6 ms·

What about some research that microdosing increases neuroplasticity? It may be a good benefit, if doctors manage to combine it with therapies for adults and th

What about some research that microdosing increases neuroplasticity? It may be a good benefit, if doctors manage to combine it with therapies for adults and they gradually rewire their brain addressing some inefficiencies, PSTD, or even brain damage. Sorry, if I sound naive and anti-scientifical, I have no personal evidence for that and am not a neuroscientist. I recently was impressed by the stories in the book “The brain’s way of healing”.

mikekchar 7y ago
> It may be a good benefit It may. Or it may not. That's really the problem with acting on research that isn't commonly accepted. I still run into people who believe that cooking in aluminium pots causes Alzheimer's. Since the result appeared in a respected paper and was widely reported on, it lodged in the minds of the public. Later retractions had difficulty dislodging the idea. Especially if someone has a particular bias, it's easy to find an amount of research that confirms that bias (confirmation bias). When you present the material that you have found, it can be incredibly impressive. I have found that if someone has an incredibly impressive list of research that backs up a theory that isn't widely accepted, it is almost always a case of confirmation bias. Of course, sometimes the widely accepted notion has just not moved in that direction yet. The problem is that without being a true expert in the field it's essentially impossible to tell which is which. It is an unfortunate truth when studying very complex systems. Progress is made slowly with many arms reaching in different directions. People make promising leads, only to eventually find they don't lead anywhere. We often get stuck not knowing where to go. Sometimes when we find the answer, it turns out it was sitting under our noses all the time. It's just the way it goes.

mikekchar 7y ago

> It may be a good benefit It may. Or it may not. That's really the problem with acting on research that isn't commonly accepted. I still run into people who believe that cooking in aluminium pots causes Alzheimer's. Since the result appeared in a respected paper and was widely reported on, it lodged in the minds of the public. Later retractions had difficulty dislodging the idea. Especially if someone has a particular bias, it's easy to find an amount of research that confirms that bias (confirmation bias). When you present the material that you have found, it can be incredibly impressive. I have found that if someone has an incredibly impressive list of research that backs up a theory that isn't widely accepted, it is almost always a case of confirmation bias. Of course, sometimes the widely accepted notion has just not moved in that direction yet. The problem is that without being a true expert in the field it's essentially impossible to tell which is which. It is an unfortunate truth when studying very complex systems. Progress is made slowly with many arms reaching in different directions. People make promising leads, only to eventually find they don't lead anywhere. We often get stuck not knowing where to go. Sometimes when we find the answer, it turns out it was sitting under our noses all the time. It's just the way it goes.