8 ms·

Split Brain Psychology

104 points by superb-owl 4y ago

Daniel_sk 4y ago
Related and very interesting podcast: Jeff Hawkins: The Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence | Lex Fridman Podcast https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KwkpTUbkg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KwkpTUbkg
lysergia 4y ago
xerox13ster 4y ago
I'd really like the author who has no idea what is going on with Dissociative Identity Disorder to not go about mentioning DID in the same breath as schizophrenia. They are not related in any way. Schizophrenia is explicitly neurochemical and treatable with medication. Schizophrenia is something you can be genetically predisposed to and born with. DID and related dissociative disorders are based in trauma and are NOT something you can be born with. While trauma can cause neurological changes, they are not neurochemical in nature, and they DO NOT respond to medication. There is no medication for DID, and its incredibly irresponsible to equate these in a crackpot Jungian-style bicameral mind theory blog post. I discovered Jung's bicameral mind shortly after becoming aware of my own dissociative disorder, and while it provided a nice distraction and piece of thought, it ultimately has nothing to do with my disorder. My alters ARE NOT VOICES, they are not hallucinations, they do not present audibly. They are me, they are my thoughts and feelings and preferences presented in different ways from different points in my life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, and we (my alter states and dissociative people) organize them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy, but they are all me. They are my competing emotional states that arose because I was forced to hold these states inside me to survive my ongoing abuse. If the author is reading this, DO NOT bring up Dissociative Identity Disorder with schizophrenia and then go on to refer to both as "the schizophrenic". That's frankly insulting to me, people like me, and the INTENSE trauma we went through at the hands of rapists and abusers (usually parents and family members) and your entire piece is trash just for that alone. I wish I had enough karma here to downvote your post.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Hey, many apologies, I in no way meant to conflate DID with schizophrenia. I only meant to mention DID in passing - the following sentences were only meant to apply to schizophrenia. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm sorry for what you went through, and if you feel my post misrepresented you. Edit: I've modified the article a bit to hopefully make this clearer.
  - xerox13ster 4y ago
    I'll give you a freebie edit, you can qualify it as the thoughts of an individual dissociative reader: > Important to note, that the alters in dissociative disorders are not voices, in the classical sense of hallucinations, they do not typically present audibly. They are generally perceived as the individual's mind states (thoughts, feelings, preferences, and memories) from different points in their life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, yet the language used by those with DID organizes them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy. They are all still that individual even if the alters perceive themselves to be separate in that way. This, I think, might back up your point more saliently than the schizophrenic angle anyway, but I admit I didn't read the article to take your point as once I saw you mention multiplicity, I speed-scrolled to the inevitable mental health/psychology section to see just how bad it was. I moderate AskDID and used to moderate the DID subreddit before the mod team devolved into hurt people hurting hurt people, so I have some exposure to how the community perceives themselves.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  what is truly flabbergasting is the use and application of trauma induction as a technique by shadowy persons within governments and other "for the science" and later on "for the [your cause of choice], we must use these techniques, lest the rivals use them too and we lose". traumatized people passing on their traumas. some very clever powerful persons using traumatized people like they use other tools and instruments.
- aordano 4y ago
  The perspective presented re: schizophrenia is awful too. The author appears to be very ignorant of the last 20? 30? years of research in both schizophrenia and DID. I can tell just at a glance both by having professional experience in those areas, and by having to deal with both disorders of them every day (my life partner has both DID and schizophrenia). Making this sort of publications without actually acquainting with the state of the art is dangerous, reckless, and frankly just plain insulting. Freudian/Jungian psychology and its derivatives have done enough damage already, let them die.
ninesnines 4y ago
