hn-classics/_stories/2009/8110654.md

[Source](https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/ "Permalink to Lumosity: a warning to users – indregard.no")

# Lumosity: a warning to users – indregard.no

[Gå til innhold][1]

![indregard.no][2]

[indregard.no][3]

Kritikk av politikk med stikk av komikk.

![][4]

Publisert [28\. mai 20098\. november 2011][5] av [Sigve Indregard][6]

# Lumosity: a warning to users

_Beklager til mi­ne nors­ke le­se­re for at det­te er på en­gel­sk._

[Lumosity][7] is one of those ser­vices you sign up for and en­joy for a whi­le. It measu­res and sup­po­sed­ly tra­ins your cog­ni­ti­ve skills. It com­bi­nes this with your demo­grap­hic data to en­ab­le compa­ri­son with ot­her, si­mi­lar users. Now, this isn't ve­ry im­por­tant data, and this ser­vice could be one of those things whe­re you choo­se to gi­ve up so­me of your pri­vacy in re­turn for a ser­vice.

But I've al­ways be­en puzz­led by sites that de­ny users the op­tion to dele­te their data. In Norway, whe­re I li­ve, this is cle­ar­ly il­le­gal by our own law of pri­vacy. Data re­lated to pe­op­le should not be kept in re­gis­ters for any lon­ger than they are ne­eded, and pe­op­le ha­ve the right to know what data are re­giste­red on them. I found an e-mail address in Lumosity's Terms of Service, and re­quested the dele­tion of my user pro­fi­le. This is the an­swer I got:

> Your in­for­ma­tion and data are pri­va­te, accor­ding to the terms of sign up. If you wish to stop re­ce­i­ving emails, plea­se use the «un­sub­scri­be» link at the bottom of the ori­gi­nal email you re­ce­i­ved, as I can­not ad­mi­nis­ter list changes. Thanks!  
Best,  
Aimee

A bit puzz­led, I re­plied:

> I'm not su­re what to ma­ke of your re­spon­se. I would like you to **dele­te my user account**. Can you plea­se do that? Whether my data is «pri­va­te» or not is mo­re of a se­man­tic ques­tion, gi­ven the terms of ser­vice.

And to­day, I got the re­ply:

> I'm sor­ry, but it's not pos­sib­le for us to com­plete­ly pur­ge your in­for­ma­tion from our sys­tem.  Your in­for­ma­tion is secu­re as our terms and con­ditions sta­te, but if you are wor­ried about your in­for­ma­tion being «out the­re,» I would re­com­mend log­ging in­to your account at [lumosity.com/login][8], then go­ing to «My Account» in the top right cor­ner.  From the­re, you can chan­ge the in­for­ma­tion as­socia­ted with your pro­fi­le.

This got me ner­vous. Why would anyo­ne con­struct a we­b­si­te whe­re the staff can't pur­ge user accounts? After all, the signup terms sta­te that user accounts can be deleted if they are im­per­son­a­tors or mi­nors. Clearly, Lumos Labs we­re ly­ing to me.

This is a pro­blem if the pri­vacy po­li­cy or terms of ser­vice of the com­pany opens up for le­aks of my per­so­nal data. I de­ci­ded to re­ad Lumosity's Privacy po­li­cy, and I was dis­may­ed to find this the­re:

> We may en­han­ce or mer­ge per­so­nal in­for­ma­tion with your ot­her in­for­ma­tion and with data from third par­ties in or­der to bet­ter mar­ket and pro­vi­de our pro­ducts and ser­vices.

In or­der to bet­ter mar­ket their pro­ducts and ser­vices? That in­cludes ma­ny ac­ti­vities, and they are not requi­red to in­form be be­fore­hand. And furt­her­mo­re:

> We em­p­loy ot­her com­pa­nies and pe­op­le to per­form tasks on our be­half and ne­ed to sha­re your in­for­ma­tion with them to pro­vi­de pro­ducts or ser­vices to you. […] Unless we tell you dif­fe­rent­ly, the­se agents do not ha­ve any right to use Personal Information we sha­re with them beyond what is ne­ces­sa­ry to as­si­st us.

Which ba­si­cal­ly trans­lates to: **We sha­re all the data we want with who­e­ver we want as long as it helps us**. For in­stan­ce, it cle­ar­ly «as­si­sts» Lumosity to sha­re the data on my skills to a pay­ing re­cruit­ment agency or uni­ver­sity.

> We al­so dis­clo­se Personal Information when requi­red to do so by law, or in re­spon­se to a sub­poena, court or­der, or ot­her le­gal me­cha­ni­sm, or when we be­lie­ve, in our so­le discre­tion, that dis­closu­re is rea­so­nab­ly ne­ces­sa­ry to pro­tect the pro­per­ty or rights of the Company, third par­ties or the pub­lic at lar­ge.

Again the «good part» is in the fir­st part of the sent­en­ce, and the bad part in the end. They sha­re data if they be­lie­ve it is «rea­so­nab­ly ne­ces­sa­ry» to **anyo­ne** (the com­pany, third par­ties or the pub­lic at lar­ge? That is eve­ryo­ne).

> We re­ser­ve the right to sell, trans­fer or ot­her­wise sha­re so­me or all of our as­sets, in­clu­ding in­for­ma­tion pro­vi­ded by you, in con­nec­tion with a mer­ger, re­or­ga­niza­tion or sa­le of so­me or all of our as­sets or in the event of bank­ruptcy. In any such event, per­so­nal­ly iden­ti­fi­ab­le and ot­her in­for­ma­tion may be one of the as­sets trans­ferred. We will post no­tice be­fore per­so­nal in­for­ma­tion is trans­ferred and be­comes sub­ject to a dif­fe­rent pri­vacy po­li­cy.

