4 ms·

I'm an individual who has designed [1] and built his own tDCS device, downloaded all the PDFs, read them and then designed his own experiment: anode over LDLPFC

by winfred 12y ago

I'm an individual who has designed [1] and built his own tDCS device, downloaded all the PDFs, read them and then designed his own experiment: anode over LDLPFC and cathode above right eye, 20 minutes at 2 mA, while doing Dual-N-Back Workshop [2]. I've done between 30 and 40 sessions over a period of three years, still ongoing. The intention was to increase my working memory, but it has also helped with several other minor issues. By my own estimations, my fluid intelligence has gone up significantly, it's really noticeable and I now also score significantly higher on IQ tests. I've combined that with my own nootropics stack and mental exercise regime, which further enhanced my intelligence, now pushing me into genius territory. It's a blessing, that's for sure, I can now much better strategize my life, but there are also some downsides, like an uptick in neurotic behavior. I'm currently working on changing my website, winfred.com [3] to a site that lists all the details of the work I've done on myself. Does anyone think there is value in publishing something like that? [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/comments/qn6s5/diy_tdcs_howto/ http://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/comments/qn6s5/diy_tdcs_howto/ [2] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ [3] http://winfred.com/ http://winfred.com/

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- winfred 12y ago
  But I'd invite others to follow along, using my instructions and publishing their findings (for example, before and after IQ tests), that would increase the number of participants, but not solve the control group problem. However, if you are willing to participate, you could be part of the control group, doing only the Dual-N-Back workshop for example. I know we should be doing blind controls, but that's really too hard to implement at this stage and we have the research papers to fall back on anyway, which have tested and proven that the tDCS device does indeed have all sorts of beneficial effects.
  - natdempk 12y ago
    You could try to implement a blind test by doing tDCS with currents below those known to be effective as a control. From what I've heard under 0.5 mA should have negligible effects, though its worth looking into more studies for that. You should also implement some sort of double-blind by having another person set control the Amps for you. It wouldn't be too hard to design an experiment around this principle. I would check out some of the stuff on http://gwern.net http://gwern.net for reference on designing quantified-self experiments to establish an effect strength.
    - winfred 12y ago
      Yeah, I know, I'm a follower of Gwern, however, like I outline elsewhere in this thread, I think that the effectiveness of the device is already proven by the research papers. IQ tests in my opinion form a good enough basis for measuring change, if they aren't taken too often (I'd suggest once every 3 years or so). I'm really in it for the gains. I don't even care if half of it is placebo! As long as I can measure an increase in intelligence, preferably through testing, then that's good enough for me. I will always maintain a hefty bit of skepticism towards my own intelligence, just in case I'm fooling myself, but so far it seems like the gains are real. Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced?
      - gwern 12y ago
        > Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced? If that happens, then you've learned something very useful: whatever methods and conclusions led you or those 100 people to the conclusion that their intelligence increased - is rubbish.
  - julespitt 12y ago
    Sounds great! Definitely interested - I'll keep tabs on this.
natdempk 12y ago
Sorry to be a pessimist here, but is there any evidence that you've increased your intelligence in anything that can't be trained? Dual-N-Back benefits from training, IQ tests benefit from training, and fluid intelligence is really such a subjective term its hard to tell anything based on that. Can you elaborate on the "minor issues" that it has helped with, how your "fluid intelligence" has gone up, and what your mental exercise routine is? I don't mean to be nasty, but I do have a healthy dose of skepticism about many of these topics.
- winfred 12y ago
  Why would I consider your response pessimistic? It seems to be a totally valid remark to me. No, there is no evidence at all. However, the medication I have been taking, is known to improve the ability to focus in people with a certain DNA marker. And I have that DNA marker and I take this medication. The same goes with tDCS, over and over it is proven to improve certain brain functions, I have been using this device for the last 3 years now, the device has built in checks that show me that the current is actually going through my skull, I've seen the studies that show the flow of the electrons and I know where the electrodes are placed. I think we can make some assertions on the effects this has had on my brain? Regarding the minor issues, I sometimes have small bouts of depression, nothing too bad really, I never contemplate suicide for example, but still, it is nice that after a tDCS session these depressions tend to disappear. It could be coincidence, but there are research papers http://www.tmslab.org/publications/165.pdf http://www.tmslab.org/publications/165.pdf that also seem to imply that tDCS helps with depressions. The mental exercise consisted mainly of no longer using my episodic memory (I have very limited time related memory storage, it's really pathetic in some sense) and reading hundreds of audiobooks on the following topics: Psychology, Early Roman Civilization, Early Christian Religion, General History, Battle Tactics, Modern Warfare, Late Christian Religions, Philosophy, Story Telling, Programming (well, I just learned that on the computer, not with an audio book). As a result of doing that for a long time (over 10 years), 5 hours per day, I am now a theoretical subject matter expert on a wide range of topics.