Eh maybe its because I've spent a lot of time studying neuroscience and psychology, but I think the jump from the split brain phenomena due to cutting the corpus callosum to having multiple internal 'people' is kind of a large jump. It also seems obvious to me that parts of your brain are communicating, and if you cut a large connection, then they will need time to form new connections and ways of perceiving the world. And of course we all contain many layers in terms of personality etc. I also would be careful at taking Freuds words too closely -- a lot of his works were not backed explicitly by science, and many psychologists don't support his ideas. But of course maybe I'm just engrained with traditional thinking -- I can suggest listening to Jeff Hawkin's podcast on Lex Fridman. He has some interesting novel ideas on neuroscience that pushed me to think a bit more abstractly.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  What I think is demonstrated is that you can cut a conscious brain in half in the right way to result in two separate consciousness entities. In the same way that you could cut a small piece of a person’s brain out and the larger remaining piece is still conscious, it would follow that there is no single point in the brain where you could divide it in half and say this half has the consciousness the other one does not. Consciousness must then be distributed amongst a certain portion of brain matter and can be cut and still exist separately in both cut pieces.
  - plutonorm 4y ago
    Follow that thought process down the rabbit hole and you arrive, inexorably, at panpsychism.
Malic 4y ago
CGP Grey did a video essay on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8
breck 4y ago
If I had to place a bet right now on who the future will judge was the Darwin of our time, I would bet on Marvin Minsky. This Split-Brain post asks "What if I’m not the only person in my head?". IMO this may be the most fascinating question to work on today. Minsky answered it IMO conclusively in his Society of Mind (1986), just as Darwin answered the question "Where do species come from?". There is no "you", but a collection of agents/resources inside your brain. The details are still being discovered by the great work of folks like Hawkins, but Minsky's theory seems like a bullseye. Split-brain is on the right track, but the N is a lot higher.
y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
I have schizotypal personality disorder. For me it feels like a collective, kind of like the borg. I say "me" or "I" when communicating externally, but all thoughts are actually communicated as "us". All entities speak with the same voice (what most people think of as their inside voice), but each one speaks differently, with a different pace/tone, and has its own personality, thoughts, and desires. There are a handful of dominant ones that sit in the captain's chair so to speak, and they all have a say in how we behave externally. For example one of us is a pacifist, another one loves to socialize and party, one is cautious and anxious, the other very confident, and there's one that has a severe thirst for violence and blood-lust (this one we work hard to keep in check). I've literally been in fights where immediately after knocking my opponent down, I ask if they're ok and then help them back up and let them go. Then there's hundreds of transient entities that are usually clones of personalities observed elsewhere (movie characters, celebrities, or other influential people). These transient types will actually adopt the mannerisms, voice, and even accent of the personalities and display them outwardly! Makes for very weird interactions with family and friends lol. I've yet to see anyone on reddit or elsewhere with this description of the disorder. The closest thing is DID or maybe even borderline personality disorder (which is on the same schizo spectrum), but there's no disassociation with what I have, we're all fully aware of what the other is thinking. EDIT: added further clarifications on the differing voices
- walleeee 4y ago
  Do "you" identify with one entity, as is often reported among tulpamancers, or do "you" stand apart from them all? When you hear one or another of your internal voices, or become aware of an entity's thoughts, is it from the perspective of another, perhaps depersonalized agent observing the rest? Do "you" have equal access to all entities or is it more accurate to think of yourself as one among them with a privileged perspective? Thanks in advance for any insight you might be willing to provide. I hope these questions are not too invasive, your comment is of great interest to me.
  - y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
    Good questions and no they're not invasive, so no worries. Each day (and sometimes each interaction) the person acting as "me" is just one of the entities taking over, so effectively there's no central "me" at all if that makes sense. Today it's introverted family-man, but if we attend an event in the evening for example, the more social personality takes over and listens in on the conversations from family-man and others. Let's say the social one is currently active and sitting at the bar with friends having a great time, the family-man will say "we should text our wife and let her know we'll be home late" to which the social one may respond with "nah, we'll do it later" or "yeah that's a good idea, we'll do it now". EDIT: to answer your last question about "equal access", we share thoughts and deliberate, but one can't exert control over the others nor forcefully take over. The active person at any given moment depends on the outside environment and what we decide is best for the situation, so it's kind of a democratic process; not sure if that can be defined as equal access or not.