Again, this looks rea­so­nab­le at fir­st. But when you com­bi­ne this with their non-deletion-policy, it's not. They can choo­se to sell the in­for­ma­tion about me, if they on­ly no­tice me be­fore­hand. But I ha­ve no way to get out of this, even if they no­tice me. When the in­for­ma­tion is sold, the new pri­vacy po­li­cy will en­ter in­to ef­fect, and that can ef­fec­tive­ly ma­ke my per­so­nal in­for­ma­tion free­ly avai­lab­le to _anyo­ne_. This me­ans Lumosity, if they go bank­rupt, will ma­ke data on my whe­re­abo­uts and cog­ni­ti­ve skills avai­lab­le to anyo­ne inte­rested.

Do al­so no­te that Lumosity has a «fri­ends» fe­atu­re, which is ob­vious­ly a lot mo­re sen­si­ti­ve than the data on your cog­ni­ti­ve skills. I strong­ly re­com­mend again­st using this.

As I said ear­lier, I could agree to ta­ke the risk if this was a free ser­vice, much like I can agree to watch ad­verti­se­ments in Google. But Lumosity costs $ 80 per year, which is a lot for access to so­me flash games. I don't think Lumosity has evil in­tents, but I am not go­ing to pay for it as long as their pri­vacy po­li­cy is this weak. I re­com­mend that you do not eit­her.

_And by the way: The so-called [scien­ti­fic ba­se of Lumosity][9] is bo­gus. One [whi­te pa­per][10] expla­ins how they test for «bet­ter wor­king me­mory» on a group of pe­op­le with an average age of 54. They ran pre- and post-tests using a web ap­pli­ca­tion — one of their games. In betwe­en the­se tests, so­me par­ti­ci­pants used Lumosity's games eve­ry day, whi­le a con­trol group didn't. Unsurprisingly, the con­trol group per­for­med wor­se than the tra­i­ned group — but the con­trol group did al­so im­prove sig­ni­fi­cant­ly. The rea­son, ob­vious­ly, is that both groups got bet­ter at using the **to­ol**. The dif­fe­ren­ce betwe­en the groups is that the tra­i­ned group got to play eve­ry day for fi­ve we­eks (an average of 30 ti­mes be­fore the post-test), whi­le the con­trol group got to play on­ce be­fore the exa­mi­na­tion._

_I can use my­self as an examp­le. When I used the games for the fir­st ti­me, I re­ce­i­ved much wor­se sco­res than the second ti­me. Only at the fifth or six­th **day**, per­haps game num­ber 15 or 16, did my sco­res le­vel out. The im­pli­ca­tion of this is that sco­ring well on Lumosity's games is a skill se­pa­ra­te from my cog­ni­ti­ve abi­lities. Either that, or my pro­blem sol­ving skills went from the low­est tenth of the po­pu­la­tion to the top ten in one we­ek. While I'm su­re the «scien­ti­fic» pre- and post-tests we­re lon­ger than my fir­st play­ing of the games, the ef­fect of fi­ve we­eks of tech­ni­cal tra­i­ning in si­mi­lar games would be far lar­ger than the real ef­fect on their cog­ni­ti­ve skills.  
_

_The re­sults of their games can't — and shouldn't — be in­ter­preted as real es­ti­ma­tes of «me­mory», «at­ten­tion», «proces­sing speed» or any ot­her fa­cul­ty of the brain. It should be in­ter­preted as «skill in Lumosity's games», much like IQ tests measu­re how well you per­form on IQ tests, and litt­le else. The va­li­dity of their measu­re is qui­te sim­ply too low, and in par­ti­cu­lar the va­li­dity of changes over ti­me in the­se games will be even low­er. Furthermore, the ef­fect of re­ad­ing a book or go­ing for a stroll might ve­ry well be stron­ger than the ef­fect of play­ing a com­pu­ter game._

_I am not say­ing Lumosity's games do any harm. The games are fun to play and per­haps they im­prove the brain. The pro­blem is that they might ve­ry well not im­prove the brain. The so-called _scien­ce_ of Lumos Labs does not prove what they claim to be pro­ving. It is **not scien­ce**._

_Disclaimer: I am not a neu­ro­scien­tist. But I do know sta­ti­s­tics.  
_

![Lumositys self-promotion. Note how the control group, who supposedly received no training, mysteriously had an effect.][11]Lumosity's self-promotion. Note how the con­trol group, who sup­po­sed­ly re­ce­i­ved no tra­i­ning, mys­te­rious­ly had an ef­fect.

### More from my site

* ![Ord for ord: «You tell me»][12][Ord for ord: «You tell me»][13]
* ![Ti tips for å komme på trykk][14][Ti tips for å kom­me på trykk][15]
* ![Flokkimmunitet og hverdagsvern][16][Flokkimmunitet og hver­dags­vern][17]
* ![Spørsmålsformuleringen][18][Spørsmålsformuleringen][19]
* ![Morgenbladet passerer VG][20][Morgenbladet pas­se­rer VG][21]
* ![Problematisk fra Creative Commons][22][Problematisk fra Creative Commons][23]

### Del:

* [Klikk for å de­le på Facebook(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][24]
* [Klikk for å de­le på Twitter(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][25]
* [Klikk for å de­le på Reddit(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][26]
* [Klikk for å de­le på Google+(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][27]
* [Klikk for å sen­de det­te med epost til en venn(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][28]
* [Klikk for å skri­ve ut(åpnes i en ny fa­ne)][29]
* ### Lik dette:

Lik Laster...

[Beklager til mi­ne nors­ke le­se­re for at det­te er på en­gel­sk. Lumosity is one of those ser­vices you sign up for and en­joy for a whi­le. It measu­res and sup­po­sed­ly...][30]

Kategorier[Blogging og medier][31] Stikkord[lumosity][32]

##  44 kommentarer til «Lumosity: a warning to users»

1. ![][33] **Rex Newman** sier:

[ 8\. august 2009, kl. 20.31  ][34]

Hei,

I agree with your blog. It is too bad Norway does not ru­le the world. Things would be perfect.

