So where did the idea of Blue Monday come from? The concept of Blue Monday was originally coined by Dr Cliff Arnall in 2005 and distributed by the PR company Sky Travel. It has now become an annual event and can fall on either the third or the fourth Monday of January, using Dr Cliff Arnall’s original mathematical equation that measures a combination of factors such as weather, potential debt post-Christmas, the amount of time since Christmas, potential failure of New Year resolutions and motivation levels, that apparently conspire to make the date the gloomiest of the year.

Factor analysis. The strategy: read in the data, drop unnecessary data, impute missing variables (data is too heterogeneous and collected starting at varying intervals to be clean), estimate how many factors would fit best, factor analyze, pick the ones which look like they match best my ideas of what productive is, extract per-day estimates, and finally regress LLLT usage on the selected factors to look for increases.
An important dietary step to avoid heavy metal toxicity is choosing seafood and fish that has reduced levels of exposure. The Seafood Watch web page is a fantastic resource that has an extensive list of fish, seafood and sushi products that are safe, as well as those that are best to stay away from. For example, choosing wild pacific caught salmon is safer than Atlantic caught salmon.
Not long ago I met Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, in his office at the labyrinthine Penn hospital complex. Chatterjee's main research interests are in subjects like the neurological basis of spatial understanding, but in the past few years, as he has heard more about students taking cognitive enhancers, he has begun writing about the ethical implications of such behaviour. In 2004 he coined the term "cosmetic neurology" to describe the practice of using drugs developed for recognised medical conditions to strengthen ordinary cognition. Chatterjee worries about cosmetic neurology, but he thinks that it will eventually become as acceptable as cosmetic surgery; in fact with neuroenhancement it's harder to argue that it's frivolous. As he notes in a 2007 paper: "Many sectors of society have winner-take-all conditions in which small advantages produce disproportionate rewards." At school and at work, the usefulness of being "smarter", needing less sleep and learning more quickly is "abundantly clear". In the near future, he predicts, some neurologists will refashion themselves as "quality-of-life consultants" whose role will be "to provide information while abrogating final responsibility for these decisions to patients". The demand is certainly there: from an ageing population that won't put up with memory loss; from overwrought parents bent on giving their children every possible edge; from anxious employees in an efficiency-obsessed, BlackBerry-equipped office culture where work never really ends.
One thing to notice is that the default case matters a lot. This asymmetry is because you switch decisions in different possible worlds - when you would take Adderall but stop you’re in the world where Adderall doesn’t work, and when you wouldn’t take Adderall but do you’re in the world where Adderall does work (in the perfect information case, at least). One of the ways you can visualize this is that you don’t penalize tests for giving you true negative information, and you reward them for giving you true positive information. (This might be worth a post by itself, and is very Litany of Gendlin.)
Often her language is not that of a scientist. She uses buzzwords like detoxification and boosting the immune system. She avoids GMOs and things that she thinks are unnatural like “manufactured” minerals and salts. She says she takes royal jelly daily for its natural antibiotic effects; she says these effects are “known, but perhaps not scientifically confirmed.” If not scientifically confirmed, how are the effects “known”? She says plants produce phytonutrients to increase their life span, and then she leaps to the conclusion that humans will derive the same benefits from eating the plants.
Unlike many hypothetical scenarios that bioethicists worry about - human clones, "designer babies" - cognitive enhancement is already in full swing. But how much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then there's the question of what we mean by "smarter". Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of people who are performing daily experiments on their own brains.

One thing to notice is that the default case matters a lot. This asymmetry is because you switch decisions in different possible worlds - when you would take Adderall but stop you’re in the world where Adderall doesn’t work, and when you wouldn’t take Adderall but do you’re in the world where Adderall does work (in the perfect information case, at least). One of the ways you can visualize this is that you don’t penalize tests for giving you true negative information, and you reward them for giving you true positive information. (This might be worth a post by itself, and is very Litany of Gendlin.)

3 days later, I’m fairly miserable (slept poorly, had a hair-raising incident, and a big project was not received as well as I had hoped), so well before dinner (and after a nap) I brew up 2 wooden-spoons of Malaysia Green (olive-color dust). I drank it down; tasted slightly better than the first. I was feeling better after the nap, and the kratom didn’t seem to change that.


Because modafinil works in a manner similar to methylphenidate, it also bears similar risks. The improper dosage or abuse of modafinil may lead to the disrupted development of executive controls like decision-making and working memory. Modafinil’s effects may also depend upon the IQ of the taker. Two university studies determined that in a test of sustained attention, modafinil only improved cognition in the group with “lower” IQs. Although safer than other stimulants due to its milder effect on neurotransmitter levels, there are still risks associated with any kind of drug that affects dopaminergic neurotransmission, mostly because this can lead to addiction and, similar to a pornography user who needs increasingly fringe porn to achieve the same effect, can produce a resistance or lowered sensitivity to dopamine.
As mentioned above, eating foods that are rich in indigestible fibre such as vegetables and fruits, as well as eating good fats that are found in grass-fed butter, nuts and seeds, olive oil, coconut oil and avocado, provide bacteria with prebiotics that help to produce the ‘friendly’ short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate. Avoiding processed foods that contain calcium propionate, which lead to higher levels of propionic acid - the not so friendly short-chain fatty acid - is also another key strategy to support the gut-brain link.
Amphetamine – systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that low-dose amphetamine improved cognitive functions (e.g., inhibitory control, episodic memory, working memory, and aspects of attention) in healthy people, and in individuals with ADHD.[21][22][23][25] A 2014 systematic review noted that low doses of amphetamine also improved memory consolidation, in turn leading to improved recall of information in non-ADHD youth.[23] It also improved task saliency (motivation to perform a task) and performance on tedious tasks that required a high degree of effort.[22][24][25]
×