5 ms·

neuroscientist here. just so you all know the science behind TCDS (i.e. why and how it works) is ... almost entirely unknown. We have no idea why and how it doe

by plg 12y ago

neuroscientist here. just so you all know the science behind TCDS (i.e. why and how it works) is ... almost entirely unknown. We have no idea why and how it does what it does. (and no idea what else it might be doing also). Zap at your own risk.

karmicthreat 12y ago
This is why I haven't tried it. I have zero ways to establish the long term risks of this. I don't want to radically enhance something and end up with depression or a decrease in other areas.
VMG 12y ago
are we at least somewhat confident that it does what is claimed?
- Multics 12y ago
  He's not sure of anything, by the looks of it! But please see this post by Science-Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
  - VMG 12y ago
    Steve Novella for the rescue! fixed link: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-stimulation-for-the-masses/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-stimulation-for-th...
- plg 12y ago
  As with most basic science research today in neuroscience, at least, many of the TDCS studies are based on small sample sizes and many of the effects, although "statistically significant" are in fact modest effects. So I guess the answer to your question is, sort of.
Multics 12y ago
Tons of drugs & physical therapies have unknown MOAs! It's "tDCS". You've mixed up the letters in the acronym, and incorrectly capitalized the first letter. It's thought that it works via the depolarization of the resting membrane potential.
leot 12y ago
Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, if it is "broke", the long-term effects of tDCS are about as well-studied as the long-term effects of many of the psychoactive substances (legal and otherwise) that we regularly take. No one knows, e.g., what happens to brains 50 years after 5 years of chronically administering SSRIs. Nor do we really know how to characterize "the long-term effects" of nicotine intake (and it's not at all clear that the "long-term effects" of anything that changes one's brain -- apart from in obvious ways e.g. by shrinking it -- is even something that it would make sense to try to characterize). In general, when it comes to psychoactive anything (and you might even include words, music, prolonged withdrawal from society, and sexy walking in this list) we don't have much more than a few interesting results here and there. When it comes to brains/minds/persons, we really don't know. What we can surmise is that those things that mammalian brains have not been exposed to (LSD, tDCS, fluoxetine) are likely to have less predictable effects than things in the environment that are phylogenetically familiar (sleep, exercise, prolonged concentration, temporally extended effort, etc.). In other words, if things are going poorly for you, try the boring approaches first. If those approaches don't work, though, there aren't really any compelling reasons to avoid techniques that are less familiar to your biology.
- Multics 12y ago
  "Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I would take tDCS over smoking or drinking, any day of the week. Or even extreme sports. It's socially acceptable to do some activities which are known to be deadly, but god forbid trying the unknown! That's a total faux pas. What BS. Where's the cost/benefit analysis. Yes: drinking, smoking, and sports can yield utility (fun), but people increasing their IQ or any other vector of intelligence could have a profound impact on society. I'm in agreement with the rest of your post. Edit: changed italics from HTML to Markdown
- davidtanner 12y ago
  Your list of phylogenetically familiar things could include DMT and psilocin. These chemicals are biosynthesized in many plants and animals and quite structurally similar to serotonin.

by plg 12y ago

karmicthreat 12y ago

This is why I haven't tried it. I have zero ways to establish the long term risks of this. I don't want to radically enhance something and end up with depression or a decrease in other areas.

VMG 12y ago

are we at least somewhat confident that it does what is claimed?

Multics 12y ago
He's not sure of anything, by the looks of it! But please see this post by Science-Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
- VMG 12y ago
  Steve Novella for the rescue! fixed link: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-stimulation-for-the-masses/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-stimulation-for-th...
plg 12y ago
As with most basic science research today in neuroscience, at least, many of the TDCS studies are based on small sample sizes and many of the effects, although "statistically significant" are in fact modest effects. So I guess the answer to your question is, sort of.

Multics 12y ago

Tons of drugs & physical therapies have unknown MOAs! It's "tDCS". You've mixed up the letters in the acronym, and incorrectly capitalized the first letter. It's thought that it works via the depolarization of the resting membrane potential.

leot 12y ago

Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, if it is "broke", the long-term effects of tDCS are about as well-studied as the long-term effects of many of the psychoactive substances (legal and otherwise) that we regularly take. No one knows, e.g., what happens to brains 50 years after 5 years of chronically administering SSRIs. Nor do we really know how to characterize "the long-term effects" of nicotine intake (and it's not at all clear that the "long-term effects" of anything that changes one's brain -- apart from in obvious ways e.g. by shrinking it -- is even something that it would make sense to try to characterize). In general, when it comes to psychoactive anything (and you might even include words, music, prolonged withdrawal from society, and sexy walking in this list) we don't have much more than a few interesting results here and there. When it comes to brains/minds/persons, we really don't know. What we can surmise is that those things that mammalian brains have not been exposed to (LSD, tDCS, fluoxetine) are likely to have less predictable effects than things in the environment that are phylogenetically familiar (sleep, exercise, prolonged concentration, temporally extended effort, etc.). In other words, if things are going poorly for you, try the boring approaches first. If those approaches don't work, though, there aren't really any compelling reasons to avoid techniques that are less familiar to your biology.

Multics 12y ago
"Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I would take tDCS over smoking or drinking, any day of the week. Or even extreme sports. It's socially acceptable to do some activities which are known to be deadly, but god forbid trying the unknown! That's a total faux pas. What BS. Where's the cost/benefit analysis. Yes: drinking, smoking, and sports can yield utility (fun), but people increasing their IQ or any other vector of intelligence could have a profound impact on society. I'm in agreement with the rest of your post. Edit: changed italics from HTML to Markdown
davidtanner 12y ago
Your list of phylogenetically familiar things could include DMT and psilocin. These chemicals are biosynthesized in many plants and animals and quite structurally similar to serotonin.