2. ![][35] **Nina** sier:

[ 1\. april 2010, kl. 01.04  ][36]

Their games do not tra­in the co­re brain func­tio­na­li­ty and the brain plas­ti­city, but rat­her su­per­fi­ci­al func­tions such as me­mory, math skills and so on. All of the­se can be prac­ticed (to the le­vel of having an excep­tio­nal re­sult) by al­most anyo­ne, no mat­ter the IQ. A real brain tra­i­ning should dig de­eper in the qua­li­ta­ti­ve brain abi­lities in­ste­ad of the quanti­ta­ti­ve. Lumosity's way of tra­i­ning won't ma­ke anyo­ne smar­ter. That's why I quit 5min af­ter I sig­ned up. Blah, I'm sick of such frauds. I wan­ted to dele­te my account too, but sin­ce the­re is no such an op­tion at least let's ma­ke su­re mo­re pe­op­le know about this fraud.

    1. ![][37] **hanbono** sier:

[ 21\. august 2013, kl. 22.14  ][38]

Superficial func­tions such as me­mory and math skills? It does tra­in both VERY im­por­tant func­tions like the­se, as well as pro­blem sol­ving, flexibility(the abi­li­ty to switch tasks), at­ten­tion and speed. To get a bet­ter wor­king me­mory in da­i­ly li­fe se­ems to be the most im­por­tant ef­fect from the com­bined tra­i­ning, and users of lumo­sity and ot­her mind tra­i­ning sys­tems re­port over­all bet­ter func­tioning.  
If you quit af­ter 5 mi­n­utes you ha­ve rob­bed yours­elf of an op­port­u­ni­ty to a qua­li­ta­tive­ly bet­ter li­fe in my opi­nion, al­so based on my own expe­ri­en­ce with Lumosity and Fit Brains.  
And, to ma­ke my­self com­plete­ly cle­ar: Indregard`s eva­lua­tion of the games should be con­ce­i­ved as theo­re­ti­cal spe­c­u­la­tions. To use spe­c­u­la­ti­ve guesses to whether this kind of brain tra­i­ning real­ly works, is fu­ti­le.

3. ![][39] **Aramis** sier:

[ 21\. april 2010, kl. 08.16  ][40]

I think ur con­cerns are a bit over­blown. Who real­ly ca­res about your game per­for­mance data? Some data should be kept con­fi­nen­ti­al b/c in the wrong hands it can cau­se se­rious dama­ge – how­ever, it's a bit of a stret­ch to call Lumosity's data as such. Plus the plat­form gi­ves you a way to re­main ano­ny­mous – why don't u use that, in­ste­ad of com­pla­i­ning about a low-Low-LOW-LEVEL threat. If you want to help the world, I think u ne­ed to find anot­her area to blog about – the­re are plen­ty.

    1. ![][41] [**indregard][42]** sier:

[ 21\. april 2010, kl. 09.26  ][43]

I don't be­lie­ve there's any real risk, so I would agree that this does not en­ter in­to any pro­gram of «sa­ving the world». I find it, how­ever, troubling to sub­mit in­for­ma­tion on my men­tal skills to an or­ga­niza­tion that lies to me. But as I said, not much risk.

The second part is the wor­st: their pseudo-science is aimed at bam­booz­ling pe­op­le in­to pay­ing for ser­vices (that is: mind­less flash games) they ot­her­wise would not pay for. I be­lie­ve con­su­mer «jour­na­lism» (or blo­gism) has its place in such cir­cums­tan­ces.

    2. ![][44] **Kate** sier:

[ 2\. september 2013, kl. 21.23  ][45]

Here he­re.

4. ![][46] **waster** sier:

[ 28\. januar 2011, kl. 08.59  ][47]

I've do­ne the 5 day trial, thin­king of ex­ten­ding to one mon­th sub­scrip­tion.  
I'm go­ing to sim­ply ig­nore half your ar­ticle which didnt help me a lot with the pri­vacy com­pla­ints. Aramis is right. We ta­ke risks eve­ry day in our li­ves, and your in­for­ma­tion on lumo­sity has got to be one of the low­est risk ever. Your con­cern is right, but it should not ta­ke half the ar­ticle. I'm su­re you can wri­te a book on facebook's pri­vacy. 

Moving on­to the inter­e­s­ting part of the ar­ticle – does it im­prove my cog­ni­ti­ve skills. I liked this part becau­se it will in­flu­en­ce me in sub­scri­bing or not. I don't know what cog­ni­ti­ve skills me­an, but I've play­ed their me­mory brain and I thought it was di­rect­ly lin­ked to my brain's capacity to me­mo­ri­se, as I had to use a lot of brain power to pic­tu­re the til­es in rectang­le. Not too su­re about the rest of the games, but still re­se­ar­ching.

5. ![][48] **dd** sier:

[ 11\. mars 2011, kl. 21.13  ][49]

Well, if even if you're not con­cerned with the pri­vacy of your ga­ming data, you should be mo­re con­cerned with the pri­vacy of your credit card num­ber. 

They sto­re the num­ber, auto­re­new a sub­scrip­tion you ha­ve ne­ver re­quested, bill your account for 90USD wit­hout war­ning, and do not gi­ve re­funds or al­low you to dele­te your credit card num­ber. 

I ha­ve re­ported them to the California Attorney General's Office and the Better Business Bureau. They al­re­a­dy ha­ve se­ve­r­al com­pla­ints.

6. ![][50] **lixMI** sier:

[ 13\. mars 2011, kl. 14.21  ][51]

i agree but not fully. Even though the­y­re JUST maths games they ARE MATHS GAMES right? prac­tice makes perfect but i al­so agree with the pri­vacy po­li­cy thing becau­se it hap­pe­ned to me!