csours 4y ago
What if your dominant personality ate all it's siblings and that's why you only hear one voice? Anyway, there are multiple centers in your brain that process different sensations and conditions - you perceive hunger, thirst, anger, temperature etc. Think about a "computer" like a desktop or laptop. How many computers are in the computer? There are many chips that run programs, but are not considered "the CPU". What if your hunger perceiver was conscious, but your .... main consciousness didn't let it talk. It could be an interesting science fiction story at least.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  I think those are separate phenomena. There are plenty of essentially input filters in your brain which are very far from consciousness. For example point and edge detection in vision can be exactly mapped to individual neurons and there wouldn’t be any consciousness involved in that process. The brain seems to be organized into layers. The bottom layers are simple things which turn raw input into a higher more useful abstraction like transforming visual signals into “this is a line”. Abstractions get piled together in the lower levels which are generally well understood and the very top levels being consciousness which isn’t understood at all. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if consciousness had many components with many locations.
- bathMarm0t 4y ago
  Disco Elysium delves into this a little bit. It's a text-based RPG game that's surprisingly engaging.
jeremiem 4y ago
Studies of split brain patients play a good part in illustrating how little our consciousness is in control in "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman, a book I highly recommend.
inphovore 4y ago
You are not alone in your own mind. Thought control is real and they are the enemy.
m3kw9 4y ago
Saying there could be another one “person” viewing inside you is as absurd as 1 billion other inside you. As far as you are concerned you will never find out(disprove) and so it won’t matter if it’s actually true or not. Is also similar to saying there are ghosts all around us, can you disprove it? No. Do most people care? No.
wawjgreen 4y ago
the author of this blog is mentioned the mystic aspects of all major religions except Islam; was it done out of ignorance or intentional neglect? It's difficult to guess. But it surely does point out an important issue when an "article" is presented: how do we know what is withheld, what is presented incorrectly? whether intentionally or not, it surely does point out the blind spot of unknown unknowns--and if readers know less than writers, then readers will never be able to fathom what was withheld. For instance, he mentioned Gurdjieff but Ibn Arabi was the giant of Mysticism--and continues to remains so to this day.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  I left out a heck of a lot more than Islam! No mention of Hindu or Christian or Jewish mysticism either. But I do love the Sufi poets. I'm unaware of any Islamic mysticism that specifically discusses multiplicity of self - any tips?
  - wawjgreen 4y ago
    Thank you for your response. The Islamic Sufi tradition is simply an advanced level of traditional practice of Islam--a superbly intelligent interpretation that never deviates from the core principles; both Arabs and Persians have contributions in this sphere. Sheikh Farid-uddin Attar, resident of Neshapour (ancient Persia), mentions in one of his works (I translate, but it will not be perfect): "Don't let the self (your soul) become familiarized with the Demons-- for once you do, you become one yourself." In the context of his poem, the Demons refer to the proteges of Satan who cause us to commit sin--the ugly side of the Human being. In other words, if you do something ugly, you will still have your good self, but also now develop a bad self; the more bad you do, the more varieties of bad selves you will develop. Philosophic psychiatry (that blends religion with psychology, as suggested by Maslow) supports this view as well: recent (2011) paper on the New Unconscious confirms that humans are objectively good: our good self is always there. But when we deviate from this objective goodness, (to the degree that we deviate) we slowly face dissociation--multiple selves emerge as an after-effect. Elsewhere Hakim Nezami, resident of Ganja (now located in Azerbaijan), writes: "O, Thou, from Whom the Whole Existence has come about!" "The weak soil, become able from Thy Mercy!" While on the surface it may refer to how soil produces food per decree of the Almighty, it also refers to human beings (as we were made from soil originally); the reference to becoming able is in contrast to being weak--when committing sin and doing wrong: the bad self--while becoming able implies no longer being weak: developing the good self. There can be more but off-hand this should do. :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
euroderf 4y ago
There is a concept in Tibetan thought that there can be independent "power centers" (for lack of a better term) in the mind. They might warp the personality of the "host". They might sometimes grow out of control. This is my superficial understanding anyways. And now that I think of it, it sounds a bit like Videodrome.