  - redmaverick 12y ago
    > DNA marker Can you expand on this? What is the medication you have been taking? With Dual N Back, do you think it improves WM on a temporary basis or is the increase permanent?
julespitt 12y ago
Given that I am constantly deeply tempted to try such experiments myself, I can say - yes, there would be much value to me. Although it's perhaps likely I won't actually try, following along is still very interesting.
- winfred 12y ago
  Alright, that's good to hear. Is there any specific kind of information you'd be most interested in? Side effects? Actual changes in lifestyle? Should I give it a psychological focus or write it very informal?
  - julespitt 12y ago
    Previously, when I've researched this myself casually, I've found the technical information to be too vague, in terms of both building the devices and specifically where to place them, why - and how it all fits in to the reviewed literature - if at all. But I certainly wouldn't expect the sort of rigor others are asking for in this thread - obviously this is more hobby than science, and I'd consider personal reports interesting despite being anecdotal.
tokenadult 12y ago
it's really noticeable and I now also score significantly higher on IQ tests Are these current, professionally published, individually administered IQ tests? There are only so many brands of those. "IQ tests" on the Internet are completely bogus and are not validated. The statement you make, even if observed under the most rigorous conditions with proper tests, may just mean that you are enjoying a training effect after taking so many IQ tests. Most people don't take many IQ tests over the course of a whole lifetime, and are taken by surprise by the item content of any given IQ test. Some kinds of IQ test items have HUGE training effects (also known as practice effects), and you only get one shot at using those to estimate your IQ. (The Wechsler Block Design subtest is an outstanding example of IQ test items with strong practice effects.) How much carry-over from all this do you get in the rest of your daily life activities outside the testing room? That's always the relevant question for any intervention that is supposed to increase IQ. Does anyone else comment that you are smarter now than you used to be?
tedks 12y ago
>I've combined that with my own nootropics stack and mental exercise regime, which further enhanced my intelligence, now pushing me into genius territory. It's a blessing, that's for sure, I can now much better strategize my life, but there are also some downsides, like an uptick in neurotic behavior. That's amazing. As someone who dabbles in nootropics and casually follows tDCS, that looks fantastic and I wish you the best in the future. We're not far from something utterly fantastical in terms of human augmentation and people like you are on the forefront. That said: What have you won with this? What have you been able to do as a near-genius that you could not have done otherwise? What about the practical correlates of intelligence, like income or social status? I think a major flaw in many of these self-experiments is that it uses tests that seem to have decent validity, but don't cross-validate that with real-world results. I would definitely read whatever you published; I've bookmarked your website and will extract anything I can from it.
- winfred 12y ago
  Income wise I've reached the point where I can now spend some time trying out some new things. I won't be able to do it for years, but that is because I buy things like new Makerbots, that's really eating into my budget. In other aspects of life, well, that's a hard one. I consider myself one of the world's first cyborgs, with several implants (I have both magnetic sensory perception and RFID implant to computer authentication to give you some examples). The plans I'm working on now in my leisure time are full of self indulgence. I'm working on art pieces that I'll be using for my performance art work, where I'm integrating my implants with my clothing and transportation. I have all the parts and materials, it's mainly a matter of giving each aspect of the project the time it needs to complete.
  - tedks 12y ago
    So has the rate of your income growth changed after beginning these experiments? Are the implants your projects? Would you not have been able to do them before you started with nootropes and tDCS? Do you feel like your art is better or more refined? I hope these questions aren't invasive; feel free to not answer any of them; I just thought it valuable to ask because there are very few people that seem to have gone as far into this as you have, you claim to have strong results, and I'd honestly really, really like to have additional motivation to continue doing them myself.
ZoFreX 12y ago
Was your experiment double blind? Have you isolated which out of your tDCS, nootropics and mental exercises are responsible for the benefits you think you are seeing? The whole thing sounds rather unscientific thus not something I would be comfortable drawing any conclusions from.
- tedks 12y ago
  Evidence can be unscientific and yet convincing. Very little legal evidence is scientific, but is very convincing. Humans are successful as brains because we generalize very quickly from small examples, enabling us to learn quickly and adapt quickly. Further, academia is corrupt. Very little of the work academics do is interesting. The academic process is intensely political and the probability of something getting published is as much a function of who reviews it as it is of the quality of the work, if not more. I say this as someone exposed to academia currently. Never limit what you can draw conclusions from! Draw conclusions from anything you can observe; but do moderate the strength of your conclusion, and the degree to which you integrate that conclusion, by the strength of the process used to produce that evidence.
listic 12y ago
Hi, I would be delighted to talk to you. Please put some contact information into your profile.
- winfred 12y ago
  Thanks. I've updated my information and I've sent you an email.
myrrh 12y ago
hi winfred, really interested in your project, and would like to discuss it in further detail. can you email me? ryljlly at gmail dot com

