CasioTheSane

Karma: 523

CasioTheSane 27 Feb 2025 19:23 UTC
10 points
6
in reply to: cubefox’s comment on: You can just wear a suit
As I mentioned, I do actually sometimes get negative feedback from people, but overall the effect is positive, because it causes people to interact with me spontaneously when I have trouble initiating social interactions, and I’ve made quite a few good friends just from that. Being polarizing is way better than being neutral for meeting people and making friends. I also suspect being avoided by a person that would negatively judge someone they don’t know just for wearing a hat is probably also a positive thing. It’s a functional thing I need because I’m bald with pale skin and spend a lot of time outdoors in a sunny climate, so people that think that is “cringe” are most likely not nice people. I didn’t choose to be bald, or sun sensitive, and haven’t found anything else that works as well- and trust me I tried because I felt very awkward about wearing a noticeable hat at first. I would liken that to thinking eyeglasses, a wheelchair, or a cane are cringe.
Once I was publically mocked by a group of guys in eastern Europe (Czech Republic) that thought it was hilarious that I was probably a local, trying to dress like an American cowboy or something. It made their day, and mine when I responded verbally with an American accent, and they started apologizing and laughing.

CasioTheSane 27 Feb 2025 17:18 UTC
0 points
0
on: How to Make Superbabies
While I think finding ways to make future generations healthier and smarter is a worthy goal, I don’t think we understand enough yet to do this without potentially severe unintended consequences, and I wouldn’t consider doing it myself with our current technology. It’s a good bet that many of the seemingly deleterious mutations we’d like to eliminate also offer some benefit we don’t understand- given that we have already discovered many instances of mutations with apparent intelligence/health tradeoffs, and disease resistance/health tradeoffs. If you’re selecting embryo populations for mutations correlated with specific desirable traits, you should also expect that you are selecting for worse outcomes in all other potentially desirable dimensions including those that are potentially even more important than those optimized for, but we have no clear concept of, or labels for. If you do this at scale, you’re also systematically selecting for a less diverse, less robust population.
Also, I think a lot of neurodivergent people (including myself, and probably quite a lot lot of other LWers) have become irrationally obsessed with their own childrens raw intelligence above all else, due to emotional trauma. Growing up and being labeled as gifted, but also having (at the time undiagnosed) ADHD, I strongly felt that the only thing people liked about me was my intelligence, and that without it I would be unworthy of love or friendships. The idea of my child not being exceptionally intelligent, and therefore suffering immensely was terrifying to me, and made me irrationally obsessed with something mostly outside my control. Indeed, I am a parent now, and my son is both exceptionally bright and neurodivergent, but I now understand now that neither I or him need to be exceptionally bright to be loved or accepted.… we just need to have boundaries, and choose to only associate with the (numerous) people that will accept or even like that we are different, rather than those that dislike it but tolerate us for what we can practically provide them. Moreover, what those people begrudgingly tolerated me for wasn’t even my actual intelligence, but my ability to accomplish difficult things for them with my intense ADHD hyperfocus. Of course intelligence is extremely useful and important, but shouldn’t be valued above all else out of a trauma derived sense of terror.

CasioTheSane 27 Feb 2025 16:31 UTC
5 points
0
on: You can just wear a suit
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I am also on the west coast, and wear wide brimmed hats (usually cowboy hats), which is somewhat unusual and many of the people comment on it, complement it, or ask me about it.
The truth is, I’m not really trying to make a fashion statement, I’m just bald and don’t want to get cancer on my head… and this hat design is uniquely functional in that it blocks the sun, doesn’t blow off in the wind, and doesn’t look incredibly dorky and non-breathable like the nylon sun hats they sell at REI. Yet people make a big deal about it and the social dynamics of peoples reactions are confusing and surprising to me.
The social reactions are interesting… I am shy and introverted, so it ends up being a good ice breaker, as people approach me about the hat frequently, and they notice and remember me a lot more readily. I have (rarely) had some really negative reactions, usually also from very leftist people that say the hat made them assume I was a “conservative piece of ****” or something along those lines, and were very surprised I didn’t fit that stereotype after talking to me. I very often get asked the exact same thing word for word: “I love your hat, where did you get it?” Yet those people are almost always already choosing to not wear hats, and I assume don’t and won’t actually buy and wear a hat, so I am a little confused about this question. My best guess is that they are trying to complement my style while qualifying that they aren’t trying to ‘hit’ on me.