    1. ![][41] [**indregard][42]** sier:

[ 30\. mai 2011, kl. 23.38  ][52]

Expensive math games. That is the point: you'll learn just as much from pretty much any puzz­le game. Lumosity sells sna­ke oil.

7. ![][53] **Narcissist** sier:

[ 23\. mars 2011, kl. 10.57  ][54]

I checked out Lumosity af­ter a re­com­men­da­tion of a fri­end and the si­te ma­de me su­s­pi­cious from the ve­ry start becau­se it didn't se­em cle­ar to me whether it was a free or for pay we­b­si­te. So, they somehow want you to trick in­to sig­ning up, and then, lo and be­hold, the­re is an op­tion to «un­lock full access». Fishy.

I al­so sha­re your skep­ti­cism about the games it­self. Aside from being not es­pec­ial­ly inter­e­s­ting, I didn't see any con­clu­si­ve proof that an im­prove­ment in one of their games me­ant that you ha­ve in­creased the per­for­mance of your brain in one par­ti­cu­lar broad area and not just one sil­ly flash game. Heck, using their ar­gu­men­ta­tion, I could ar­gue that arran­ging all the books in my col­lection by for­mat from big to small, and do­ing this over and over, will ma­ke me smar­ter. :P

    1. ![][55] [**Castor][56]** sier:

[ 30\. mai 2011, kl. 21.12  ][57]

I don´t ca­re about the article´s part about the data, if you ha­ve ope­ned and clo­sed an e-mail account, the data pro­blem is the sa­me. I think it´s rat­her pa­ra­noic to li­ve wor­ried mo­re about lumo­sity than be con­cerned for the mes­sa­ges we send to ot­hers in our eve­ryday li­fe. 

About the second part of the ar­ticle i´m a litt­le bit sur­prised that af­ter being so con­cerned with lumo­sity pos­si­bi­li­ty of fai­lu­re you still think in­tel­li­gen­ce its a real measu­rab­le thing. The con­cept of in­tel­li­gen­ce it´s ve­ry doubt­ful. It´s most a con­cept to com­pa­re pe­op­le abi­li­ty to accom­plish ve­ry ar­bi­tra­ry things that in­clu­de not on­ly cog­ni­ti­ve func­tions but emo­tions, sen­sa­tions and per­cep­tions. 

I pre­fer to think about Lumosity as a tra­i­ning pro­gram to be bet­ter at so­me of the­se func­tions, like do­ing su­do­ku or lear­ning one word a day. 

But if the pe­op­le sign up to be­come in­tel­li­gent and over­come our per­so­nal defects and show that in­tel­li­gen­ce to ot­hers it would be bet­ter to play Call of du­ty that at least ha­ve stats about per­for­mance betwe­en users or eve­rybody will end dis­s­apointed and rob­bed.

    2. ![][41] [**indregard][42]** sier:

[ 30\. mai 2011, kl. 23.37  ][58]

The is­sue is that Lumosity pro­mi­ses in­creases in in­tel­li­gen­ce, and those pro­mi­ses are sna­ke oil: Rather expen­si­ve flash games.

I am not ve­ry con­cerned about my data at Lumosity eit­her. I just think there's so­met­hing ve­ry sha­dy about a bu­si­ness mo­del that says «we don't sha­re your data» and then says «we will not dele­te your data even if you want to». I'd say that sug­gests they are in the data-selling bu­si­ness, and I think that should be spelled out in the terms.

But of cour­se, this is all not­hing mo­re than a me­re itch.

8. ![][59] [**Sean Ruiz][60]** sier:

[ 17\. mai 2011, kl. 13.47  ][61]

Do you've a pre­sen­ce on twit­ter? I can­not se­em to come across Lumosity: a war­ning to users : indregard.no on the we­b­si­te and I would like to con­nect with you the­re. I like your wri­ting style, thanks Sean Ruiz

9. ![][62] **Seferino** sier:

[ 16\. juni 2011, kl. 18.59  ][63]

Yes, the­re is so­met­hing fis­hy about their bu­si­ness prac­tices. They bait & Hook you. They ha­ve ta­ken all the hyper-capitalist tricks right out of the ru­le book. I just feel sor­ry for all you suck­ers who don't can­cel the auto-renew im­me­dia­te­ly… ob­vious­ly you all don't buy enough porn sub­scrip­tions.  
Yes, its Its worth no­ting Dr. Scanlon quit Standford University for so­mewhat re­bel­lious rea­sons… and (they're) ob­vious­ly out to ma­ke mo­ney. I ha­te the «smell» of this part of the si­te.  
However, no­ne of your 1 to 2 we­ek tests are suf­fi­ci­ent­ly long, nor ri­gorous to gi­ve cre­den­ce to your half-complaining, half-«scientificizing» about the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of the  
pro­gram.  
Frankly,neither is mi­ne, yet…  
BUT af­ter 7 we­eks of tra­i­ning 3 ti­mes a day, I went through all the baby-stages you com­pla­in about, «get­ting adept at the games» etc. and initi­al­ly saw gi­ant im­prove­ments in sco­res, mo­ving hund­reds of points in two we­eks. However, it is ONLY af­ter this «game skill» is ma­de ir­re­le­vant, by reaching the li­mits of your abi­lities in using the in­ter­face that the REAL work beg­ins. Then you start to mo­ve on­ly 10 points a we­ek. It doesn't ta­ke on­ly a few days, but we­eks or mon­ths to can­cel out ga­ming skill. Impatient dab­blers will ne­ver see this. Likewise, their con­trolled lab tests we­re ALL do­ne over 19 we­eks or mo­re, plen­ty to can­cel this out, whe­reas your 'trial,' could ne­ver be. 

