A 'practical' application of some neuroscience principles makes for an interesting article.

Poor application of the word 'hacks' in a link bait title makes for an annoyed me.

Link bait? Are you serious? I don't own SEED magazine, and I have nothing to gain from your clicking on it.

I think it is an appropriate use of the word hack.

Since the producers allow contestants unlimited time to work out answers (as long as they’re not just stalling), I knew that I could employ the most basic of priming tactics: talking about the question, posing scenarios, throwing out wild speculations, even just babbling—trying to cajole my prefrontal neurons onto any cue that could trigger the buried neocortical circuits holding the key to the answer.

...

I tried priming the missing words of the acronym, reiterating “National Collegiate Uh Uh, National Collegiate Uh Uh,” over and over until my synapses finally fired off the complete pattern: “National Collegiate Athletic Association.”

He interpreted the rules cleverly to gain an advantage, in a way that I suspect no one did before, at least not to the extent that he did.

If you don't like the title, suggest a better one, and perhaps the mods will change it.

I didn't intend to imply you had anything to gain from attracting clicks, so I want to withdraw any such accusation as may be inferred.

I was referring to the HN guidelines, specifically that "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." and the general policy of using the source's title wherever possible. I felt adding Hacks was gratuitous spin.

"Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millionaire" tells me more about the story than "Brain researcher hacks ...", but it appears that we have different applications of the word hack, and I respect your explanation.

No worries.

I did consider using the original title, but felt it was a bit cryptic. Maybe it was just me.

FWIW, the original title of the article is absolute rubbish - it's a "clever" title that gives nothing away. I wouldn't have clicked on it. Your title got me in there and I wasn't disappointed.

A 'hack' is basically accomplishing something with a clever trick. He didn't hack the show, he hacked his brain. Although I still think the word 'hack' is inappropriate here anyway.

In what way is it inappropriate?

I know I'm going to get killed, but...

Isn't what he did just good old fashioned thinking?

Most people subconsciously employ (some of) the techniques described in the article, but the author seems to do it consciously. Note that he didn't claim to have invented the methods he used. That's why the article strikes a chord when you read it, but I doubt you would have been able to articulate your memory processes quite as well yourself.

Learning a skill by applying subconscious processes consciously greatly accelerates your mastery of it. People can pick up new languages over a period of a few years, but if you study it immersively, you can do so in a few weeks. That's why this guy is so good (note that most people don't win 500 grand on the show :-), and we can all learn from him.

I've been using priming and other tricks for a few years, and it has had a dramatic impact on my memory. (It has also been a lot of fun for me, but YMMV.) Two days ago, on my nightly jog, I noticed the license plate number of a parked car. Last night, as I started my jog, on a whim I tried to see if I could recall that number. It took a few minutes, as I tried to retrace my brief reflection the previous night on the patterns I noticed in that number, but I was successful. When I went past the car again, I realized I'd correctly recalled the number, and let out a yelp (slightly startling a few passers-by.) Anyways, the incident made an impression on me and made me realize how far my memory has come, so this morning I decided to hunt down this article for the benefit of fellow HN readers.

I got a lot of practice at these 'tricks' while taking a few chemistry classes; all multiple choice. It was excellent practice too since I attended classes but did not study, so the answer was somewhere hidden in my mind, associated to whatever I was thinking about when it was discussed. A large part of it also, as the author also mentioned, is reverse-engineering the question to find likely decoys and falsely intuitive answers.

For those interested, it worked pretty well for itself. On one of the classes, I entered the final with a perfect 80% and got a perfect 90% on the final-- netting an A due one of the instructor's policies.

"People can pick up new languages over a period of a few years, but if you study it immersively, you can do so in a few weeks."

Can you elaborate on this statement? I think a few weeks is a bit of an exaggeration. However, I have known people who have gone from knowing nothing in a language to being able to have normal, everyday conversations in 6 months by being immersed and not being able to talk to anyone in their native language.

Yes, it was very deliberate thinking. Something I don't always do, but I'm sure everyone has done, like when you misplace your car keys.

I'm not buying that his winnings were because of the techniques he used. He is a PHD in an extremely hard discipline. Hes obviously got a brain for information retention and retrieval.

It was a good read, and I'm glad you submitted it. I didn't mean for my comment to imply otherwise.

No man, you got it all wrong. It's called "mind-hacking" now.

I'll certainly try to remember to use priming more often.

Good read, thanks for the link.

I thought this article would be about looking at the reaction of the host while reading each of the answer choices but it was still an interesting read.

I imagine there are people who are able to say a list of words and then know what the person is thinking of based on their reactions.

I would think the host doesn't get the answer until it's "final".

You're probably right but I imagine the host may still know the answers to some of the questions. In that case the answer may be easily discovered and the producers can't quite ask the host if they know the answer to such and such a question.

yeah, I would expect this too. otherwise, it's too easy for the host to slip up or give subtle clues.