CasioTheSane 24 Feb 2025 19:49 UTC
2 points
0
on: Is being sexy for your homies?
As someone that has been a strength athlete, and part of fitness communities for many years, I have never seen a real world instance of someone becoming generally less attractive to the opposite sex, or having trouble finding partners due to lifting weights.
Building noticeable amounts of muscle is much harder than most people who haven’t tried to do so assume. The “grotesquely muscular” men on, e.g. bodybuilding magazines are essentially fake, and not something that really happens to people that lift weights, except for a few minutes in a staged photo that requires months of preparation. To get like that you need a combination of massive doses of steroids, weight training and perfect dieting as a literal full time job, and one in a million genetics… plus a combination of crash dieting and severe dehydration aka “water cutting” to time a photo or contest for a specific day. Even those guys just look “fit” during a normal day with normal clothes on.
Your average person that does hard strength training seriously say 2-4 times per week, but still eats mostly normal foods, and avoids steroids will get much physically stronger, but will rarely look extremely different from how they did before. They might look slightly healthier and more attractive, but often won’t even be immediately noticeable as athletic, not alone “having huge grotesque muscles.”
For muscle mass to be very visible you also need really low body fat, at least in the 10-15% range, and maintaining that long term without losing the muscle is really difficult. A young ~6′ tall adult man with normal genetics won’t be able to be that lean and be over about 190-200lbs, which means they will appear more ‘skinny’ than muscular if wearing clothing.

CasioTheSane 24 Feb 2025 19:37 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Shankar Sivarajan’s comment on: Any Trump Supporters Want to Dialogue?
Late reply I know, but I wanted to add that I was very surprised by your take on Brett Kavanaugh, and wanted to explain my more negative interpretation of those events, as I see it as very helpful to Trump directly, and not about principles. Some points:
-Backing down from anything almost always involves giving up political power, and encourages people to challenge you in the future. Trump is known for consistently almost never giving up without a fight, even in situations like losing an election. This strongly discourages people from challenging you in the future, because they know it will be a big fight, even if they win.
-His goal appears to have been to install essentially a sycophant supreme court, that would consistently rule in his favor rather than based on laws, principles, etc. and Kavanaugh seemed to be someone likely to do this (and arguably has done so), and even more so after Trump fought so hard for him. It would have been very hard to find a replacement candidate like this.
-Why don’t you find the sexual assault allegations credible? I think people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but they don’t much seem like a conspiracy to me. Trump himself in his own words, e.g. statements on the “Access Hollywood” tape, and quotes about Epstein, etc. seems to frequently brag about being a sexual predator himself, and generally would not consider that a disqualification for any job.

CasioTheSane 31 Dec 2016 16:04 UTC
0 points
on: Biofuels a climate mistake
Growing crops for biofuel cannot produce more carbon than it consumes over long time scales, because the only source of carbon available to the system is the carbon in the atmosphere. If they are saying biofuels aren’t carbon neutral over long time scales, where is this extra unlimited supply of carbon coming from?

CasioTheSane 31 Jul 2016 3:12 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Knowledge Dump: Pomodoros

High intensity deliberate practice that you can only do for short amounts of time per session

How is that different from flow work?

CasioTheSane 21 Jul 2016 3:13 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Knowledge Dump: Pomodoros
I’m not sure if you’ve read Mihály Csíkszentmihályi or not, but he argued that flow states are more likely when a task is more complex/challenging, and the person has a high level of appropriate skill that makes it possible (with substantial effort) to complete the task.

For me this often occurs while programming, sailing, or doing math- especially if I need to solve a new problem with those skills that will be especially challenging.

Once I’m in ‘flow’ it is a distinct mental experience—I am totally into it and lose any sense of time passing, or of needing to motivate myself until I am interrupted either by my own body, or by something external.

Cal Newport in Deep Work (his own word for flow work) defines “Deep Work” as anything that requires skills that would take at least a year to develop if a person was already generally educated, smart, and motivated.

CasioTheSane 8 Jun 2016 21:46 UTC
4 points
on: Knowledge Dump: Pomodoros
I stopped using pomodoros for flow-work, because it would break my flow state. I’ve found roughly 2 hour chunks work better for flow, without any particular warning to stop me if I feel like going longer. If I am in flow, I want it to keep going as long as possible, until I am fatigued, or the problem is solved.