Furthermore, I ta­ke is­sue with your Disclaimer that you «know sta­ti­s­tics,» in this con­text, becau­se if you had even the ti­nie­st expe­ri­en­ce with the sta­ti­s­ti­cal tes­ting of pe­op­le, you would un­der­stand that hu­mans ne­ar­ly ALWAYS do bet­ter on a test the 2nd ti­me around, which is the on­ly way you can test a be­fore and af­ter sce­na­rio, now isn't it? Its not mys­te­rious, its the way it is tes­ting pe­op­le! Controls al­ways do bet­ter the 2nd ti­me. THAT is the equi­va­lent of 'ga­ming skill.' which even if you can­cel out, still shows im­prove­ment in the Lumosity users

Also, to claim that the re­se­ar­chers at Stanford, Harvard and Columbia, who sup­ply the re­se­ar­ch on which EVERY one of the games is based (such as N-back: wor­king me­mory, etc) aren't prac­ti­cing Science… Is just too nai­ve and ar­gu­men­ta­ti­ve to be explai­nab­le by you being from Norway, and pos­sibly not knowing what the­se cutting-edge Universities re­pre­sent to Science.

I sug­ge­st your re­a­ders re­ad this: <http://www.lumosity.com/blog/the-science-behind-lumosity/> and let them come to their own con­clu­sions about how ho­key the scien­ce is.

    1. ![][41] [**Sigve Indregard][42]** sier:

[ 28\. juni 2011, kl. 17.31  ][64]

Uhm, I think you are being bam­booz­led by their scien­tism. They ha­ve con­trols, yeah, and con­trols do not play much, the treat­ment group plays a lot. After a few we­eks, the con­trols sco­re wor­se than the treat­ment group. We can now con­clu­de that, yes, the­re is a sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ce in the two groups' average skill at the­se games. However, Lumo Labs claim this is due to in­creases in men­tal abi­li­ty. I claim it is becau­se the treat­ment group is much, much bet­ter at the games. You said it yours­elf: It ta­kes we­eks and mon­ths to can­cel out ga­ming skill. Controls did not spend we­eks and mon­ths.

10. ![][65] **Lou** sier:

[ 17\. juni 2011, kl. 06.00  ][66]

I al­so find the lack of «Delete Account» fe­atu­re dis­tur­bing. Seriously? $80 for so­me brain games? for 80 bucks, you can buy a LOT of the­se types of games on the net (Amazing Brain Train, Brain Booster to na­me a few)

11. ![][62] **Seferino** sier:

[ 29\. juni 2011, kl. 02.51  ][67]

Yes, it ta­kes we­eks and mon­ths to can­cel out 'ga­ming skill. We agree, but that doesn't me­an ga­ming skill accounts for all of the im­prove­ments. 

Here's one excerpt from the PDF:  
«(ACTIVE) study was a lar­ge, ran­do­mized, con­trolled trial tes­ting the ef­fects of three kinds of cog­ni­ti­ve tra­i­ning (Ball, et al., 2002). The 2832 par­ti­ci­pants, all 65 years of age or ol­der, we­re random­ly as­sig­ned to one of four con­ditions. One group re­ce­i­ved no tra­i­ning, and served as the con­trol. The three in­ter­ven­tion groups re­ce­i­ved eit­her me­mory, rea­so­ning, or speed of proces­sing tra­i­ning. Participants in each in­ter­ven­tion un­der­went ap­proxi­mate­ly 10 one-hour ses­sions of tra­i­ning over about six we­eks. … A num­ber of inter­e­s­ting re­sults ha­ve come out of this ve­ry lar­ge NIH-funded trial. Unsurprisingly, par­ti­ci­pants in all groups learned to per­form the tra­i­ning tasks mo­re ef­fi­ci­ent­ly. What was mo­re im­pres­si­ve was that the ef­fects of the tra­i­ning ge­ne­ra­lized to measu­res of real-world func­tion. For examp­le, those re­ce­i­ving tra­i­ning show­ed slow­er de­cli­nes in in­stru­men­tal ac­ti­vities of da­i­ly li­ving (IADLs) than the con­trols, and the­se dif­fe­ren­ces we­re sig­ni­fi­cant for the speed of proces­sing and rea­so­ning groups (Willis, et al., 2006).»

6 Weeks is plen­ty, they didn't just get bet­ter at the games, but at IADLs, and it was sta­ti­s­ti­cal­ly sig­ni­fi­cant. Plus they we­re all over 65 years of age. So I'm su­re it can help us, who, I'm as­su­ming, are MUCH youn­ger.

If you know what the NIH is, you'll not say they're scien­ti­fi­ci­zing. Yet I'm un­con­vin­ced we, per­so­nal­ly ha­ve any com­mo­na­lities upon which to ar­gue. Do you li­ve in the US? Do you ha­ve any idea why that is im­por­tant to the cre­di­bi­li­ty of NIH, Harvard, Stanford, etc? I just don't think you want to do your ho­mework, which is un­der­stan­dab­le, your claims just don't hold up to so­me of the re­se­ar­ch of the most emi­nent re­se­ar­ch Universities and Labs in the US.

However, I ap­precia­te your dis­sen­ting voi­ce. I just wish you could point to how tra­i­ning your brain would not be­ne­fit your abi­li­ty to think. Do you think we're just born how we are, wit­hout po­ten­ti­al for chan­ge? How media­eval. If you run, don't you ha­ve mo­re energy? If you lift, don't you get stron­ger? That's not rocket-science. The Brain is the sa­me. Any ot­her point of view is con­ser­va­ti­ve, pes­si­mi­s­tic, and def­eatist. 