104 points by superb-owl 4y ago

Related and very interesting podcast: Jeff Hawkins: The Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence | Lex Fridman Podcast https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KwkpTUbkg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KwkpTUbkg

lysergia 4y ago

xerox13ster 4y ago

I'd really like the author who has no idea what is going on with Dissociative Identity Disorder to not go about mentioning DID in the same breath as schizophrenia. They are not related in any way. Schizophrenia is explicitly neurochemical and treatable with medication. Schizophrenia is something you can be genetically predisposed to and born with. DID and related dissociative disorders are based in trauma and are NOT something you can be born with. While trauma can cause neurological changes, they are not neurochemical in nature, and they DO NOT respond to medication. There is no medication for DID, and its incredibly irresponsible to equate these in a crackpot Jungian-style bicameral mind theory blog post. I discovered Jung's bicameral mind shortly after becoming aware of my own dissociative disorder, and while it provided a nice distraction and piece of thought, it ultimately has nothing to do with my disorder. My alters ARE NOT VOICES, they are not hallucinations, they do not present audibly. They are me, they are my thoughts and feelings and preferences presented in different ways from different points in my life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, and we (my alter states and dissociative people) organize them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy, but they are all me. They are my competing emotional states that arose because I was forced to hold these states inside me to survive my ongoing abuse. If the author is reading this, DO NOT bring up Dissociative Identity Disorder with schizophrenia and then go on to refer to both as "the schizophrenic". That's frankly insulting to me, people like me, and the INTENSE trauma we went through at the hands of rapists and abusers (usually parents and family members) and your entire piece is trash just for that alone. I wish I had enough karma here to downvote your post.

superb-owl 4y ago
Hey, many apologies, I in no way meant to conflate DID with schizophrenia. I only meant to mention DID in passing - the following sentences were only meant to apply to schizophrenia. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm sorry for what you went through, and if you feel my post misrepresented you. Edit: I've modified the article a bit to hopefully make this clearer.
- xerox13ster 4y ago
  I'll give you a freebie edit, you can qualify it as the thoughts of an individual dissociative reader: > Important to note, that the alters in dissociative disorders are not voices, in the classical sense of hallucinations, they do not typically present audibly. They are generally perceived as the individual's mind states (thoughts, feelings, preferences, and memories) from different points in their life. They present as internal thoughts and feelings the same way anyone else would think and feel internally, yet the language used by those with DID organizes them as individuals because the dissociation makes that easy. They are all still that individual even if the alters perceive themselves to be separate in that way. This, I think, might back up your point more saliently than the schizophrenic angle anyway, but I admit I didn't read the article to take your point as once I saw you mention multiplicity, I speed-scrolled to the inevitable mental health/psychology section to see just how bad it was. I moderate AskDID and used to moderate the DID subreddit before the mod team devolved into hurt people hurting hurt people, so I have some exposure to how the community perceives themselves.
bsedlm 4y ago
what is truly flabbergasting is the use and application of trauma induction as a technique by shadowy persons within governments and other "for the science" and later on "for the [your cause of choice], we must use these techniques, lest the rivals use them too and we lose". traumatized people passing on their traumas. some very clever powerful persons using traumatized people like they use other tools and instruments.
aordano 4y ago
The perspective presented re: schizophrenia is awful too. The author appears to be very ignorant of the last 20? 30? years of research in both schizophrenia and DID. I can tell just at a glance both by having professional experience in those areas, and by having to deal with both disorders of them every day (my life partner has both DID and schizophrenia). Making this sort of publications without actually acquainting with the state of the art is dangerous, reckless, and frankly just plain insulting. Freudian/Jungian psychology and its derivatives have done enough damage already, let them die.

ninesnines 4y ago

Eh maybe its because I've spent a lot of time studying neuroscience and psychology, but I think the jump from the split brain phenomena due to cutting the corpus callosum to having multiple internal 'people' is kind of a large jump. It also seems obvious to me that parts of your brain are communicating, and if you cut a large connection, then they will need time to form new connections and ways of perceiving the world. And of course we all contain many layers in terms of personality etc. I also would be careful at taking Freuds words too closely -- a lot of his works were not backed explicitly by science, and many psychologists don't support his ideas. But of course maybe I'm just engrained with traditional thinking -- I can suggest listening to Jeff Hawkin's podcast on Lex Fridman. He has some interesting novel ideas on neuroscience that pushed me to think a bit more abstractly.

