The Limits of Neuroplasticity(sciencebasedmedicine.org)
sciencebasedmedicine.org
The Limits of Neuroplasticity
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-limits-of-neuroplasticity/
4 comments
This study is the biggest bunch of pseudoscience I've seen in ages. 18 participants, of which 17 knew which group they were in. Even if that was 10000 participants, that ratio means that the test is completely invalid!
For what it's worth, that's a problem faced by many drugs with side effects, especially psychoactive ones. Sometimes active placebos are used, as in the magic mushroom studies at Johns Hopkins (I believe they used a stimulant). But even people who've never used psychedelics can probably tell whether they've taken speed or hallucinogens.
I didn't read the study in depth, but the problem you describe is widespread and well-known. Well-known doesn't mean solved, so perhaps you have a better solution?
One option might come from clever experimental design, in which subjects do not know the hypothesis you wish to test. The problem is that this is often guessable - i.e. here subjects might not have known that AP was being tested, but they might have believed mental performance was, and if they thought they were in the treatment group they might have extra confidence, which could confound the results. That's hard to design around in practice, though.
I didn't read the study in depth, but the problem you describe is widespread and well-known. Well-known doesn't mean solved, so perhaps you have a better solution?
One option might come from clever experimental design, in which subjects do not know the hypothesis you wish to test. The problem is that this is often guessable - i.e. here subjects might not have known that AP was being tested, but they might have believed mental performance was, and if they thought they were in the treatment group they might have extra confidence, which could confound the results. That's hard to design around in practice, though.
My lifepartner is weaning off depakote after two years of taking fairly large doses. She's doing that because her doctor thinks it might contribute to her low white blood cells count.
Meanwhile no superpowers were observed.
Meanwhile no superpowers were observed.
"I would also note that valproic acid is a serious drug with serious side effect, including sedation, weight gain, and foggy mentation. As an anti-seizure drug it also carries the possibility of withdrawal seizures if stopped suddenly. I doubt it would have a net cognitive benefit if taken regularly, which is another reason why I am suspicious of the findings of this study."
Yes, this is what made me boggle when this was posted on LessWrong. l33t mindhacking with valproate without close medical supervision is a Darwinian move.
Yes, this is what made me boggle when this was posted on LessWrong. l33t mindhacking with valproate without close medical supervision is a Darwinian move.
But...I also blame the academic journals. Why is it published in the current form when the study was only completed by 18 people. How come the peer reviewers did not insist on toning down the over hyped conclusions. Maybe they should have gone further and refused to publish until a more extensive and reliable follow up study was performed.
In short, the academic world has to stop publishing such marginal results before we blame the media for picking them up and adding another layer or hyperbole.