h a l f b a k e r yWhat was the question again?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Ive tried speed reading. It actually works. immediately a person can jump up to well over 1000 WPM (3000 wpm(?(??))) Yet its just peculiar. I tried the complimentary software where you actually try a quiz on the material viewed. The comprehension was similar.
I read the casual way though as "speed
reading" feels really strange.
This item permits people to speed read while gradually teaching them to appreciate it. (possibly) Basically a laser dot appears on the page then you just place your focus there. The computer also views your eye to see about where you are at. Hurried along to more eye movements you absorb much more material. The computer gives you little "hurrah"s as you follow along ever more rapidly until your style is over a few thousand WPM.
This would make plausible software at augmented reality glasses as well.
Also it could create a completely different improvement of social intelligence. Imagine going to a formal networking event. the casual "unamplified" person notices a few people. The person following the blue dot acquires social cognition of dozens of people which then affects their perception of the group as well as their socialization options. They are speed reading a social occasion.
Now although this is the .5b I will describe a genetic possibility as well. Reading speed is associated with natural spontaneous saccade speed which may have physiological variation between people. Finding people with higher saccade rates might actually find a non CNS improved cognition gene. Rather strangely non CNS medications that increase saccade speed may also improve reading speed or social comprehension thus be a kind of nootropic. One possibility could be mere caffiene attached to a bunch of glycines such that it stayed at the body side of the blood brain barrier causing more rapid eye movement without CNS stimulation.
[link]
|
| |
But don't exhaust that poor word. "Nootropic" hasn't
been out much recently, and it's in danger of
suffering overexposure. Nice word though, up there
with zoonoses. (Actually, Toxoplasma is arguably a
nootropic zoonose.) |
|
| |
yeah this was nearly a tawdry excuse to provide a link to the list of 70 or more new nootropics described at rec.drugs.smart
under the name treon verdery |
|
| |
also wow I didn't know there were nootropic diseases people caught from nonhumans. |
|
| |
******* HB making me look up yet another word I'll never use... waste of brainspace... oh. |
|
| |
//I didn't know there were nootropic diseases
people caught from nonhumans// |
|
| |
Arguably, Toxoplasmosis increases risk-taking but
also speeds perception in a Tourettish-way
(although more subtly). |
|
| |
Thinking about it, there ought to be lots of
parasites and viruses that have evolved far enough
to have a beneficial effect on their host. As long
as they are propagated by a living host (as
opposed to a dead one), it's in the parasite's
interest to keep the host alive and well, if not
super-well. |
|
| |
(sorry - going at a tangent here). |
|
| |
Suppose (to take it to extremis) that a contagious
virus slowed ageing, increased cognitive
functions, or made people happy and gregarious.
Such a virus would have a distinct advantage, no?
So, why are there no such viruses? Or are there? |
|
| |
I
can see how //gregarious//
might increase viral replication, and maybe
//happy// if you narrow the definition of "happy"
to
"unafraid of predators," but longevity and,
especially
increased cognitive function seem more useful to
the host than to the parasite. |
|
| |
Anyway, the maladaptive trait of pathogenicity, in
a virus or bacterium is typically explained away by
supposing the parasite found its niche only
recently, and hasn't yet
fully adapted to it. |
|
| |
At the other end of the spectrum, consiger gut
commensals, and that classic example of a
reformed former parasite, the mitochondrion. |
|
| |
//longevity and, especially increased cognitive
function seem more useful to the host than to
the parasite// |
|
| |
I disagree. A well-adapted parasite, if it does not
depend on the death of the host for propagation,
depends on the survival of its host. The longer
the host lives, the longer the parasite's
environment survives, and the more opportunities
it has to spread to other hosts. The
mitochondrion is an extreme example, but follows
the same rule in its own way. |
|
| |
There is a potential Michael Chritonesque novel
here somewhere. Someone* discovers that giant
tortoises all carry a parasite which confers
longevity. Modifies the parasite to infect humans.
Much hilarity and derring-do ensues, as people
divide into pro-parasite and anti-parasite groups,
and it is eventually discovered that the parasite
causes people to kill eachother over lettuce. |
|
| |
(*probably an earnest young researcher whose
work is hijacked by a money-grubbing arrogant
professor who doesn't understand chaos theory or
the balance of natural ecology.) |
|
| |
Well, yes, exactly. A well-adapted parasite is no
longer a parasite, it's a commensal. The really well-
adapted ones are symbiotes. |
|
| |
Anyway, what about parasites whose life cycle
depends on the host getting eaten? Would
Cysticerca benefit from longevity in pigs? |
|
| |
I wonder if I could interest the WHO in my theory
that smallpox enhanced the intelligence of those
who survived it in childhood. |
|
| |
Technically, parasites are symbiotes. The term for a symbiotic relationship where both organisms benefit is mutualism. |
|
| |
1. Parasitic: A benefits, B suffers. |
|
| |
2. Commensal: A benefits, B is unaffected. |
|
| |
3. Mutualistic: A and B benefit. |
|
| |
Actually, I think self-powered gyms have been done before on the Halfbakery. (note: I speed-read this idea, so apologise if I've missed a few nuances). |
|
| |
//Technically, parasites are symbiotes// Citation
needed. Shall I quote the OED at you? |
|
| |
I just moments ago read about a variation on mitochondria that makes people live two decades longer. http://tinyurl.com/3pat2wp |
|
| |
[mouseposture] I'm always glad to have the OED quoted at me. |
|
| |
I could simply pull rank, by pointing out that I have a biology degree, but Wikipedia (symbiosis) has "The symbiotic relationship may be categorized as mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic in nature." |
|
| |
Like most dictionaries, the OED gives multiple
definitions. Confusingly, the definitions given are
inconsistent with each other. The first is the one I
used (a mutually beneficial relationship). The
second includes both a mutually beneficial
relationship, and also one in which one organism
benefits, and the other neither benefits nor
suffers. The first two definitions explicitly
exclude parasitism. The third definition,
described as rare, is the one you used. The entry
cites several technical works which use the word
as you do. |
|
| |
So, you're correct to use the word as you do, but
incorrect to criticise others for using it otherwise.
I now think I was incorrect for using the word at
all, since, with such confused definitions, it
doesn't do a very good job of conveying meaning. |
|
| |
(And please believe me when I say that I have very
extensive personal experience indicating that
biology degrees do *not* stop one talking through
one's hat.) |
|
| |
Sorry, I wasn't trying to criticise. By 'technically', I meant in technical usage; for instance, ecologists make the distinctions I enumerated, and my biology background biasses me towards the same usage. I'm aware that popular usage differs. |
|
| |