CasioTheSane 25 May 2016 22:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: johnlawrenceaspden’s comment on: The Thyroid Madness: Two Apparently Contradictory Studies. Proof?

But I would have thought that if there was widespread ‘central hypothyroidism’, someone would have twigged by now, since that form does show up if you do a full panel of hormone tests

Which tests? I am not aware of any simple blood test that measures the endpoint of thyroid activity on metabolic rate (except, arguably, cholesterol levels), rather than just the state of the T4->TRH->TSH->T4 feedback loop.

mostly T4 with a bit of extra T3′, but no-one has particularly clear ideas on what works and what doesn’t or why

The challenge with T3 is it has a very short half-life, one would need to take very small doses impracticably often to achieve stable levels. Taking mostly T4 with a bit of T3 helps compensate for the reduction in T3 production due to feedback without the problems caused by trying to obtain nearly all T3 directly from a supplement.

Thanks for the reference to Ray Peat, I hadn’t heard of him before. Can you link to the best expression of his thoughts?

His own essays at raypeat.com are the only accurate source, but can be challenging to read. Most of the summaries you will find online don’t do him justice.

CasioTheSane 25 May 2016 22:39 UTC
2 points
in reply to: FriendlyBuffalo’s comment on: The Thyroid Madness: Two Apparently Contradictory Studies. Proof?

he was basically making his patients hyperthyroid

Why is this a reason not to reject it? He is essentially arguing that the major cause of cardiovascular disease is population-wide high rates of hypothyroidism. It would be a circular argument to dismiss that because his treatment leads to a greater than average metabolic rate. One would also need evidence of a disadvantage that outweighs the advantages. His patients seemed to be doing well, or at least he doesn’t report them exhibiting any classic signs of hyperthyroidism. He was primarily adjusting dose based on body temperature to the upper end of the normal non-hyperthyroid range.

to help them lose weight

I have seen studies on thyroid supplementation as a weight loss strategy, and it causes loss of lean tissue (muscle, etc.) more than fat.

CasioTheSane 29 Apr 2016 2:07 UTC
2 points
on: The Thyroid Madness: Two Apparently Contradictory Studies. Proof?
You wouldn’t need to invoke the idea of ‘hormone resistance’ because TSH and T4 tests normally used to diagnose hypothyroidism don’t measure the active hormone—T3. T4 is just a prohormone with very little direct activity on metabolic rate.

In primates, metabolism is regulated primarily in the liver by T4->T3 conversion, so if this is inhibited for any reason it will suppress metabolism without showing up on those tests. Low calorie intake, and poor nutrition are known to cause this (e.g. Euthyroid sick syndrome). In cases of poor liver conversion, supplementing T4 can actually make symptoms worse, as it will further suppress metabolism by lowering the small amount of T3 production from the thyroid (via the TSH feedback loop).

I assume you have heard of Ray Peat? I personally had good luck applying his ideas to increase my energy levels, and my pulse, body temperature, and cold tolerance raised as well—without supplementing thyroid. His general idea is pretty simple- just look at what conditions and nutrients maximize T4->T3 conversion, and provide them (low stress, high nutrient diet).

Broda Barnes work is very interesting. It blows my mind that he published a paper in The Lancet showing that desiccated thyroid lowered cholesterol levels and seemed to prevent cardiovascular disease in his patients, and that it remains virtually un-discussed and uncited (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13796871).

CasioTheSane 1 May 2014 18:50 UTC
1 point
in reply to: dougclow’s comment on: Rebutting radical scientific skepticism
You’re right, we do understand the pathophysiology of many diseases, and those are the ones that have been mostly eradicated. The major chronic diseases that remain are very poorly understood such as type II diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and alzheimer’s.

I spend a lot of time reading about ‘alternative’ ideas about these diseases, and many seem promising, but aren’t taken seriously by the mainstream. It’s definitely possible that they’re ignored for a good reason, but I haven’t been able to find the reasons yet. This is the biggest problem I’ve found with trying to be ‘critical of everything.’ In very few instances do I find myself quickly understanding and agreeing with the mainstream view. Instead, the more I read the more my opinion seems to diverge from the mainstream view. I have made an effort to discuss these issues personally with specialized experts, so they could help point out factors I may be missing, or not understanding correctly. I am a PhD candidate in the life sciences, so I have the opportunity to meet with research professors at my university in person to help clarify my understanding.