We may agree, they ne­ed help in com­mu­ni­ca­tion:

A job Ad for PHD to com­mu­ni­ca­te scien­ti­fic evi­den­ce: <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/sci/2417892930.html>

12. ![][68] **donny** sier:

[ 10\. juli 2011, kl. 17.17  ][69]

when pre­sented with op­tion of in­vi­ting fri­ends to lumo­sity brain tra­in the si­te re­quested my e-mail pas­sword, dodgy-dodgy!! Games are fun but set up pseu­do email a/c to play and do not gi­ve email password- un­less you've a plan!!

13. ![][39] [**Aron09][70]** sier:

[ 10\. juli 2011, kl. 22.51  ][71]

lumo­sity is cool, but check out <http://mathiqgames.com> I ac­tual­ly learned so­met­hing from play­ing those games

14. ![][72] **gary** sier:

[ 28\. august 2011, kl. 22.16  ][73]

I find ma­ny of the re­marks are qui­te va­lid. The en­courage­ment of re­crui­ting fri­ends and use of Face Book dis­turbs me. When you use a social network you lo­se pri­vacy. Any way I am not smar­ter, but the games are fun.

15. ![][74] **BSK** sier:

[ 21\. oktober 2011, kl. 02.47  ][75]

just to add on with re­cent news, now u can of­fi­ci­al­ly dele­te your account in lumo­sity which i see as a good thing. All u ha­ve to do is to go to the help cen­ter and go down to the ques­tion «how to i dele­te my account» and click and you will see the link whe­re you can dele­te your account. Hope i hel­ped :)

16. ![][76] **NB** sier:

[ 31\. oktober 2011, kl. 16.11  ][77]

I´m happy that you can dele­te an account now but my pro­blem now is that I wan­ted to re­ma­ke my account and now it just says that the user­na­me is al­re­a­dy ta­ken!

17. ![][78] **Kelsy Marshall** sier:

[ 3\. november 2011, kl. 20.12  ][79]

I would like to stop all emails to my account.  
Thank you

18. ![][80] **P.J.** sier:

[ 22\. september 2012, kl. 02.22  ][81]

I sig­ned up with lumo­sity but ne­ver com­pleted one ses­sion yet I got an email that I had im­proved on my second test.

19. ![][82] **Frances Tiller** sier:

[ 8\. oktober 2012, kl. 07.48  ][83]

Thankyou for this in­for­ma­tion, as I was just about to sign up, to lu­mi­no­sity. Now I de­fi­nite­ly won't be. I'm appal­led that they think they can hold YOUR INFORMATION…  
So Thankyou, again for brin­ging my at­ten­tion to the flaws in this si­te, Frances Tiller (Australia)

20. ![][84] **T. (UK)** sier:

[ 14\. oktober 2012, kl. 01.32  ][85]

If on­ly we could put you in char­ge of the net po­lice! :-) Well do­ne, thanks for the in­fo, I was go­ing to sign up, but ne­ver «jud­ge a si­te by its ho­me pa­ge» and did so­me re­se­ar­ch. Your blog saved me. Thanks 

21. ![][86] **SteveG** sier:

[ 4\. november 2012, kl. 22.45  ][87]

I sus­pect lumo­sity is used by the NWO as a gua­ge as to how well their 'dum­bing down' tech­ni­ques such as wa­ter fluo­ri­da­tion, atmos­phe­ric aero­sol spray­ing (chem­trails) and HAARP / Satellite / Drone electro­mag­ne­tic ra­dia­tion weapon­ry is wor­king. When they be­gin with the fal­se flag WWIII take­over, they will come for the in­tel­li­gent ones fir­st. I sug­ge­st you stay from any in­tel­li­gen­ce ana­ly­sis sites al­to­gether.

    1. ![][88] [**Erik Borgersen][89]** sier:

[ 27\. november 2012, kl. 10.27  ][90]

I sug­ge­st pe­op­le to stay away from psycho­paths who be­lie­ve in the­se con­spi­racy the­ori­es like you !

    2. ![][91] **John** sier:

[ 6\. desember 2012, kl. 17.26  ][92]

Only fools dis­count un­proved the­ori­es, es­pec­ial­ly when they top it off by slan­de­ring and name-calling. Unless of cour­se you can see the fu­tu­re….

    3. ![][93] **dude** sier:

[ 5\. april 2013, kl. 07.55  ][94]

I'm pretty su­re the guy (ste­veG) was being sar­ca­s­tic.

    4. ![][95] **Fripperton** sier:

[ 26\. oktober 2013, kl. 04.17  ][96]

People ha­ve too much ti­me on their hands if they can spend mo­ney to play so cal­led games. They are pro­bab­ly kee­ping data bases on how you think and react un­der cer­tain cir­cums­tan­ces. Probably a front for the NSA and the Obamanation.

    5. ![][97] **bariola** sier:

[ 21\. mai 2014, kl. 16.44  ][98]

Didn't Lenin and Pol Pot al­so go af­ter the in­tel­li­gent­sia fir­st? I al­ways am su­s­pi­cious of com­pa­nies like this that all of a sud­den start ad­ver­ti­sing on TV 24/7. Where are they get­ting their mo­ney? Well, Lumosity is funded in part by Discovery Communications.

22. ![][88] [**Erik Borgersen][89]** sier:

[ 27\. november 2012, kl. 10.26  ][99]

Yes, I can cle­ar­ly see you are an ana­lyst. Great text !  
I study re­se­ar­ch met­hods and was mes­me­rized by how you ana­lysed the data and crush­ed Lumos «pseudo-science».

