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.

RyanCarey comments on What is up with carbon dioxide and cognition? An offer - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: paulfchristiano 23 April 2016 05:47PM

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

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: paulfchristiano 25 April 2016 06:30:22PM 1 point [-]

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.

(aside from the sample size)

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.

taken at face value, with reasonable estimates of how much rooms differ from day to day or week to week, CO2 levels would explain a lot or maybe most of variability in IQ tests or cognitive performance!

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.

Comment author: RyanCarey 03 May 2016 02:51:38PM 0 points [-]

It's also unlikely to be about oxygen because oxygen levels that reach the brain in a healthy person depend almost entirely on the amount of saturated haemoglobin, which is 95-100% of Hb in someone without serious lung heart or haemoglobin defects. This means that variability in O2 availability is more dependent on one's iron level (~10% SD) than breathing/air effects (<2%sd). (I disclaim that I haven't yet looked into literature about O2 chemistry and supply to the brain so may be wrong)

The CO2 hypothesis at least makes some sense because bloodstream CO2 levels vary a bit.

Gwern's evolutionary argument seems weak because we did not develop in ancestral environments where we could properly trap CO2 (our CO2 sensors mightn't need to be very sensitive), and for our ancestord it was at least somewhat more important to conserve energy from breathing and somewhat less important to be be so intelligent.