Here are two example theories, regarding cancer and cardiovascular disease in particular.

1) The idea that cancer isn’t initiated by genetic mutations, but that mutations are a downstream phenomena that results after damage to the mitochondria occurs.

This stems from the initial observation by Warburg, that lack of control over glycolysis is part of the cancer cell phenotype. This phenotype can be triggered by a large number of factors which inhibit mitochondrial respiration including hypoxia. Later it was found that the mitochondria in cancer cells undergo a phenotypic change, where the cristae structure is lost. Nuclear transfer experiments have shown that a ‘mutated’ cancer nucleus placed into a healthy cell cytoplasm does not exhibit a heritable cancer phenotype. Conversely, a healthy nucleus placed into a cancerous cell cytoplasm does exhibit a heritable cancer phenotype.

Here is a review article covering the evidence for this hypothesis:

Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/515

More evidence for this hypothesis includes the observation that active thyroid hormone levels (T3) are inversely correlated with cancer mortality rates in the general population. T3 is a key regulator of mitochondrial respiration:

Thyroid hormones and mortality risk in euthyroid individuals: The Kangbuk Samsung Health Study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24708095

2) The finding that treatment for hypothyroidism drops cholesterol levels significantly, and virtually abolishes cardiovascular disease without the side effects seen from statins. The late Broda O. Barnes was an experimental endocrinologist and a clinical doctor, and he extensively documented this phenomena in his books and publications.

The idea here is that the central mechanism of cardiovascular disese is a low metabolism which inhibits cholesterol clearance from the blood via reduced steroid hormone synthesis, and reduced bile synthesis. The pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease begins with a long residence time of cholesterol particles in the blood, resulting in their oxidation. This can be reversed by any strategy that restores a normal (higher) metabolic rate: a carefully designed diet and/or thyroid hormone supplementation.

Here is a good introduction to this idea:

The Central Role of Thyroid Hormone in Governing LDL Receptor Activity and the Risk of Heart Disease http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/08/central-role-of-thyroid-hormone-in.html

I am not insisting that these ideas are correct, or are some sort of ‘well proven answer’ to these diseases. I’m just pointing out that they seem promising, but are relatively ignored. If they prove accurate, much of the mainstream research on these phenomena would seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

You might notice that both of these examples are essentially the same theory. This is an appealing concept to me: most age-related chronic diseases may be centered around a common process of age related impaired mitochondrial function and/or improper hormonal regulation of mitochondrial function. Insufficient chemical energy (ATP) to fuel normal biological function would have widespread consequences, and could present as a diverse array of seemingly disconnected symptoms. I’ll admit, this sounds somewhat like a modern molecular version of vitalism. However, unlike vitalism it makes specific testable predictions, and involves a very specific mechanism. It’s also consistent with the ‘free radical’ and ‘tissue peroxidizability index’ theories of aging, which involve (among other things) progressive oxidative damage of unsaturated fats (such as cardiolipin) in the mitochondrial inner membrane.

CasioTheSane 1 May 2014 11:12 UTC
−1 points
on: Rebutting radical scientific skepticism
I have been attempting to do this with biology and medicine, seriously for about 5 years now. Not by actually repeating experiments, but in trying to understand the original evidence, and see if I agree that it was interpreted correctly. Of course this is nearly impossible as biology is too broad and complex for one person to understand all of the details.

It’s a confusing mess, but I think I am still learning a lot. Even if I come to agree with most of the mainstream ideas, I’d like to think I’d then understand them more deeply, in a way that is more functionally useful.

For much of medicine, there really isn’t any biological basis or evidence to review. Much of modern medicine involves covering up symptoms with drugs proven to do this, without understanding the underlying cause of the symptom.

CasioTheSane 6 Apr 2014 15:39 UTC
0 points
in reply to: CellBioGuy’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
Excellent post, thanks for putting so much work into a clear explanation. I will re-investigate Ling’s work more carefully, and also see if I can find the mistakes in his thermodynamics calculations you mention. I have been biased towards his work and not looking critically enough, because it seems to explain some surprising observations about drug activity I’ve found in my own research- but that’s no excuse.