23. ![][100] **The Fancy Navigator** sier:

[ 5\. desember 2012, kl. 12.29  ][101]

Excellent post. I re­cent­ly to­ok ad­van­ta­ge of the three-day trial wit­hout of­fe­ring my per­so­nal in­for­ma­tion. I'm still con­fu­sed, as most of my sco­res boa­sted 99 to 100% accu­racy with lightning-fast speed. Yet my BPI is so re­mar­kab­ly bel­ow average. Perhaps they as­su­me this punch-in-the-gut to my ego will con­vin­ce me to pay 14.95 a mon­th in or­der to be smar­ter. Nay, Lumosity: Realistically, I can't ima­gi­ne my speed im­pro­ving any mo­re than a few mil­liseconds or so throug­hout the cour­se of their 'tra­i­ning'. Lumosity does of­fer a few cute games, though the va­rie­ty in their pre-membership tra­i­ning ses­sions was qui­te li­mi­ted. I sup­po­se I'll re­turn to my country-dumb world of wri­ting books and world-travel with the pain­ful know­led­ge that I'm in the bottom 25% per­cen­ti­le of Lumosity users. And I'm okay with that. 

Thanks for the de­tai­led in­for­ma­tion about this pos­sib­le phish­ing si­te. I've come to be­lie­ve, with most in­du­stries, the­re is a fi­ne li­ne betwe­en cutthroat bu­si­ness tac­tics and con­spi­racy. I ha­ve to as­su­me that Lumosity is attemp­ting to do the sa­me thing as most gre­edy American com­pa­nies: Make mo­ney, re­gard­less of the lack of in­tegrity em­p­loy­ed wit­hin their bel­o­ved bu­si­ness mo­del. Hey, whate­ver sto­kes your pro­fit mar­gins…

24. ![][102] **Pat** sier:

[ 4\. januar 2013, kl. 01.56  ][103]

I too fell in­to the bottom quarti­le. Clearly I'll ha­ve to sur­ren­der my long expi­red Mensa mem­ber­ship card.

25. ![][104] **4pattysue** sier:

[ 12\. januar 2013, kl. 23.19  ][105]

They of­fer free trial use of their si­te. If they didn't ca­ta­log your free use and sa­ve your in­fo, you could «free trial» in­de­fi­nite­ly. That would be good bu­si­ness. There could be mo­re sinis­ter de­tails in the mix, but I'd be mo­re like­ly to think they're just pro­tec­ting them­selves from a bu­si­ness stand point. Just a thought.

    1. ![][104] **4pattysue** sier:

[ 12\. januar 2013, kl. 23.20  ][106]

WOULDN'T be good bu­si­ness. Correction. Sorry.

26. ![][107] **Stacey** sier:

[ 26\. mars 2013, kl. 07.06  ][108]

Luminosity,  
may not ha­ve the cor­rect sta­ti­s­tics but it does help a litt­le in a short-term sen­se  
if you keep play­ing the games it helps with cog­ni­ti­ve me­mory so in a sen­se your not real­ly lear­ning any­thing new just en­han­cing so­me al­re­a­dy re­le­vant skills. un­for­tu­nate­ly the sa­me kind of re­sults can be ma­de if we all play­ed a puzz­le game for 10 min a day or play­ed search-and-find games

27. ![][44] **Kate** sier:

[ 2\. september 2013, kl. 21.10  ][109]

Why are you so pa­ra­no­id of some­one knowing you we­re on a we­b­si­te?

28. ![][110] **Sorely Mistaken** sier:

[ 1\. november 2013, kl. 12.27  ][111]

Wowza, I think my one-year sub­scrip­tion was too ha­sty. If on­ly I could ha­ve be­en saved from the­se mo­ney grub­bing, pri­vacy in­va­ding, and fal­se ad­ver­ti­sing cre­tins. 

I knew so­met­hing was way off about that so-called «po­li­cy.» Not gon­na was­te mo­ney though…(sigh), sc­rewed by cor­po­ra­te again.

29. ![][97] **bariola** sier:

[ 21\. mai 2014, kl. 16.48  ][112]

I ta­ke ca­re of my bo­dy, but it's har­der to work out my brain. So, in­ste­ad of re­ad­ing a book, a news ar­ticle or even watch­ing a qua­li­ty do­cu­men­ta­ry, I play dips­hit games on so­me com­pu­ter we­b­si­te. Idiocracy is well un­der­way.

30. ![][113] **Dude** sier:

[ 31\. juli 2014, kl. 01.11  ][114]

I ha­ve a so­lu­tion for you. Tell them you are a mi­nor! Ha!

31. ![][115] **ILoveChocolate73** sier:

[ 2\. september 2014, kl. 15.01  ][116]

Exactly, it is ne­ar­ly all skills. Some I was much bet­ter at than ot­her pe­op­le, how­ever, so­me I was wor­se at than so­me pe­op­le. All it shows is so­me pe­op­le ha­ve strengths in cer­tain areas

Det er stengt for kommentarer.

## Innleggsnavigasjon

[Forrige innleggTidligere Frp remixed][117]

[Neste innleggNeste Perverse insentiver ][118]

## Søk

Søk etter: Søk

## Flattr

[Kritikk av politikk med stikk av komikk.][119]

## Abonner

Oppgi din epost-adresse for å motta varsler om nye innlegg.

Epostadresse 

## Meta

* [Logg inn][120]
* [Innlegg RSS][121]
* [Kommentarer RSS][122]
* [WordPress.org][123]
* [Facebook ][124]
* [Twitter ][125]

[Drevet av WordPress][126]

Send til e-postadresse Ditt navn Din e-postadresse ![loading][127] [Avbryt][128]

E-post ble ikke sendt - Sjekk dine e-postadresser! 

E-postsjekk mislyktes, vennligst prøv igjen 

Beklager, ditt nettsted kan ikke dele innlegg via e-post. 

