Old man 1: Life is one trouble after another. I’d be better off dead, better yet, I wish I was never born
Old man 2: True, true, but who has such luck ?.. maybe one in a thousand.
My blog: https://cerebralab.com
I’m also building an open source generic ML library: https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb & https://github.com/mindsdb/lightwood …. which I guess might be of interest to some people here
I’m getting longer term results on all 17 people and will publish everything soon~ish (1-2 months tops)
Had 20 people that were interested in replicating (well, more, but 20 got to a signal group) -- I gave them the protocol and nobody did it (because taking 1⁄4 to 1/3rd of your day to do something is hard)
I have data in n=17 people (but like, only 6 did the protocol, 1 dropout) - That looks pretty good and I want to have everyone retake the tests at some point to see if the effect holds over time.
However I took on a lot of projects in the meanwhile so I kinda lost track of this one.
Yes, that sounds about correct to me.
That is more like, a monitoring device based on NIR (which has little to no relation to the stimulation effect of NIR)
All of these issues are resolved by having controls and by the variance within control.
Using different tests, given that the results don’t correlate very well, would be a mistake.
Increasing blood flow to the large masseter muscles seems to have a broadly stimulating effect on blood flow to the head in general. You can buy unflavored gum for cheap, or xylitol gum which has a positive side effect on decreasing cavity formation.
Never thought about this one, quite interesting 🙃
So, if we are trying to prove something like:
Plane A flies faster than plane B
We do indeed need to make sure plane A and plane B are the same in all instances, I’d say that engineering not science, but in the last 50 years little science has happened so people seem to confuse the two.
If we are trying to prove something like:
Planes can fly
Then the specific plane design is less important.
My point here is something like “I did a thing, and people seem to have higher IQs upon retesting than control, and I’m controlling for things like motivation, memorization, exercise and diet” therefore, given that we don’t expect anything (maybe sans stimulants?) to increase IQ, or at least anything besides going from slob to active lifestyle wise, this finding is interesting.
If you already believe that this sort of increase is possible and easy then without me comparing it with other such experiments and outlining my method precisely in a way that a 3rd party can replicate—the claim would be useless.
But that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying “Nobody has ever tried to take a cohort of adults at +1 to +3 STDs of IQ and have it improve”, I did (well, people did it and I collected the data) and it seems possible, therefore something interesting is happening. Given that most people here would say this thing is not possible, this should be an update that it’s possible.
I don’t want to update on the precise step-by-step method by which it’s possible, much like, if I had a crappy plane design and saw it fly, I wouldn’t want people to replicate my crappy plane design, I’d want people to try and design better planes, after updating on the fact that building planes is, in principle, possible.
This goes doubly so if by publishing the exact plane design the FAA would sue me.
pinged you in DMs :) Happy to share, I don’t need a liability waver just making sure people understand this is not medical advice, I am not a doctor+ not being assholes
That all sounds to me like increasing IQ ?
Like, if shape rotation is an underlying component of many valuable cognitive processes (e.g. math) and you get better at it in a generic way (not learning for the test)… that’s getting smarter
memory tests are included within the FSIQ evaluation
That’s learning effects (: The tests are the same because psychometry is BS and IQ tests aren’t designed to be retaken (even though people, for some reason, make claims about IQ increases/decreases)
actually—dmed you my signal, ping there
Can you send me your email and phone number?
If you can get a motivated group together I might be able to fund you replicating it as long as you’re ok being scrappy because I don’t have that much money to throw at this
I agree, that’s why I did that :)
Within the article you can find examples of that:
-> Control before vs control after p values are provided (not looking good, p value within group alone is insufficient, can capture learning, hence why I do a between group % change test)
-> Control before vs after for verbal IQ (significant—learning effect / motivation / shorter time between tests ?)
-> Intervention before vs after for verbal IQ (no significant—backs up hypothesis that this works for fluid IQ only, and the control effect is learning + the advantages on time & motivation)
No idea, I would re-do the tests on myself but I was semi-present for the replication so I’d rather wait more time.
All 3 of us might try to re-do the tests in a month and I can get 4-5 controls to re-do them too. Then I’d have numbers 1 month in.
This is also an important question for me.
With whom ?
I think the point is being missed here, I’m saying if you solve aging at the level of a head now body-transplant becomes viable, otherwise you’re indeed just stuck with an old mind.
As for parabiosis approaches, the sens take, etc—My personal take is that it’s hogwashy, biology is a faulty paradigm that hasn’t yielded relevant results in 80+ years, primary gains in solving diseases come from diagnosis criteria being shifted, gains in mortality reduction are solving at the mean not at the edges (e.g. removing pollution, better ERs, broader vaccine and antibiotic distribution, reduction in youths dying, reduced childhood mortality—stuff that is a distribution and production problem as of 100 years ago, not a scientific venture)