Compare and contrast https://gwern.net/nicotine
Much better article than the economist one.
Thanks for bringing it to me
What nicotine does to your brain
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#82Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#83Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is stopping you from looking it up. You can even perform the experiment yourself.
> Nothing is stopping you from looking it up. You made the claim. Supporting it is your burden. And a few searches found no comparisons of weight training to other high intensity exercise. Or meditation. Or puzzles. Or nootropics. > You can even perform the experiment yourself. Is this a funding offer? Or ignorance of experiment design?
I’m saying you can do each of those separately for six months, and you’ll probably find the resistance training to be the most beneficial.
It will make your dick harder (or clitoris, whatever), your muscles bigger, your mind clearer, your sense of purpose more apparent. It will increase your bone density, and improve your sense of well being. Things that aren’t doing you any favours will tend to fall by the wayside.
Failing that, asking people who’ve tried the resistance training / puzzles / nootropics / meditation experiment themselves is a low effort way of revealing a pattern.
Imagine it’s 2025, there’s an obesity epidemic, and people still think they can sit around and do fuck all to get well.
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I meant was: Transdermal nicotine prescribed or self-administered for treatment of ADHD / ADHD like symptoms is probably less deleterious for the same patients than an amphetamine prescription.
> Comparing therapeutic use would include sources ideally.
I read that the first time you wrote it and still don’t understand what response you might by trying to elicit.
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#86Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that the first time you wrote it and still don’t understand what response you might by trying to elicit.
You did not understand it was a suggestion to provide sources?
There are no sources because nobody is really studying this, he's just speculating. Which he is allowed to do, since he didn't say it was a true thing. To me, it read very clearly that he was just speculating.
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was, although not sure how healthier or unhealthier it is to smoking tobacco.
You die of mouth cancer instead of lung cancer. So....
Most smokers actually don't die of lung cancer. I think it's something like only 15% of lifetime smokers get lung cancer?
They die of heart disease, mostly, which is caused by... drumroll please... prolonged nicotine use! At least, in part. It's actually more complicated and we don't know for sure.
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beneficial? Yes. The single most beneficial activity? I would not claim this without sources.
Nothing is stopping you from looking it up. You can even perform the experiment yourself.
Performing an experiment yourself means literally nothing. You're just a dude, and your mental state is your mental state. Not all mental state.
For people with certain conditions, like ADHD, the obvious best thing for 'brain fog' is not lifting weights. I'm sure it helps, but that's not top of the list.
Also, lifting weights is just one type of exercise. A lot of studies are actually focused on exercise as a whole, and some only aerobic exercise. I'm sure lifting weights is great, but is it better than, say, running? I'm not convinced.
Re: What nicotine does to your brain
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gwern's page ( https://gwern.net/nicotine ) and personal anecdata seems to go against the claims of nicotine by itself being addictive, especially 'highly addictive'. Smoking (or even vaping) might be 'highly addictive'. But nicotine as eg patches that you glue on your skin doesn't seem to cause much addiction, if any at all.
On the one hand, some webpage and you don't think it's addictive. OTOH, decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed papers, plus the authority of NIH, WHO, and FDA - to name a few - say it is highly addictive.
Where do you come up with your 'thousands of peer-reviewed papers'? The 'some webpage' is by Gwern who usually does a pretty good job surveying the literature. I'd actually trust him over NIH, WHO and FDA here (because Gwern's smart enough to take their opinion into account where it makes sense, and also look out for their biases; not because Gwern's magically smarter than them in general.)