However, it's a long way from proving the Ritalin had anything to do with it.
And since almost everyone here will have some ADHD symptoms, I wanted to point out that this wasn't a scientific point of view and warn against a medication & support group lifestyle.
Our brain is a sophisticated device... even if we're still learning the controls.
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think saying that you can have profound learning experiences in a self-improvement seminar is somewhat less extraordinary than saying you can't!
And you've still not explained why you think you're qualified to comment.
Then you'll be able to cite just one of those studies very easily.
I'll bet you can't.
BTW, I'm specifically looking for one where the double blind was tested by eg asking the patients to guess whether they were on placebo or drug, where the blind was intact and hence the ritalin really did outperform the placebo.
Correct. So we can say that some people who took ritalin improved their behaviour. Not that ritalin regulated their brain or that it's rate dependent or even that it improved their behaviour.
Maybe the mere taking improved their behaviour? Noooo, surely the placebo effect only applies to the other 40+% of the ritalin takers?
Why does Prozac have the same behavioural effect, even though it has a completely different effect on the brain?
Has the double blind ever been tested in a study showing ritalin works better than placebo?
There are no measureable neurotransmitter imbalances. Not unless you're prepared to have your brain sliced very thinly.
No, this doesn't make the whole of psychopharmacology a crock. You also have to prove that neurochemistry isn't dependent on state of mind and that medications work better than placebo -- both unproven;)
In my experience, it will generally do nothing for you. It no direct effect on my memory for example.
In a stimulating environment however, the frequency and quality of those Eureka moments seems to be massively improved.
So I only take it during predictably profound learning experiences eg self-improvement seminars.
I take choline first thing and then 800mg both before the morning & afternoon sessions.
I tried Aniracetam which is good but more expensive; and Hydergine, which provides a cheap synergistic boost but screws up my nasal breathing. Hence neither worth it. Piracetam is cheap enough.
It's extremely likely we have specialised circuits for processing facial expressions since: 1. Our ancestors needed it to be able to perceive threat & attraction in peers. 2. If you see a photo with reversed eyes or mouth, it's recognisable but gives you a very weird feeling.
There's also a circuit that lets us know when we recognise faces, because the unfortunates without it have been diagnosed with Capgras' Syndrome.
It depends whether you take seriously things like knowing someone is looking at you, someone calling just as you're thinking about them, dowsing, spiritual healing, remote viewing etc.
Most scientists don't and will often attack reports of such phenomenon... or demand a more rigorous level of proof that accepted theories about the brain could not provide given similar resources.
And our accepted theories are so flexible, it's not surprising that a plausible explanation can be advanced for phenomenon we accept.
Likewise, if telepathy did exist, we don't know how it works and so we don't know how to set up the experiments. Do we need trained subjects? Do we need to keep doubters from interfering telepathically?
The cards are stacked against "acceptable" proof being provided any time soon.
I don't think that any human being, as we understand ourselves now, can withstand
living past 120 or so years without undergoing some pretty hefty consequences.
Cancer. How much radiation will you absorb over 1000 years? How many parts-per-billion
of the innumerable carcinogens, heavy metals and free-radicals will your body
come in contact and absorb over that much time? The sheer volume of damage to
cells and DNA by these factors, as well as the simple (and natural) mishandling
of our DNA by basic cell division, puts one at a tremendous risk for developing
cancer. Any kind of longevity thereapy would have to be aggressive and continuous
to stave off these problems.
Damaged DNA pretty much IS aging. If you crack this, you're never going
to get old in any physical sense.
Arguably some undamaged genes switch off a number of years. With either
gene therapy or by supplementation, this shouldn't be hard to manage in the
next 50 years.
Apparently our ears continue to get bigger throughout our lives but I'm sure
we can live with that.
Insanity and or lossing the capability to change healthily. How much can
the human mind hold, safely?
