I don’t see how it can be about oxygen. In the paper I linked, I think they directly add relatively pure carbon dioxide. And the total concentration is 0.1%. So the concentration of oxygen in the air is not really changing.
The texas natural experiment seems like an especially convincing complement to the more artificial setting, thanks for pointing it out.
If you look into this I will leave open the offer to buy certificates after the prize. So far not many takers on the prize, this comment is currently in the lead based on the literature review, not sure if there will be takers closer to the cutoff.
(aside from the sample size)
The sample size is small, but given the effect size I don’t think it even matters that much. The error seems like less than a factor of 2.
taken at face value, with reasonable estimates of how much rooms differ from day to day or week to week, CO2 levels would explain a lot or maybe most of variability in IQ tests or cognitive performance!
This looks right to me (well “a lot,” I don’t think “most”), I assume that something is wrong. An obvious possible culprit is their cognitive test.
I believe the human breathing regulation mechanism (how frequently/deeply you breathe) is driven by CO2 concentrations. So manipulating the CO2 affects the breathing which determines how much oxygen is your body getting.
It’s also unlikely to be about oxygen because oxygen levels that reach the brain in a healthy person depend almost entirely on the amount of saturated haemoglobin, which is 95-100% of Hb in someone without serious lung heart or haemoglobin defects. This means that variability in O2 availability is more dependent on one’s iron level than breathing/air effects. (I disclaim that I haven’t yet looked into literature about O2 chemistry and supply to the brain so may be wrong)
The CO2 hypothesis at least makes some sense because bloodstream CO2 levels vary a bit.
Gwern’s evolutionary argument seems weak because we did not develop in ancestral environments where we could properly trap CO2 (our CO2 sensors mightn’t need to be very sensitive), and for our ancestord it was at least somewhat more important to conserve energy from breathing and somewhat less important to be be so intelligent.
In the paper I linked, I think they directly add relatively pure carbon dioxide. And the total concentration is 0.1%. So the concentration of oxygen in the air is not really changing.
Can’t you apply that argument to oxygen and nitrogen as well? If you are willing to believe that adding a small absolute amount of carbon dioxide can have large effects on the brain, then I don’t see why you would not also be willing to believe that decreasing oxygen (a critical fuel for the brain’s metabolism) by a small absolute amount might have large effects on the brain. Injecting CO2 as they do does control for air variables like mold and temperature and humidity, but I didn’t see anything about also injecting oxygen and nitrogen to independently manipulate the air composition in all 9 possible ways to disentangle which it is. It could be that CO2 is inert, but by pushing out oxygen and reducing oxygen levels has effects; it could be that CO2 is inert but it’s both oxygen and nitrogen, or CO2 is poisonous but is combining with lack of oxygen.
The texas natural experiment seems like an especially convincing complement to the more artificial setting, thanks for pointing it out.
I found it interesting that the anti-mold renovations had such large apparent effects compared to the ventilation and other renovations.
The sample size is small, but given the effect size I don’t think it even matters that much. The error seems like less than a factor of 2.
Small study effects go beyond just sampling error, so they are untrustworthy.
The CO2 intervention is doubling the density of CO2, and decreasing the density of oxygen by < 1%.
Small proportional changes seem unlikely to drive big effects, unless there is some feedback mechanism that is keeping the level precisely balanced. But 1% changes in oxygen should be happening all over the place. It seems much more plausible for doubling the density of CO2 to have a direct effect.
Similarly, the nitrogen intervention is a significant proportional change.
Small proportional changes seem unlikely to drive big effects, unless there is some feedback mechanism that is keeping the level precisely balanced.
Such as in the body, dealing with tightly regulated and critical aspects of metabolism like oxygen consumption.
But 1% changes in oxygen should be happening all over the place.
Perhaps they are. You don’t know the effect because the existing experiments do not vary or hold constant oxygen levels. All you see is the net average effect, without any sort of partitioning among causes.
You don’t know the effect because the existing experiments do not vary or hold constant oxygen levels. All you see is the net average effect, without any sort of partitioning among causes.
Existing experiments do vary oxygen levels systematically, albeit usually unintentionally, by geography. Going up 100 meters from sea level gives you a 1% drop in oxygen pressure and density. If that was enough for a detectable effect on IQ, then even the 16% lower oxygen levels around Denver should leave Coloradans obviously handicapped. IIRC altitude sickness does show a strong effect on mental performance, but only at significantly lower air pressures still.
And they also vary CO2 levels systematically by geography as well; if that was enough for a detectable effect on IQ, then the lower CO2 levels around Denver should make the rest of us at lower altitudes, such as sea level, look obviously handicapped. If you believe the altitude point refutes effects of oxygen, then it must refute effects of carbon dioxide and nitrogen as well...
Which is part of my original point about implausible effect sizes: the causal effect is underidentified, but whether it’s oxygen or CO2 or nitrogen, it is so large that we should be able to see its repercussions all over in things like the weather (or altitude, yes).
It seems possible (I know of no evidence for or against) that human bodies adapt slowly to differences in O2 and CO2 level. In that case, newcomers to Denver might be smarter or stupider for a while, but after (say) a few months they might be back to baseline, but short-term fluctuations (e.g., sitting for a few hours in an office with slightly depleted O2 and slightly raised O2) could still have detectable cognitive effects.
The magnitude of the variation isn’t nearly the same in the O2 vs CO2 cases. “16% O2 reduction is lost in the noise” is devastating evidence against the theory “0.2% O2 reduction has significant cognitive effects”, but “16% CO2 reduction is lost in the noise” is weaker evidence against the theory “66% and 300% CO2 increases have significant cognitive effects”.
I’m not arguing with you about implausible effect sizes, though. We should especially see significant seasonal effects in every climate where people typically seal up buildings against the cold or the heat for months at a time.