by winfred 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

winfred 12y ago
But I'd invite others to follow along, using my instructions and publishing their findings (for example, before and after IQ tests), that would increase the number of participants, but not solve the control group problem. However, if you are willing to participate, you could be part of the control group, doing only the Dual-N-Back workshop for example. I know we should be doing blind controls, but that's really too hard to implement at this stage and we have the research papers to fall back on anyway, which have tested and proven that the tDCS device does indeed have all sorts of beneficial effects.
- natdempk 12y ago
  You could try to implement a blind test by doing tDCS with currents below those known to be effective as a control. From what I've heard under 0.5 mA should have negligible effects, though its worth looking into more studies for that. You should also implement some sort of double-blind by having another person set control the Amps for you. It wouldn't be too hard to design an experiment around this principle. I would check out some of the stuff on http://gwern.net http://gwern.net for reference on designing quantified-self experiments to establish an effect strength.
  - winfred 12y ago
    Yeah, I know, I'm a follower of Gwern, however, like I outline elsewhere in this thread, I think that the effectiveness of the device is already proven by the research papers. IQ tests in my opinion form a good enough basis for measuring change, if they aren't taken too often (I'd suggest once every 3 years or so). I'm really in it for the gains. I don't even care if half of it is placebo! As long as I can measure an increase in intelligence, preferably through testing, then that's good enough for me. I will always maintain a hefty bit of skepticism towards my own intelligence, just in case I'm fooling myself, but so far it seems like the gains are real. Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced?
    - gwern 12y ago
      > Say, if I publish my findings and 100 people follow and see increases in their intelligence, then five years later it is published that my methods are rubbish. Will that invalide the intelligence increases these 100 people have experienced? If that happens, then you've learned something very useful: whatever methods and conclusions led you or those 100 people to the conclusion that their intelligence increased - is rubbish.
- julespitt 12y ago
  Sounds great! Definitely interested - I'll keep tabs on this.

natdempk 12y ago

Sorry to be a pessimist here, but is there any evidence that you've increased your intelligence in anything that can't be trained? Dual-N-Back benefits from training, IQ tests benefit from training, and fluid intelligence is really such a subjective term its hard to tell anything based on that. Can you elaborate on the "minor issues" that it has helped with, how your "fluid intelligence" has gone up, and what your mental exercise routine is? I don't mean to be nasty, but I do have a healthy dose of skepticism about many of these topics.

winfred 12y ago
Why would I consider your response pessimistic? It seems to be a totally valid remark to me. No, there is no evidence at all. However, the medication I have been taking, is known to improve the ability to focus in people with a certain DNA marker. And I have that DNA marker and I take this medication. The same goes with tDCS, over and over it is proven to improve certain brain functions, I have been using this device for the last 3 years now, the device has built in checks that show me that the current is actually going through my skull, I've seen the studies that show the flow of the electrons and I know where the electrodes are placed. I think we can make some assertions on the effects this has had on my brain? Regarding the minor issues, I sometimes have small bouts of depression, nothing too bad really, I never contemplate suicide for example, but still, it is nice that after a tDCS session these depressions tend to disappear. It could be coincidence, but there are research papers http://www.tmslab.org/publications/165.pdf http://www.tmslab.org/publications/165.pdf that also seem to imply that tDCS helps with depressions. The mental exercise consisted mainly of no longer using my episodic memory (I have very limited time related memory storage, it's really pathetic in some sense) and reading hundreds of audiobooks on the following topics: Psychology, Early Roman Civilization, Early Christian Religion, General History, Battle Tactics, Modern Warfare, Late Christian Religions, Philosophy, Story Telling, Programming (well, I just learned that on the computer, not with an audio book). As a result of doing that for a long time (over 10 years), 5 hours per day, I am now a theoretical subject matter expert on a wide range of topics.
- redmaverick 12y ago
  > DNA marker Can you expand on this? What is the medication you have been taking? With Dual N Back, do you think it improves WM on a temporary basis or is the increase permanent?

