There is a lot of media attention these days about new "brain health" and "brain training" products. The idea is that brains are like puppies: with practice and treats they can perform better. This could help us make better decisions.
The target market for software like Brain Age and Big Brain Academy is boomers who fear losing their edge to more buff-brained (i.e., younger) competitors. This is despite centuries of evidence showing the endearing drawbacks of young brains when attached to young endocrine, nervous, and other important body parts.
While promising, most of the buzz has no basis in conclusive research, because the new products have no track record.
Until the data roll in, I suggest the following. No software, gadgets, or extra cash are needed.
Here in the bathroom with me are razor blades. Here is iodine to drink. Here are sleeping pills to swallow. You have a choice. Live or die. Every breath is a choice. Every minute is a choice. To be or not to be. Every time you don’t throw yourself down the stairs, that’s a choice. Every time you don’t crash your car, you reenlist. --Chuck Palahniuk
Here is more evidence calling into question the utility of [overly] simple expert judgment.
"When experts were able to think of at least two analogies, forecast
error was reduced by 39%. This structured technique requires experts,
and those with more expertise were able to contribute much more to
making accurate forecasts."
From “The Ombudsman: Value of Expertise for Forecasting Decisions in
Conflicts,” by Kesten C. Green of Monash University in Australia and
J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania. Appears in the INFORMS journal Interfaces, Volume 37. no. 3. Link