A virtually infinite amount - it's not a computer you know. Your brain
is more like a holographic storage system and already has a system for prioritising
on the most important information.
You might very well live to be 1000, but would you still remember the
first 500 years of your life? Even if you remain active, and fight off senility
and alzhimers to the end, you only have so many neurons that are available for
use.
Does it really matter if you can remember every second of your life?
Even assuming that you learn to use the so called unused 85% of your brain,
would your consciousness, your very psyche, be able to withstand so much knowledge
without loosing your sanity? How about just keeping up with current events?
Your brain already processes billions of bits of information per second that
you never need to consciously know about.
Exactly. Nobobdy admits to wanting spam, but obviously there are a whole
lot of people out there opening there wallets to it.
I think a recent Slashdot story mentioned 1 in 40,000. When you consider
the incidence of schizophrenia is 1 in 100, that points to how rare it is.
Of course, while the spammer doesn't have to face the other 39,999 recipients
such minimal popularity can still be profitable.
As far as I'm concerned, spam is not unlike recreational drug-use, prostitution,
or nose-picking in public: You can outlaw it, you can try to chase it out of
your neighborhood, and you can sue its purveyors; but as long as you or the
guy down the street are willing to pay for it, this service will thrive.
There is a big difference. Spammers try to sell things you can buy more
cheaply at legitimate outlets.
The War on Drugs has failed because the demand is not met elsewhere.
Even if supply can be reduced, the price would rise to the point where it becomes
profitable for sellers to take enormous risks.
The documentary footage used varied angles and needed to be convincing historically (aged film, period sets etc). You also knew it was fake and probably have some understanding of video FX.
Compare with the Bin Laden video, which has 1 angle (head on), is blurry and no-one knows what Bin Laden really looks like anyway.
We're also comparing a relatively small TV production budget with US multi billion dollar black-ops budget.
If you saw the Discovery Channel documentaries where they resculpted faces of Hitler, Churchill & Roosevelt onto actors' bodies, it's obvious that we can no longer trust video as an authentic source.
For example, does the recent blurry video of Bin Laden prove that he's still alive?
You might be right. I suspect, however, it would lead to rioting.
For many people, their cars represent freedom. Over a rise in petrol costs, lorry drivers managed to bring Britain to a complete standstill -- and were generally congratulated for it.
You have prompted me to think that if the excess was made explicit eg 10% + 2mph, and if they gradually reduced that published excess whilst simultaneously changing the 100,000 signposts worldwide, then maybe things could change.
However, I don't see a political motivation for such a costly exercise.
* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?
No.
* Prompted cookie setting control?
Yes.
* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations
(gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate
animations of any sort.)
Yes.
* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for
certain sites.
Cookies only. Of course, both Firefox & Opera are inherently more
secure than IE.
Slashdot Mirror
All of which is very worthwhile..
However, it's a long way from proving the Ritalin had anything to do with it.
And since almost everyone here will have some ADHD symptoms, I wanted to point out that this wasn't a scientific point of view and warn against a medication & support group lifestyle.
Our brain is a sophisticated device... even if we're still learning the controls.
Showing your prejudices much? ;)
Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think saying that you can have profound learning experiences in a self-improvement seminar is somewhat less extraordinary than saying you can't!
And you've still not explained why you think you're qualified to comment.
Then you'll be able to cite just one of those studies very easily.
I'll bet you can't.
BTW, I'm specifically looking for one where the double blind was tested by eg asking the patients to guess
whether they were on placebo or drug, where the blind was intact and hence the ritalin really did outperform the placebo.
Correct. So we can say that some people who took ritalin improved their behaviour. Not that ritalin regulated their brain or that it's rate dependent or even that it improved their behaviour.
Maybe the mere taking improved their behaviour? Noooo, surely the placebo effect only applies to the other 40+% of the ritalin takers?
Why does Prozac have the same behavioural effect, even though it has a completely different effect on the brain?
Has the double blind ever been tested in a study showing ritalin works better than placebo?
