In particular: the first reference describes three hypotheses about how oxytocin does what it does (the two described here, plus a third: generalized reduction in anxiety) and says: these all seem kinda plausible, especially the one about increasing the salience of social cues, but we don’t know which if any are actually real and further research is needed to figure that out. Has that further research now been done and decisively confirmed two of the paper’s hypotheses while decisively refuting the third? The paper lists understanding the interactions between these hypothetical mechanisms for oxytocin and the individual context as an open problem. Has further research now been done that conclusively settles that problem?
The claims made in this article seem plausible enough. But it would be useful to know how much support they actually have.
FYI, my solution to my trust issues has been to accept them, and attack the other side of the trust coin: I remain as untrusting as before, I simply care less about the failure modes.
For me personally, this makes things a lot more entertaining. It becomes a game of seeing if I can predict if someone is going to violate my trust or not—I trust them with something trivial and unimportant to see what will happen. I expect and anticipate failure a lot of the time from my lab rats, and am usually pleasantly surprised when I don’t get it.
Over time I build up models of the people I can trust in various ways, but even with the best of them it winds up looking like airport landing times: even the most reliable route fails fairly often, but as long as it doesn’t cause cascading effects that’s ok.
With the job interview, it’s more of a one shot deal. Any solution for that scenario?
I simply care less about the failure modes.
The trouble is I want to be more trusting and open exactly in those instances when I care more about the outcome, when something significant is on the line.
Before using Oxycontin in a job interview I would test it in other settings with lower stakes first.
Nasal Spray Oxycontin doesn’t cross the blood brain barrier.
What Oxycontin actually does seems to be that it makes fascia contract.
It changes fascia tension patterns in your body. Those matter for emotional management and for how you are perceived by other people.
Unfortunately that means the effects are complex and there very little published research on how fascia tension patterns interact with emotions as the psychology department likes to ignore the body and treats it as a black box.
Using OxyContin(tm) for a job interview seems like a distinctly bad idea. Particularly if the employer asks for drug screening.. If you absolutely have to, I suggest sticking with Oxytocin.
I confused the substances and trusted outcomplete when I shouldn’t have. But what I said does apply to fascia speak about Oxytocin (my source is the book Anatomy Trains).
But not everyone does. Some doubt that nasal oxytocin even gets into the brain at all. Oxytocin is a peptide molecule, which means it can’t cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the central nervous system
The timeframe for the effect on fascia seems also to be about right (from Anatomy Trains):
The contraction, when it occurs, comes on very slowly
compared to any muscle contraction, building over 20-
30 minutes and sustaining for more than an hour before
slowly subsiding.
The neuroskeptic says:
many nasal oxytocin studies use a time delay of 30 or 45 minutes.
I think there is more evidence it crosses (two studies with spinal measures) than it does not (0 studies). For (almost) direct measures check out Neumann, Inga D., et al., 2013 and Born, 2002. There are great many studies showing effects that could only be caused by encephalic neuromodulation. If it does not cross it, then it should cause increased encephalic levels of some neurochemical with the exact same profile, but that would be really weird.
Why are you confident in the claims you are making about Oxytocin ?
In particular: the first reference describes three hypotheses about how oxytocin does what it does (the two described here, plus a third: generalized reduction in anxiety) and says: these all seem kinda plausible, especially the one about increasing the salience of social cues, but we don’t know which if any are actually real and further research is needed to figure that out. Has that further research now been done and decisively confirmed two of the paper’s hypotheses while decisively refuting the third? The paper lists understanding the interactions between these hypothetical mechanisms for oxytocin and the individual context as an open problem. Has further research now been done that conclusively settles that problem?
The claims made in this article seem plausible enough. But it would be useful to know how much support they actually have.
I’d be interested in this as well.
I tend to have trust issues, and thought that oxytocin lozenges might make me a little more trusting, and thereby likable, on job interviews.
The premise here seems to be that it would just pump up the paranoia if I have the “anxious attachment style”, which seems likely enough.
One example study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25419499
FYI, my solution to my trust issues has been to accept them, and attack the other side of the trust coin: I remain as untrusting as before, I simply care less about the failure modes.
For me personally, this makes things a lot more entertaining. It becomes a game of seeing if I can predict if someone is going to violate my trust or not—I trust them with something trivial and unimportant to see what will happen. I expect and anticipate failure a lot of the time from my lab rats, and am usually pleasantly surprised when I don’t get it.
Over time I build up models of the people I can trust in various ways, but even with the best of them it winds up looking like airport landing times: even the most reliable route fails fairly often, but as long as it doesn’t cause cascading effects that’s ok.
With the job interview, it’s more of a one shot deal. Any solution for that scenario?
The trouble is I want to be more trusting and open exactly in those instances when I care more about the outcome, when something significant is on the line.
Practice when it doesn’t matter so that it comes as second nature when it does.
Before using Oxycontin in a job interview I would test it in other settings with lower stakes first.
Nasal Spray Oxycontin doesn’t cross the blood brain barrier.
What Oxycontin actually does seems to be that it makes fascia contract. It changes fascia tension patterns in your body. Those matter for emotional management and for how you are perceived by other people. Unfortunately that means the effects are complex and there very little published research on how fascia tension patterns interact with emotions as the psychology department likes to ignore the body and treats it as a black box.
Using OxyContin(tm) for a job interview seems like a distinctly bad idea. Particularly if the employer asks for drug screening.. If you absolutely have to, I suggest sticking with Oxytocin.
I confused the substances and trusted outcomplete when I shouldn’t have. But what I said does apply to fascia speak about Oxytocin (my source is the book Anatomy Trains).
As far as the blood brain barrier goes: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/12/08/spinal-taps-save-oxytocin-research/#.VU-dufntlBc
The timeframe for the effect on fascia seems also to be about right (from Anatomy Trains):
The neuroskeptic says:
I think there is more evidence it crosses (two studies with spinal measures) than it does not (0 studies). For (almost) direct measures check out Neumann, Inga D., et al., 2013 and Born, 2002. There are great many studies showing effects that could only be caused by encephalic neuromodulation. If it does not cross it, then it should cause increased encephalic levels of some neurochemical with the exact same profile, but that would be really weird.