You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

perturbation comments on Open Thread, March 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 March 2012 08:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 March 2012 05:27:32PM 0 points [-]

This (a pop-sci story about a study on creativity relating to inebriation and sleep deprivation) looked interesting, but didn't really seem to fit in with LessWrong's core interests, and the main study it references (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2011.625663) is behind a paywall.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 March 2012 07:58:08PM 1 point [-]

I'm sure I've seen at least one person on LessWrong -- perhaps Eliezer -- finding the idea abhorrent of giving oneself temporary brain damage by pouring chemicals like alcohol into their brain. Would this study (supposing it is as reported) change their mind?

Comment author: faul_sname 07 March 2012 01:03:02AM 0 points [-]

"Damage" and "differing function" are two different things. You can increase your capacity for high-quality rational thought by increasing your blood glucose levels, which doesn't really seem qualitatively different from boosting your creative abilities by increasing your blood alcohol levels.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 March 2012 02:00:49AM 0 points [-]

It would justify (if true) becoming drunk/sleep deprived when you want to try and solve what the article calls 'creative insight' problems, that is, problems that are usually solved in a flash of insight and not through deliberate, methodical process.

One study (the one I linked to above) tested people at their 'least optimal time of day' (night owls in the morning) and found them to be more effective at solving these types of problems, and the other (which I neglected to link to before) is about inebriated students (BAC ~0.075) attempting to solve 'remote association tests' with word problems and found that, 'Intoxicated individuals solved more RAT items, in less time, and were more likely to perceive their solutions as the result of a sudden insight.'