Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

markdown wrote: post #60
wpietri wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of people who think themselves world experts in something is truly enormous. Wikipedia needs to be maintainable by people who aren't topic experts. They can't just go around anointing people that sound expert-y to them, as that would introduce far more bias, western and otherwise. Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.

> Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere. Citation needed.

> > Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.

> Citation needed.

The exact policy under discussion in this sub thread (and, to a lesser extent, the other two in Wikipedia’s trio of core content policies) is exactly a statement of this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_resear...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#72

Post by jaoa »

xwdv wrote: post #10
1024core wrote: post #8

FTA: > For human subjects he would replace the sciatic nerve with a chemical cocktail known to stimulate neural growth. Anyone know what this "chemical cocktail" is they're referring to?

Gotta be Lion’s Mane, or something with it. edit: haters will downvote me but look it up for yourself and upvote if you agree

Maybe not in this case, however Lion's Mane is objectively helpful and has been shown in the literature to be so. Cultures have been eating it in dishes for centuries... As with all nootropics, it's usually better for those who are older.

See science: https://nootritious.com/nootropics/lions-mane/

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#73

Post by sha016 »

The FDA has laid out the ethical groundwork: if a patient has no other options, a safe (sterile) surgery may be performed. It's only because they revoked his approval to use the specific type of implant. Would it really require so much money to demonstrate sterility? Or did Kennedy just not want to have to deal with bureaucracy and barely functional/dying patients and therefore took matters into his own hands? If so I don't blame him; if you can't communicate with your subject it's hard to make sure everything is being done right.

To Kennedy, he had no other options.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#74

Post by jaoa »

throwanem wrote: post #59
xwdv wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I score several points higher consistently in IQ tests, and I have very wild and vivid dreams.

How do you avoid the practice effect as a confounder in frequent IQ testing? Don't get me wrong, if you feel like it helps you then go for it, but objective claims deserve objective evidence.

See https://nootritious.com/nootropics/lions-mane/

Specifically, erinacines and hericenones.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

bawolff wrote: post #19
markdown wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, ha…

And that's a good thing. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability over completeness. Are there downsides to that trade-off? Absolutely. But i would rather that over trusting random people on the internet to know what they are talking about.

Note that Wikipedia has this policy focussed on being a tertiary source; Wikiversity, another Wikimedia project, welcomes original research.

A lot of what people complain about Wikipedia ruling out is in scope for either Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's not a “we don't want that” issue but a “we have structure, and within that structure there is a better place for that”.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#76

Post by lmm »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #45
tux3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, had he published on his personal blog under his name and credentials, it could have been accepted as a reliable source. (Though a Wired article is even better)

Wikipedia insists on secondary sources. Primary sources are not considered acceptable IIRC.

You can use primary sources. There are rules about them and a preference for secondary sources, but no blanket ban.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#77

Post by jakemauer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
bawolff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's a good thing. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability over completeness. Are there downsides to that trade-off? Absolutely. But i would rather that over trusting random people on the internet to know what they are talking about.

Note that Wikipedia has this policy focussed on being a tertiary source; Wikiversity , another Wikimedia project, welcomes original research. A lot of what people complain about Wikipedia ruling out is in scope for either Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's not a “we don't want that” issue but a “we have structure, and within that structure there is a better place for that”.

I didn't know about Wikiversity, thanks for sharing.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#78

Post by theWreckluse »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #66

Not a hero, but a fool. Imagine what would the repercussions for the field be if the surgery went a little worse since it seems so badly planned from the outset? More restrictive regulation against the practice? All major funding either pulled outright or forever tainted with the stigma arising from this endeavor ? I don't know what it is about HN that this forum praises seemingly stupid pursuits such as a neurosurge…

I’m surprised that this is not a more common opinion.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#79

Post by saghm »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #40
bawolff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's a good thing. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability over completeness. Are there downsides to that trade-off? Absolutely. But i would rather that over trusting random people on the internet to know what they are talking about.

You really think a self-proclaimed expert coconut picker would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies about their alleged profession?

No, but I definitely think people would lie about being an expert coconut picker, and I think the number of trolls on the internet who would find it funny to try to get false information into articles vastly outnumbers the number of coconut picker experts who don't have any way to verify their credentials.

Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)

#80

Post by brigandish »

markdown wrote: post #17
sp332 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are mods who would delete that in a heartbeat if they saw it.

Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, ha…

This is why I check Britannica as much as Wikipedia now, especially for any topic that might be touched by politics, such as history, or even science (or especially science, given how bad it's getting on Wikipedia). The quality difference is remarkable, and is just one more counter to my previous assumption of the internet will make everything better!

Ah, young and halcyon days!

Post reply on HN