Are you getting it all at once or as an infusion? Considering this is given as an infusion over 40 minutes, this seems to be a pretty mild dose consistent with mild analgesia and well bellow the recreation and dissociative doses based on all the charts I just pulled up, but I'm not personally experienced with K ;)
I've had K infusions for neuropathic pain, in comparable dosage rates, for up to 7 days at a time.
You certainly notice the effects of IV K. So do other people when you start to talk to a hairbrush. It's a bit draining after a few days though, and not terribly fun.
That is the function of puritanism. Consider it as a product:
Want to look or feel virtuous even though you are a horrible selfish person? Are you not openly having sex with more than one person? With prudity you are qualified! It works by reducing virtue into who you have sex with there by freeing you to commit crimes while considering yourself righteous and decent! Order today!
The categorization is interesting albeit deeply ungrounded in any real rigor and seems of a piece with one of his other recent essays, in which he developed a psychoanalytic theory of the various kinds of "haters" and "losers."
Further, I wish Paul Graham would try to convey his ideas with less condescension and smugness. There's a sense in which he maligns large swaths of humanity as somehow defective or worthy of shame. Certainly the term "idiots" doesn't help.
Further there's an essentialism and determinism that's sort of disturbing (labeling preschoolers as sheep is kind of messed up) and lacking in empathy.
Finally I suppose this is obvious, but I'm guessing Graham situates himself as a paragon of fierce independent-minded thinking and courage. It's rather easier to do that when you're absurdly independently wealthy. Thinking through the courageous stand countless people are taking even right now around the world, risking life and limb, just makes this feel a bit like a grievance-laden tempest in a teapot.
Yikes. You make some pretty strong claims that are not credible on their face.
1. "Not adaptive in any situation..."
Putting aside the many problems with evolutionary psychological explanations (just-so theory, underdetermination, so-called disjunction and grain problems), there's actually an very strong argument to OCD's adaptive role, both at the individual (threat response) and group. I think the group argument is most compelling, as various degrees of neuroticism have very high upside for risk management over time.
Or take depression for example. It can serve, theoretically, to reduce risk of conflict and death when social hierarchies might be in flux, it's a way to honestly signal a problem to ones group, it could be a mechanism to accurately try and signal a problem to oneself like physical pain does, its been theorized to potentially reduce risk of infection, etc.
2. These genes very clearly do not weed themselves out of the gene pool. In fact, mental illness has been on the rise, probably mostly because neurodiversity has been increasingly pathologized. The social construct in which these are considered disordered is hugely important.
3. Your comment about that empathy snp is extreme genetic essentialsm and determinism. Moreover, it's a single snp. I don't know of a single researcher who'd claim that something as complicated as empathy is either toast or not toast from a single snp.
Like all evolutionary psychology you can argue forever about the 'adaptive value' of any behaviour and characteristic and never know whether what you're saying is true or just completely and utterly wrong. It has a reputation for a reason. I could make a list full of hundreds of reasons why depression might be adaptive - that it's so darn easy should serve as a warning why it's often a bad idea to theorise like this.
They do in theory but there are countless excel spreadsheets in circulation with a full list of companies way in advance of demo day. If you're not plugged in and arrive at demo day, many VCs have reached out to companies way before you see them present.
I think there's a bit of cruelty in so casually reducing people to "losers." Taking what must be a complex set of personal histories and circumstances that lead people to that behavior and framing it as a matter of winner vs loser seems to border on smug, especially when the writer is clearly the former.
The post clearly ignores the use of any form of sensitive language, which in this case I thought helped to illustrate the points quite well.
Personally, I can’t imagine calling somebody a loser, but in my head I have a very clear idea of what a loser is. To me a loser is anybody that, in spite of the opportunity to do so, doesn’t take any control over their own life, doesn’t take responsibility for themselves, and blames others for their failure/lack of success. Such people can become marginally successful, but they’ll always be losers, because they’ll never get what they want from life. To me, this idea seems very similar to what he was getting at.
The notion of control over one's life is elusive. Our futures can be wrought by trauma, poverty and the lottery that is our DNA, and by extension, our brain. Given the randomness/contingency Graham acknowledges explains his and others' success, and by implication the various dependencies en route to that success, I'd just ask for a bit more compassion for those, whether through birth or circumstance, find themselves constitutionally unable to make the most of their lives in the sense you probably mean. Something as simple as a deficit in executive function can wreak havoc on one's ability to self-motivate, just as an example.
I am talking about people who have opportunities they don’t take, so the spiel about circumstances is pretty off topic. In my comment I also made no reference to outcomes. I was specifically describing an approach to life. Anybody, even the most low agency circumstances, can choose how they approach life.
> Anybody, even the most low agency circumstances, can choose how they approach life.
That is a very common ideology around these parts (and also in the US), but it is simply not true. We are constrained by our mental health in how we can choose to approach life, and our mental health is partly due to genetic lottery and partly due to environmental circumstances outside of our control. This is not my opinion, scientific studies are massively (as you would say) in agreement with what I claim here.
The American obsession with "winner" and "losers" is just an excuse to be selfish and cruel. Its fruits are extreme economic equality, school shootings and people dying of easily curable diseases because they don't have money for the treatment (or even the ambulance to the hospital).