%d bloggere liker dette:

[1]: https://www.indregard.no#content
[2]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cropped-Deep-Water.png
[3]: https://www.indregard.no/
[4]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/graph1.jpg
[5]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/
[6]: https://www.indregard.no/author/say/
[7]: http://lumosity.com
[8]: http://lumosity.com/login
[9]: http://www.lumosity.com/info/science/results
[10]: http://www.lumosity.com/pdf/lumosity_study.pdf
[11]: http://www.lumosity.com/images/public_website/content/graph1.jpg "Lumositys self-promoting graph"
[12]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/5440393641_2892f718d7_b-150x150.jpg
[13]: https://www.indregard.no/2015/11/20/ord-for-ord-you-tell-me/
[14]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/280909916_f9e30beb32_b-150x150.jpg
[15]: https://www.indregard.no/2013/09/16/ti-tips-for-a-komme-pa-trykk/
[16]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/15138207362_716ba8e140_k-150x150.jpg
[17]: https://www.indregard.no/2015/01/30/flokkimmunitet-og-hverdagsvern/
[18]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/homosexuals-gay-lesbians-150x150.jpg
[19]: https://www.indregard.no/2010/02/12/sp%c3%b8rsmalsformuleringen/
[20]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Skjermbilde-2010-02-16-kl.-13.24.07-150x150.png
[21]: https://www.indregard.no/2010/02/16/morgenbladet-passerer-vg/
[22]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2708324634_8fa06229fa-150x150.jpg
[23]: https://www.indregard.no/2008/11/19/problematisk-fra-creative-commons/
[24]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/?share=facebook "Klikk for å dele på Facebook"
[25]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/?share=twitter "Klikk for å dele på Twitter"
[26]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/?share=reddit "Klikk for å dele på Reddit"
[27]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/?share=google-plus-1 "Klikk for å dele på Google+"
[28]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/?share=email "Klikk for å sende dette med epost til en venn"
[29]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#print "Klikk for å skrive ut"
[30]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/ " Lumosity: a warning to users"
[31]: https://www.indregard.no/category/medier/
[32]: https://www.indregard.no/tag/lumosity/
[33]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cb46c39468430aa5b829ae1dfc04d482?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[34]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-42171
[35]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/24b042edc04b96ca5da93c87475a72ab?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[36]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-42681
[37]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc2494681356b9209e82cfc528a10656?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[38]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47534
[39]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1c1a8129a7e9db6e376212cb1f7a8f9d?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[40]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-42713
[41]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/30c3ae079cf39b23f7e34d5a26c17935?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[42]: http://indregard.no
[43]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-42714
[44]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bfec9baffdfe62ed40fc8316e37b83d6?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[45]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47580
[46]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e52d2bab30cca6b2634e04a6f7642fd4?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[47]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-44379
[48]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6b24b7c20abea8dcbdddc49cccf176df?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[49]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-44626
[50]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/37dd6f75d9aecd12647652deb5f49407?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[51]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-44630
[52]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45030
[53]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7ed3fe8c4e12ba270f81185e0f8c34ce?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[54]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-44640
[55]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b7d22bec16fcf4a63723e2f170d6140b?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[56]: http://www.retonodeloreprimido.wordpress.com
[57]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45028
[58]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45029
[59]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/49696d57ee98f6487f647c331f897232?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[60]: http://www.fark.com
[61]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45007
[62]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/354a0e98fd77fb0b5ac099017ed8c180?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[63]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45199
[64]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45207
[65]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5fd4aac0718174cde9a35cd7c8803811?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[66]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45200
[67]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45208
[68]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a170149e8366d3a268de62eeb2774868?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[69]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45306
[70]: http://mathiqgames.com
[71]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45307
[72]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5a065fac2a9893b6f813b12120817d1d?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[73]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-45874
[74]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/207374b2bfb7e39682291c5edf7b976d?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[75]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-46125
[76]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/31f5b9226ae255c09a5939fd0b1001cb?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[77]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-46156
[78]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f21c5cc38f382084491de0db41966109?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[79]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-46161
[80]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a99492e7b11e4adbb0c61e00a004d053?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[81]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47347
[82]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/26cc64bdb5d71fae8c8941ed34229db6?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[83]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47361
[84]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9170aff2414dab24c7776f84f1cc8235?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[85]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47369
[86]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1f3624718c4008825f1685eee71e4af0?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[87]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47374
[88]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[89]: http://www.facebook.com/people/Erik-Borgersen/100000488403554
[90]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47382
[91]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8685ea12ef9f753c60fe1f53de0b6c98?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[92]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47384
[93]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1bf8dc5c69ab22fc92fcec79dbd91114?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[94]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47464
[95]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/17dba4b85b89f51e9a18feae1d6aa9e6?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[96]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47606
[97]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d36dcaeaba24f5f1e5a3948fe1125aa5?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[98]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47624
[99]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47381
[100]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/05880a9bf2fa68ad9177757898021c84?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[101]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47383
[102]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a6a5edf2e53b33c8e0ba691a87899e70?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[103]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47389
[104]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c22d7002cedaf2998e29270d1e78837d?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[105]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47390
[106]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47391
[107]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/56881ad649c6f321696f6bd6398fc805?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[108]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47463
[109]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47579
[110]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/214669bb26de693015e310db3d341e09?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[111]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47608
[112]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47625
[113]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/81e649868a7d1914a3c92b2af2d50993?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[114]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47646
[115]: https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef18de509db1e334451cdb4ce05a4dc8?s=100&d=identicon&r=r
[116]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/28/lumosity-a-warning-to-users/#comment-47666
[117]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/27/frp-remixed/
[118]: https://www.indregard.no/2009/05/29/perverse-insentiver/
[119]: https://www.indregard.no/ " indregard.no"
[120]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-login.php
[121]: https://www.indregard.no/feed/
[122]: https://www.indregard.no/comments/feed/
[123]: https://wordpress.org/ "Drives med WordPress, toppmoderne personlig publiseringsverktøy."
[124]: http://facebook.com/indregard.no
[125]: http://twitter.com/sigvei
[126]: https://wordpress.org/
[127]: https://www.indregard.no/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/sharedaddy/images/loading.gif
[128]: https://www.indregard.no#cancel

  [*RSS]: Really Simple Syndication