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

81–90 of 118 posts

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

#81

Post by brigandish »

pmoriarty wrote: post #32
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…

Larry Sanger, who cofounded Wikipedia, left Wikipedia to found a competitor named Citizendium, where experts were supposed to play a greater role than on Wikipedia. It failed. The Encyclopedia Britannica, which had articles exclusively written by experts, was also outcompeted by Wikipedia. It's unlikely that Wikipedia is going to change its model to give experts a greater say than they already do, but it would be int…

Britannica is still running, I use it. It certainly doesn't have as many articles nor eyeballs as Wikipedia, but as I wrote above, it's a damn sight better. This outcome would probably have happened - as the example you've given shows - regardless of whether Britannica (and other existing encyclopaedias) had used a different pricing model, which really shows that they're not in direct competition. Same sector, different consumers.

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

#82

Post by ummwhat »

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…

In my personal experience, the demographics of America are about 50% employed in a startup, the median education level is PhD, and the most common religion is Judaism.

Personal experience is hogwash. Everyone is convinced their personal experience is an accurate view of how things really are, and everyone is wrong. I have no idea if the "world's best coconuts pickers first hand experience" is as laughably wrong as my first person experience of American demographics, and I have absolutely no way to find out. Wikipedia standards exist for a reason.

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

#83

Post by ciphol »

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…

How do you distinguish between genuine personal experience (even assuming personal experience is reliable) and lies invented to promote an ideological narrative? Generally they can't be distinguished. Thus Wikipedia disallows both.

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

#84

Post by rvbissell »

ushakov wrote: post #2

check his Wikipedia edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotrophic_electrode > In Neural Signals' implantations of six people, only one had a short lived episode of focal motor seizures and brain swelling leading to temporary weakness on the contralateral side of the body. > That person was me, Phil Kennedy. And here I am writing this addition to the Wikipedia

... and it's gone.

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

#86

Post by tsol »

renewiltord wrote: post #12

This is absolutely crazy cool. Perhaps modern surgical interventions will only progress one crazy risk taker at a time. Reminds me of Werner Forssman and catheterization! An example where overly cautious ethics killed so many people before a brave self-experimenter saved so many lives.

I'm not sure how much he actually accomplished, though. His experiment ultimately had to end prematurely, and his technology isn't be developed. In fact the mainstream is going in a more non-invasive route that could potentially be about as effective. I love the spirit of it, but honestly it is a crazy risk to take and as a researcher his brain is probably more valuable undamaged than as a research subject.

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

#87

Post by goto11 »

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…

There are plenty of sites where anybody can claim they are an expert on anything and expound their expertise. Even here on HN you can get away with claiming you are the world expert in coconut picking, as long as no other coconut pickers turn up in the thread.

Wikipedia follows different standards. Not everything have to be Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/HN.

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

#88

Post by jiggunjer »

jaoa wrote: post #74
throwanem wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't answer the question about the confounding factor.

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

#89

Post by IshKebab »

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…

I agree it's a somewhat arbitrary line, but you can easily work around it by writing a blog post and then citing that. Slightly more work but at least you won't have to deal with the rule nazis. Now if only there was a way to work around the question closers on StackOverflow...

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

#90

Post by bawolff »

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”.

Yeah, but realistically wikiversity doesn't have much to show for it.
Post reply on HN