= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on What is up with carbon dioxide and cognition? An offer - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
I don't see how it can be about oxygen. In the paper I linked, I think they directly add relatively pure carbon dioxide. And the total concentration is 0.1%. So the concentration of oxygen in the air is not really changing.
The texas natural experiment seems like an especially convincing complement to the more artificial setting, thanks for pointing it out.
If you look into this I will leave open the offer to buy certificates after the prize. So far not many takers on the prize, this comment is currently in the lead based on the literature review, not sure if there will be takers closer to the cutoff.
The sample size is small, but given the effect size I don't think it even matters that much. The error seems like less than a factor of 2.
This looks right to me (well "a lot," I don't think "most"), I assume that something is wrong. An obvious possible culprit is their cognitive test.
I believe the human breathing regulation mechanism (how frequently/deeply you breathe) is driven by CO2 concentrations. So manipulating the CO2 affects the breathing which determines how much oxygen is your body getting.
Doesn't that go the wrong direction? I.e., if you have more CO2, don't you end breathing more and so having more oxygen?
Yes
Which direction is "wrong"? :-)
You're dealing with a self-regulating biological system. The relationships between inputs and outputs tend to be complicated.