julespitt 12y ago

Given that I am constantly deeply tempted to try such experiments myself, I can say - yes, there would be much value to me. Although it's perhaps likely I won't actually try, following along is still very interesting.

winfred 12y ago
Alright, that's good to hear. Is there any specific kind of information you'd be most interested in? Side effects? Actual changes in lifestyle? Should I give it a psychological focus or write it very informal?
- julespitt 12y ago
  Previously, when I've researched this myself casually, I've found the technical information to be too vague, in terms of both building the devices and specifically where to place them, why - and how it all fits in to the reviewed literature - if at all. But I certainly wouldn't expect the sort of rigor others are asking for in this thread - obviously this is more hobby than science, and I'd consider personal reports interesting despite being anecdotal.

tokenadult 12y ago

it's really noticeable and I now also score significantly higher on IQ tests Are these current, professionally published, individually administered IQ tests? There are only so many brands of those. "IQ tests" on the Internet are completely bogus and are not validated. The statement you make, even if observed under the most rigorous conditions with proper tests, may just mean that you are enjoying a training effect after taking so many IQ tests. Most people don't take many IQ tests over the course of a whole lifetime, and are taken by surprise by the item content of any given IQ test. Some kinds of IQ test items have HUGE training effects (also known as practice effects), and you only get one shot at using those to estimate your IQ. (The Wechsler Block Design subtest is an outstanding example of IQ test items with strong practice effects.) How much carry-over from all this do you get in the rest of your daily life activities outside the testing room? That's always the relevant question for any intervention that is supposed to increase IQ. Does anyone else comment that you are smarter now than you used to be?

tedks 12y ago

>I've combined that with my own nootropics stack and mental exercise regime, which further enhanced my intelligence, now pushing me into genius territory. It's a blessing, that's for sure, I can now much better strategize my life, but there are also some downsides, like an uptick in neurotic behavior. That's amazing. As someone who dabbles in nootropics and casually follows tDCS, that looks fantastic and I wish you the best in the future. We're not far from something utterly fantastical in terms of human augmentation and people like you are on the forefront. That said: What have you won with this? What have you been able to do as a near-genius that you could not have done otherwise? What about the practical correlates of intelligence, like income or social status? I think a major flaw in many of these self-experiments is that it uses tests that seem to have decent validity, but don't cross-validate that with real-world results. I would definitely read whatever you published; I've bookmarked your website and will extract anything I can from it.

winfred 12y ago
Income wise I've reached the point where I can now spend some time trying out some new things. I won't be able to do it for years, but that is because I buy things like new Makerbots, that's really eating into my budget. In other aspects of life, well, that's a hard one. I consider myself one of the world's first cyborgs, with several implants (I have both magnetic sensory perception and RFID implant to computer authentication to give you some examples). The plans I'm working on now in my leisure time are full of self indulgence. I'm working on art pieces that I'll be using for my performance art work, where I'm integrating my implants with my clothing and transportation. I have all the parts and materials, it's mainly a matter of giving each aspect of the project the time it needs to complete.
- tedks 12y ago
  So has the rate of your income growth changed after beginning these experiments? Are the implants your projects? Would you not have been able to do them before you started with nootropes and tDCS? Do you feel like your art is better or more refined? I hope these questions aren't invasive; feel free to not answer any of them; I just thought it valuable to ask because there are very few people that seem to have gone as far into this as you have, you claim to have strong results, and I'd honestly really, really like to have additional motivation to continue doing them myself.

ZoFreX 12y ago

Was your experiment double blind? Have you isolated which out of your tDCS, nootropics and mental exercises are responsible for the benefits you think you are seeing? The whole thing sounds rather unscientific thus not something I would be comfortable drawing any conclusions from.

tedks 12y ago
Evidence can be unscientific and yet convincing. Very little legal evidence is scientific, but is very convincing. Humans are successful as brains because we generalize very quickly from small examples, enabling us to learn quickly and adapt quickly. Further, academia is corrupt. Very little of the work academics do is interesting. The academic process is intensely political and the probability of something getting published is as much a function of who reviews it as it is of the quality of the work, if not more. I say this as someone exposed to academia currently. Never limit what you can draw conclusions from! Draw conclusions from anything you can observe; but do moderate the strength of your conclusion, and the degree to which you integrate that conclusion, by the strength of the process used to produce that evidence.

listic 12y ago

Hi, I would be delighted to talk to you. Please put some contact information into your profile.

winfred 12y ago
Thanks. I've updated my information and I've sent you an email.

myrrh 12y ago

hi winfred, really interested in your project, and would like to discuss it in further detail. can you email me? ryljlly at gmail dot com