Such as in the body, dealing with tightly regulated and critical aspects of metabolism like oxygen consumption.
I meant, changing a level by 1% probably won’t have a huge effect (e.g. 1⁄2 of a standard deviation) unless that level is itself controlled by a homeostatic process (or else has almost no variation).
I don’t see how it can be about oxygen. In the paper I linked, I think they directly add relatively pure carbon dioxide. And the total concentration is 0.1%. So the concentration of oxygen in the air is not really changing.
The texas natural experiment seems like an especially convincing complement to the more artificial setting, thanks for pointing it out.
If you look into this I will leave open the offer to buy certificates after the prize. So far not many takers on the prize, this comment is currently in the lead based on the literature review, not sure if there will be takers closer to the cutoff.
The sample size is small, but given the effect size I don’t think it even matters that much. The error seems like less than a factor of 2.
This looks right to me (well “a lot,” I don’t think “most”), I assume that something is wrong. An obvious possible culprit is their cognitive test.
I believe the human breathing regulation mechanism (how frequently/deeply you breathe) is driven by CO2 concentrations. So manipulating the CO2 affects the breathing which determines how much oxygen is your body getting.
Doesn’t that go the wrong direction? I.e., if you have more CO2, don’t you end breathing more and so having more oxygen?
Yes
Which direction is “wrong”? :-)
You’re dealing with a self-regulating biological system. The relationships between inputs and outputs tend to be complicated.
It’s also unlikely to be about oxygen because oxygen levels that reach the brain in a healthy person depend almost entirely on the amount of saturated haemoglobin, which is 95-100% of Hb in someone without serious lung heart or haemoglobin defects. This means that variability in O2 availability is more dependent on one’s iron level than breathing/air effects. (I disclaim that I haven’t yet looked into literature about O2 chemistry and supply to the brain so may be wrong)
The CO2 hypothesis at least makes some sense because bloodstream CO2 levels vary a bit.
Gwern’s evolutionary argument seems weak because we did not develop in ancestral environments where we could properly trap CO2 (our CO2 sensors mightn’t need to be very sensitive), and for our ancestord it was at least somewhat more important to conserve energy from breathing and somewhat less important to be be so intelligent.
Can’t you apply that argument to oxygen and nitrogen as well? If you are willing to believe that adding a small absolute amount of carbon dioxide can have large effects on the brain, then I don’t see why you would not also be willing to believe that decreasing oxygen (a critical fuel for the brain’s metabolism) by a small absolute amount might have large effects on the brain. Injecting CO2 as they do does control for air variables like mold and temperature and humidity, but I didn’t see anything about also injecting oxygen and nitrogen to independently manipulate the air composition in all 9 possible ways to disentangle which it is. It could be that CO2 is inert, but by pushing out oxygen and reducing oxygen levels has effects; it could be that CO2 is inert but it’s both oxygen and nitrogen, or CO2 is poisonous but is combining with lack of oxygen.
I found it interesting that the anti-mold renovations had such large apparent effects compared to the ventilation and other renovations.
Small study effects go beyond just sampling error, so they are untrustworthy.
The CO2 intervention is doubling the density of CO2, and decreasing the density of oxygen by < 1%.
Small proportional changes seem unlikely to drive big effects, unless there is some feedback mechanism that is keeping the level precisely balanced. But 1% changes in oxygen should be happening all over the place. It seems much more plausible for doubling the density of CO2 to have a direct effect.
Similarly, the nitrogen intervention is a significant proportional change.
Such as in the body, dealing with tightly regulated and critical aspects of metabolism like oxygen consumption.
Perhaps they are. You don’t know the effect because the existing experiments do not vary or hold constant oxygen levels. All you see is the net average effect, without any sort of partitioning among causes.
Existing experiments do vary oxygen levels systematically, albeit usually unintentionally, by geography. Going up 100 meters from sea level gives you a 1% drop in oxygen pressure and density. If that was enough for a detectable effect on IQ, then even the 16% lower oxygen levels around Denver should leave Coloradans obviously handicapped. IIRC altitude sickness does show a strong effect on mental performance, but only at significantly lower air pressures still.
And they also vary CO2 levels systematically by geography as well; if that was enough for a detectable effect on IQ, then the lower CO2 levels around Denver should make the rest of us at lower altitudes, such as sea level, look obviously handicapped. If you believe the altitude point refutes effects of oxygen, then it must refute effects of carbon dioxide and nitrogen as well...
Which is part of my original point about implausible effect sizes: the causal effect is underidentified, but whether it’s oxygen or CO2 or nitrogen, it is so large that we should be able to see its repercussions all over in things like the weather (or altitude, yes).
It seems possible (I know of no evidence for or against) that human bodies adapt slowly to differences in O2 and CO2 level. In that case, newcomers to Denver might be smarter or stupider for a while, but after (say) a few months they might be back to baseline, but short-term fluctuations (e.g., sitting for a few hours in an office with slightly depleted O2 and slightly raised O2) could still have detectable cognitive effects.
The magnitude of the variation isn’t nearly the same in the O2 vs CO2 cases. “16% O2 reduction is lost in the noise” is devastating evidence against the theory “0.2% O2 reduction has significant cognitive effects”, but “16% CO2 reduction is lost in the noise” is weaker evidence against the theory “66% and 300% CO2 increases have significant cognitive effects”.
I’m not arguing with you about implausible effect sizes, though. We should especially see significant seasonal effects in every climate where people typically seal up buildings against the cold or the heat for months at a time.
I meant, changing a level by 1% probably won’t have a huge effect (e.g. 1⁄2 of a standard deviation) unless that level is itself controlled by a homeostatic process (or else has almost no variation).