colechristensen 4y ago
What I think is demonstrated is that you can cut a conscious brain in half in the right way to result in two separate consciousness entities. In the same way that you could cut a small piece of a person’s brain out and the larger remaining piece is still conscious, it would follow that there is no single point in the brain where you could divide it in half and say this half has the consciousness the other one does not. Consciousness must then be distributed amongst a certain portion of brain matter and can be cut and still exist separately in both cut pieces.
- plutonorm 4y ago
  Follow that thought process down the rabbit hole and you arrive, inexorably, at panpsychism.

Malic 4y ago

CGP Grey did a video essay on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

breck 4y ago

If I had to place a bet right now on who the future will judge was the Darwin of our time, I would bet on Marvin Minsky. This Split-Brain post asks "What if I’m not the only person in my head?". IMO this may be the most fascinating question to work on today. Minsky answered it IMO conclusively in his Society of Mind (1986), just as Darwin answered the question "Where do species come from?". There is no "you", but a collection of agents/resources inside your brain. The details are still being discovered by the great work of folks like Hawkins, but Minsky's theory seems like a bullseye. Split-brain is on the right track, but the N is a lot higher.

y-c-o-m-b 4y ago

I have schizotypal personality disorder. For me it feels like a collective, kind of like the borg. I say "me" or "I" when communicating externally, but all thoughts are actually communicated as "us". All entities speak with the same voice (what most people think of as their inside voice), but each one speaks differently, with a different pace/tone, and has its own personality, thoughts, and desires. There are a handful of dominant ones that sit in the captain's chair so to speak, and they all have a say in how we behave externally. For example one of us is a pacifist, another one loves to socialize and party, one is cautious and anxious, the other very confident, and there's one that has a severe thirst for violence and blood-lust (this one we work hard to keep in check). I've literally been in fights where immediately after knocking my opponent down, I ask if they're ok and then help them back up and let them go. Then there's hundreds of transient entities that are usually clones of personalities observed elsewhere (movie characters, celebrities, or other influential people). These transient types will actually adopt the mannerisms, voice, and even accent of the personalities and display them outwardly! Makes for very weird interactions with family and friends lol. I've yet to see anyone on reddit or elsewhere with this description of the disorder. The closest thing is DID or maybe even borderline personality disorder (which is on the same schizo spectrum), but there's no disassociation with what I have, we're all fully aware of what the other is thinking. EDIT: added further clarifications on the differing voices

walleeee 4y ago
Do "you" identify with one entity, as is often reported among tulpamancers, or do "you" stand apart from them all? When you hear one or another of your internal voices, or become aware of an entity's thoughts, is it from the perspective of another, perhaps depersonalized agent observing the rest? Do "you" have equal access to all entities or is it more accurate to think of yourself as one among them with a privileged perspective? Thanks in advance for any insight you might be willing to provide. I hope these questions are not too invasive, your comment is of great interest to me.
- y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
  Good questions and no they're not invasive, so no worries. Each day (and sometimes each interaction) the person acting as "me" is just one of the entities taking over, so effectively there's no central "me" at all if that makes sense. Today it's introverted family-man, but if we attend an event in the evening for example, the more social personality takes over and listens in on the conversations from family-man and others. Let's say the social one is currently active and sitting at the bar with friends having a great time, the family-man will say "we should text our wife and let her know we'll be home late" to which the social one may respond with "nah, we'll do it later" or "yeah that's a good idea, we'll do it now". EDIT: to answer your last question about "equal access", we share thoughts and deliberate, but one can't exert control over the others nor forcefully take over. The active person at any given moment depends on the outside environment and what we decide is best for the situation, so it's kind of a democratic process; not sure if that can be defined as equal access or not.