Something to think about...
What's the test for an ADHD brain and what's the test to show whether it's better regulated?
Just wanted to say that your post was great apart from the above question which is somewhat unfortunate.
If you expect to start feeling your brain age, what are the likely consequences of such an expectation?
feel brain age -> believe getting old -> start acting old -> start bad posture -> start bad health
Here's another:
feel brain age -> notice normal brain underperformance -> expect brain to underperform -> brain underperforms
Technically speaking, the question is both an embedded hypnotic command and a presuppositional pattern.
There are no measureable neurotransmitter imbalances. Not unless you're prepared to have your brain sliced very thinly.
;)
No, this doesn't make the whole of psychopharmacology a crock. You also have to prove that neurochemistry isn't dependent on state of mind and that medications work better than placebo -- both unproven
Obviously you have some problem with self-improvement seminars.
Not entirely sure why you wish to impose it on others.
Since you certainly haven't been to the seminars I've been to, I'm also unsure why you think you're qualified to comment.
Piracetam is fantastic stuff.
In my experience, it will generally do nothing for you. It no direct effect on my memory for example.
In a stimulating environment however, the frequency and quality of those Eureka moments seems to be massively improved.
So I only take it during predictably profound learning experiences eg self-improvement seminars.
I take choline first thing and then 800mg both before the morning & afternoon sessions.
I tried Aniracetam which is good but more expensive; and Hydergine, which provides a cheap synergistic boost but screws up my nasal breathing. Hence neither worth it. Piracetam is cheap enough.
Yes.
Capgras' is a generalised diagnosis, rather than a set of specific damaged neural pathways.
Brains are very complex and vary to some degree.
An interesting article
It's extremely likely we have specialised circuits for processing facial expressions since:
1. Our ancestors needed it to be able to perceive threat & attraction in peers.
2. If you see a photo with reversed eyes or mouth, it's recognisable but gives you a very weird feeling.
There's also a circuit that lets us know when we recognise faces, because the unfortunates without it have been diagnosed with Capgras' Syndrome.
It depends whether you take seriously things like knowing someone is looking at you, someone calling just as you're thinking about them, dowsing, spiritual healing, remote viewing etc.
Most scientists don't and will often attack reports of such phenomenon... or demand a more rigorous level of proof that accepted theories about the brain could not provide given similar resources.
And our accepted theories are so flexible, it's not surprising that a plausible explanation can be advanced for phenomenon we accept.
Likewise, if telepathy did exist, we don't know how it works and so we don't know how to set up the experiments. Do we need trained subjects? Do we need to keep doubters from interfering telepathically?
The cards are stacked against "acceptable" proof being provided any time soon.
When I see so much vehemence arguing an issue, I'm sure that a lot of thought has gone into considering the alternatives.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The US had roughly 200,000 people looking for OBL, Al Qaeda and links between them & Iraq. What have they found?
For all those people locked up forever in Guantanamo - what evidence has been presented for their guilt?
Cancer. How much radiation will you absorb over 1000 years? How many parts-per-billion of the innumerable carcinogens, heavy metals and free-radicals will your body come in contact and absorb over that much time? The sheer volume of damage to cells and DNA by these factors, as well as the simple (and natural) mishandling of our DNA by basic cell division, puts one at a tremendous risk for developing cancer. Any kind of longevity thereapy would have to be aggressive and continuous to stave off these problems.
Damaged DNA pretty much IS aging. If you crack this, you're never going to get old in any physical sense.
Arguably some undamaged genes switch off a number of years. With either gene therapy or by supplementation, this shouldn't be hard to manage in the next 50 years.
Apparently our ears continue to get bigger throughout our lives but I'm sure we can live with that.
Insanity and or lossing the capability to change healthily. How much can the human mind hold, safely?
A virtually infinite amount - it's not a computer you know. Your brain is more like a holographic storage system and already has a system for prioritising on the most important information.