I am interested in the possibility that Ling could be entirely wrong about membrane physiology, but this gel phase shift phenomena could still be important in the cell. If Ling and Pollack are wrong about long distance effects from protein surfaces, that might not destroy their arguments as the cytosol is very dense, and the distance between proteins is very short. Albert Szent-Györgyi also did some work on this idea that is very different from Ling’s.

One of my committee members works on physics simulations of protein hydration shells, and I am going to meet with him and see what he thinks about this. The simulations I have seen don’t show significant water structuring, as the water molecules have too much thermal energy.

CasioTheSane 4 Apr 2014 17:55 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
That’s a good point about intelligence, the way I used that word without defining it in this article is sloppy.

I am interested in the ability to solve important problems. Maybe instead I should talk about something more easily definable such as mental endurance, or limiting the stress response from focused work? Personally, I think if I could work longer in one sitting on a hard problem without stress or fatigue, that alone would count as “increased intelligence” for practical purposes.

I think there are links between the stress response and nutrient availability. In lab mice anyway, sugar seems to reduce stress hormone production during stressful situations. However in practice this might be harmful to doing focused work, if stress improves focus.

Thanks for pointing out the issue of brain energy consumption vs mental activity. I think this entire article hinges on the (unfounded?) assumption that the two are strongly correlated. I am confused about this, and need to learn more about it. I see many articles and researchers claim massive increases in energy consumption with hard mental activity, and others that claim there is none which seems very strange. How are they measuring this? I wonder if people under general anesthesia have much lower, or about the same energy requirements as an awake person?

CasioTheSane 4 Apr 2014 17:39 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
I need to learn more about this, I don’t have a strong belief. If I understand correctly, this is basically the idea behind the free radical theory of aging (FRTA). One interesting variant of that idea is in the article I linked above, which suggests that the focus should be on “mitochondrial membrane peroxidizability index” rather than antioxidant activity or free radical production.

It seems weird that sugar seems to cause problems in certain populations of people, but not others.

CasioTheSane 4 Apr 2014 17:11 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
There can be damage or defects in the mitochondria that inhibit it’s ability to respond to hormones, for example per-oxidation of cardiolipin. Cells don’t always die when they have a mitochondrial defect. An extreme example is cancer, where there is major damage to the mitochondria, but the cells continue to live via anaerobic fermentation (aka the Warburg Effect).

Some review articles that talk about these theories:

Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics

Life and Death: Metabolic Rate, Membrane Composition, and Life Span of Animals

Role of cardiolipin peroxidation and Ca2+ in mitochondrial dysfunction and disease

CasioTheSane 4 Apr 2014 6:51 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
Perhaps sugar and glucose only cause problems in those who can’t metabolize it effectively, for other reasons (or when consumed in excess of your capacity to metabolize them). I used to think high glucose intake caused metabolic syndrome but I can’t reconcile that with the existence of large groups of people (Kitavans, fruitarianism, etc.) that have very high carb diets and don’t develop metabolic syndrome.

In mice, high sugar diets don’t cause metabolic problems or liver damage unless also coupled with high polyunsaturated fat intake. Populations of people with high carbohydrate diets and no metabolic syndrome seem to have very low polyunsaturated fat intake. Could carb restriction protect against the symptoms of metabolic disease, without addressing the underlying cause?

Fructose seems to increase T3 production in the liver, which could be a mechanism behind the sugar high. I am not sure if this is “good” or “bad.”

CasioTheSane 4 Apr 2014 5:55 UTC
2 points
in reply to: CellBioGuy’s comment on: Thermodynamics of Intelligence and Cognitive Enhancement
If you have time to provide links, I would like to read the research you mention- especially on the thermodynamics of ATP and calcium-triggered membrane vesicle fusion. Ling’s work is all very old and doesn’t address any newer research, but Pollack addresses some of the issues you raise in his books. Pollack does love to speculate a lot, but he appears to be careful in distinguishing this speculation from things that have more evidence. Here is also a newer review paper that discusses this and some other ideas related to the role of entropy in biochemistry: Coherent Behavior and the Bound State of Water and K+ Imply Another Model of Bioenergetics: Negative Entropy Instead of High-energy Bonds