csours 4y ago

What if your dominant personality ate all it's siblings and that's why you only hear one voice? Anyway, there are multiple centers in your brain that process different sensations and conditions - you perceive hunger, thirst, anger, temperature etc. Think about a "computer" like a desktop or laptop. How many computers are in the computer? There are many chips that run programs, but are not considered "the CPU". What if your hunger perceiver was conscious, but your .... main consciousness didn't let it talk. It could be an interesting science fiction story at least.

colechristensen 4y ago
I think those are separate phenomena. There are plenty of essentially input filters in your brain which are very far from consciousness. For example point and edge detection in vision can be exactly mapped to individual neurons and there wouldn’t be any consciousness involved in that process. The brain seems to be organized into layers. The bottom layers are simple things which turn raw input into a higher more useful abstraction like transforming visual signals into “this is a line”. Abstractions get piled together in the lower levels which are generally well understood and the very top levels being consciousness which isn’t understood at all. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if consciousness had many components with many locations.
bathMarm0t 4y ago
Disco Elysium delves into this a little bit. It's a text-based RPG game that's surprisingly engaging.

jeremiem 4y ago

Studies of split brain patients play a good part in illustrating how little our consciousness is in control in "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman, a book I highly recommend.

inphovore 4y ago

You are not alone in your own mind. Thought control is real and they are the enemy.

m3kw9 4y ago

Saying there could be another one “person” viewing inside you is as absurd as 1 billion other inside you. As far as you are concerned you will never find out(disprove) and so it won’t matter if it’s actually true or not. Is also similar to saying there are ghosts all around us, can you disprove it? No. Do most people care? No.

wawjgreen 4y ago

the author of this blog is mentioned the mystic aspects of all major religions except Islam; was it done out of ignorance or intentional neglect? It's difficult to guess. But it surely does point out an important issue when an "article" is presented: how do we know what is withheld, what is presented incorrectly? whether intentionally or not, it surely does point out the blind spot of unknown unknowns--and if readers know less than writers, then readers will never be able to fathom what was withheld. For instance, he mentioned Gurdjieff but Ibn Arabi was the giant of Mysticism--and continues to remains so to this day.

superb-owl 4y ago
I left out a heck of a lot more than Islam! No mention of Hindu or Christian or Jewish mysticism either. But I do love the Sufi poets. I'm unaware of any Islamic mysticism that specifically discusses multiplicity of self - any tips?
- wawjgreen 4y ago
  Thank you for your response. The Islamic Sufi tradition is simply an advanced level of traditional practice of Islam--a superbly intelligent interpretation that never deviates from the core principles; both Arabs and Persians have contributions in this sphere. Sheikh Farid-uddin Attar, resident of Neshapour (ancient Persia), mentions in one of his works (I translate, but it will not be perfect): "Don't let the self (your soul) become familiarized with the Demons-- for once you do, you become one yourself." In the context of his poem, the Demons refer to the proteges of Satan who cause us to commit sin--the ugly side of the Human being. In other words, if you do something ugly, you will still have your good self, but also now develop a bad self; the more bad you do, the more varieties of bad selves you will develop. Philosophic psychiatry (that blends religion with psychology, as suggested by Maslow) supports this view as well: recent (2011) paper on the New Unconscious confirms that humans are objectively good: our good self is always there. But when we deviate from this objective goodness, (to the degree that we deviate) we slowly face dissociation--multiple selves emerge as an after-effect. Elsewhere Hakim Nezami, resident of Ganja (now located in Azerbaijan), writes: "O, Thou, from Whom the Whole Existence has come about!" "The weak soil, become able from Thy Mercy!" While on the surface it may refer to how soil produces food per decree of the Almighty, it also refers to human beings (as we were made from soil originally); the reference to becoming able is in contrast to being weak--when committing sin and doing wrong: the bad self--while becoming able implies no longer being weak: developing the good self. There can be more but off-hand this should do. :)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

euroderf 4y ago

There is a concept in Tibetan thought that there can be independent "power centers" (for lack of a better term) in the mind. They might warp the personality of the "host". They might sometimes grow out of control. This is my superficial understanding anyways. And now that I think of it, it sounds a bit like Videodrome.