Interesting, thanks. (There were too many unhinged comments on Hacker News for this post, so I stopped reading them.
At absolute minimum, I think you show that I was incorrect to claim it’s an established fact that CO₂ is harmful for cognition. And anyway, I don’t need that claim, so I’ve changed it to “sometimes claimed to be”.
Still, it’s interesting to debate if cognitive effects exist. I think the paper at the end (done by the Navy) gives very convincing evidence that the huge effects reported by Satish are not real. If you take Table II, the cognitive test results at 15,000 ppm are indeed worse than at 600 ppm results for 6⁄9 tests. But they’re equal for 2⁄9 tests, and actually better for 1⁄9, and the magnitude where they’re better is the largest of all. They find effect sizes between 0.001 and 0.054, which vaguely suggest a small benefit, but none are statistically significant, and they seem to be using a one-sided estimator.
I guess I’d rate my claim as 90% wrong? Some small effect might exist, but there’s no convincing evidence. So thanks again for the correction!
Yeah, Hacker News is really noisy, that’s why I just linked that specific comment. I didn’t actually read the Navy paper (or any paper regarding CO2), so thanks for the additional point.
I don’t know whether cognitive effects exist at reasonable ppms, but it seems like any real effects would be too small to worth caring for optimizing productivity, so I stopped investigating.
Interesting, thanks. (There were too many unhinged comments on Hacker News for this post, so I stopped reading them.
At absolute minimum, I think you show that I was incorrect to claim it’s an established fact that CO₂ is harmful for cognition. And anyway, I don’t need that claim, so I’ve changed it to “sometimes claimed to be”.
Still, it’s interesting to debate if cognitive effects exist. I think the paper at the end (done by the Navy) gives very convincing evidence that the huge effects reported by Satish are not real. If you take Table II, the cognitive test results at 15,000 ppm are indeed worse than at 600 ppm results for 6⁄9 tests. But they’re equal for 2⁄9 tests, and actually better for 1⁄9, and the magnitude where they’re better is the largest of all. They find effect sizes between 0.001 and 0.054, which vaguely suggest a small benefit, but none are statistically significant, and they seem to be using a one-sided estimator.
I guess I’d rate my claim as 90% wrong? Some small effect might exist, but there’s no convincing evidence. So thanks again for the correction!
Yeah, Hacker News is really noisy, that’s why I just linked that specific comment. I didn’t actually read the Navy paper (or any paper regarding CO2), so thanks for the additional point.
I don’t know whether cognitive effects exist at reasonable ppms, but it seems like any real effects would be too small to worth caring for optimizing productivity, so I stopped investigating.