You might very well live to be 1000, but would you still remember the first 500 years of your life? Even if you remain active, and fight off senility and alzhimers to the end, you only have so many neurons that are available for use.
Does it really matter if you can remember every second of your life?
Even assuming that you learn to use the so called unused 85% of your brain, would your consciousness, your very psyche, be able to withstand so much knowledge without loosing your sanity? How about just keeping up with current events?
Your brain already processes billions of bits of information per second that you never need to consciously know about.
Exactly. Nobobdy admits to wanting spam, but obviously there are a whole lot of people out there opening there wallets to it.
I think a recent Slashdot story mentioned 1 in 40,000. When you consider the incidence of schizophrenia is 1 in 100, that points to how rare it is.
Of course, while the spammer doesn't have to face the other 39,999 recipients such minimal popularity can still be profitable.
As far as I'm concerned, spam is not unlike recreational drug-use, prostitution, or nose-picking in public: You can outlaw it, you can try to chase it out of your neighborhood, and you can sue its purveyors; but as long as you or the guy down the street are willing to pay for it, this service will thrive.
There is a big difference. Spammers try to sell things you can buy more cheaply at legitimate outlets.
The War on Drugs has failed because the demand is not met elsewhere. Even if supply can be reduced, the price would rise to the point where it becomes profitable for sellers to take enormous risks.
The documentary footage used varied angles and needed to be convincing historically (aged film, period sets etc). You also knew it was fake and probably have some understanding of video FX.
Compare with the Bin Laden video, which has 1 angle (head on), is blurry and no-one knows what Bin Laden really looks like anyway.
We're also comparing a relatively small TV production budget with US multi billion dollar black-ops budget.
If you saw the Discovery Channel documentaries where they resculpted faces of Hitler, Churchill & Roosevelt onto actors' bodies, it's obvious that we can no longer trust video as an authentic source.
For example, does the recent blurry video of Bin Laden prove that he's still alive?
You might be right. I suspect, however, it would lead to rioting.
For many people, their cars represent freedom. Over a rise in petrol costs, lorry drivers managed to bring Britain to a complete standstill -- and were generally congratulated for it.
You have prompted me to think that if the excess was made explicit eg 10% + 2mph, and if they gradually reduced that published excess whilst simultaneously changing the 100,000 signposts worldwide, then maybe things could change.
However, I don't see a political motivation for such a costly exercise.
Everyone speeds and the speed limits are consequently set excessively low.
Exceeding those limits will never be enforced, and you will never get everyone to simultaneously stop speeding.
Consequently, we're stuck with the status quo, probably whilst civilised society remains the dominant force on this planet.
You make some very important points.
One important distinction is that you control access to the data. Someone can not use it against you without your permission!
This is one of the biggest questions facing our society as we move into the information age:
Who can we trust to make sure no-one abuses the huge amount of information collected about us?
Good post.
Also, Opera recently floated and hence might have changed their accounting standards.
Opera's problems are pretty small:
#1 Firefox is free.
#2 Some sites eg banking are IE-only.
The better Firefox does, the less #2 is a problem.
Opera merely needs to maintain and publicise advantages over Firefox.
Unknown yes, unloved no.
Opera's userbase is as fanatical as Firefox's. Much like BeOS I expect.
The big difference is that BeOS prevents you from using all your other Windows software.
Opera makes every minute you spend browsing pure joy.
Well worth the $$$.
Simple. The Democrats would rather have Bush now and another chance in 4 years. I suspect the Clintons.
It's called "putting a brave face on things".
Should somebody leak an internal memo saying FireFox isn't a threat, then it's newsworthy.
Try Opera.
* Changing the temporary cache path?
Yes.
* No option to clear cache when done?
Yes.
* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?
No.
* Prompted cookie setting control?
Yes.
* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)
Yes.
* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.
Cookies only. Of course, both Firefox & Opera are inherently more secure than IE.