways

Phil synthesizes the findings and expert opinions, concluding that:

• Marketing Supersedes Science: Effective advertising and psychological biases can create strong public beliefs in products lacking scientific support.

  "The ads were too effective and Nintendo still makes brain training games today."
  (32:42)

• Cognitive Biases at Play: Authority bias, negativity bias, reactance avoidance, and the halo effect significantly influenced public perception and acceptance of Brain Training claims.

• Scientific Validity: There's no substantial evidence that Nintendo's Brain Training games provide generalized cognitive benefits. Improvements are typically confined to the tasks practiced within the game.

Phil emphasizes the power of marketing in shaping beliefs, urging listeners to critically evaluate such claims.

"The science is clear brain training won't work, and yet millions of us believe the opposite."
(32:42)

Final Thoughts

Phil wraps up by thanking Professor Dan Simons and acknowledging the contributors to his research, including Voxpop Me for facilitating the public survey. He encourages listeners to question marketing claims and remain informed about the psychological tactics that influence consumer behavior.

"Perhaps leave me a review wherever you listen to the podcast. Or perhaps at the very least, please stop telling your kids that brain training games will improve their memory."
(Final segment)

Recommended Reading: Phil recommends Professor Dan Simons' books, Nobody's Foolish and An Invisible Gorilla, for those interested in understanding how ads and cognitive biases influence public opinion.

Links and Resources:

• Books by Dan Simons: Available in show notes.
• Voxpop Me: voxpopme.com – A tool for conducting video surveys and qualitative research.

This comprehensive exploration by Phil Agnew effectively disentangles marketing myths from scientific facts, providing listeners with a critical lens through which to view cognitive enhancement claims.