I think another possible reason for the negative correlation with age is that as people get older and death becomes more imminent, they (in my experience) try harder to convince themselves and their peers that it is a good/natural/acceptable thing, to lessen the sense of fear and helplessness.

The median ideal life span is 90 years – about 11 years longer than the current average U.S. life expectancy, which is 78.7 years

I'd guess that there's nothing magically wonderful about living to be 90. The more important part seems to be wanting to live longer but not wanting (or wanting to want) anything that seems implausible or socially abnormal.

It would have been interesting to see if greater age was correlated with holding a stronger view either for or against radical life extension. I would predict that older people hold stronger views, since the issue is more relevant to their current life experiences.

Younger adults, to whom old age may seem far away, are more likely than those 65 and older to give an ideal age of 78 years or less (19% vs. 6%). The median ideal life span of adults under 30 – at 85 years – is lower than that for older adults.

I did not expect this. And it seems weird, since young people are also more optimistic about their futures. And more likely to want to undergo radical life extension. Plus they haven't suffered the effects of aging (having many loved ones die, illness and pain, etc.).

One thing you might want to take into account: your baseline might be bad. Some of the people taking part might already be chronically sleep deprived or have a sleep disorder of some kind or another already.

I've failed Uberman twice myself. You have pretty much an optimal plan, except for the naptation.

"Cut your naps down to 6 as quickly as you can without it hurting too much".

From my own knowledge, which may or may not be trustworthy, naptation doesn't need to be ended prematurely - the whole point is to get a huge number of naps in a short timeframe in order to learn to get REM in a 24-minute interval (which dreaming is a sign of). Getting a few more will just decrease your REM dep. The way I would do it is, get 12 naps a day until you find yourself unable to fall asleep for a nap at all - the critical thing is, you stay in bed until the alarm; you don't just get up after ten minutes - and also take care that some people may have trouble falling asleep for naps at all, which is a separate issue. When you fail to fall asleep for a nap, that's a sign that you've had enough and can't sustain 12 a day any longer; either cut two naps or go straight down to 6 a day. I'd choose the latter.

Also, um, give beds a wide berth outside naptime. And get more than two alarms, preferably with one placed more than 10 meters away from the bed - the long walk to it and back will ensure you actually wake up in the process of turning it off.

I discovered this issue for myself by reading a similar article, and going through the same process, but with my third thought being "does that guy [the Prime Minister in this story] really believe this thing that I believe [in this case, pro-choice]?" I think he's bad because he broke the rules, then I forgive him because he's on my side, then for one reason on another I start to wonder if he really is on my side...and notice that I'm trying to decide whether to blame him for breaking the rules or not. (I think this is because I myself use irony a lot, so often when I hear a statement that is in some way ambiguous or silly, I reflexively ask myself if it is sincere or sarcasm, even in a situation where irony would be unacceptable/unthinkable, as is the case with a public statement)

I'm not sure how many times this happened to me before I noticed, but nowadays I just think "broke the rules, -10 points even though I like this guy", and then, "oh and he agrees with me, gotta increase his score for that".

Sounds like a fun ritual. Makes me wish I were in Boston so I could attend.

3 is complex (hence the contention). One of the useful outcomes of testing soylent will be providing decent evidence on this. There are definitely some non-trivial issues going on in that several substances cause no problems in high quantities in whole foods but show signs of toxicity in small amounts from supplements (manganese, vitamin A). I am paranoid about not absorbing nutrients or poisoning myself, so I am sticking to whole foods until I see some blood panels.

4: His claim about maltodextrin being slower than sugar to absorb is wrong and can be disproved in 30 seconds with a trip to wikipedia. This does not give me faith in his process.

Protein intake is woefully low for anyone who exercises regularly.

Fat intake is contentious. One camp holds that PUFAs are bad and the other that SFAs are bad. There is little debate that MUFAs are good for you, so olive oil is a good choice. One possible modification to my shake is using skim milk and replacing the lost fat with olive oil, but this eliminates the fat soluble vitamins present in the milk which then complicates the recipe significantly trying to add them back in. I get my MUFAs in the rest of my diet by cooking in coconut milk a lot. I'm not worried about the PUFAs in the sunflower seeds because sunflower seeds have the highest concentration of vitamin E of almost any food by weight. It is highly doubtful the PUFAs are oxidizing in such an environment.

I've read a significant amount of your essays/articles and love the stuff. It's kinda hard to track for new stuff since the RSS feed tends to dump dozens of small changes all at once, so this post is much appreciated.

For the overwhelmed, here's a summary snippet to encourage further investigation... (in rot13 for those who'd consider it spoilers, or just think Down With This Sort Of Thing).

From the Dual N-Back FAQ:

Gb gubfr jubfr gvzr vf yvzvgrq: lbh znl jvfu gb fgbc ernqvat urer. Vs lbh frrx gb vzcebir lbhe yvsr, naq jnag gur terngrfg "onat sbe gur ohpx", lbh ner jryy-nqivfrq gb ybbx ryfrjurer.

Zrqvgngvba, sbe rknzcyr, vf rnfvre, snfgre, naq hygen-cbegnoyr. Glcvat genvavat jvyy qverpgyl vzcebir lbhe snpvyvgl jvgu n pbzchgre, n inyhnoyr fxvyy sbe guvf zbqrea jbeyq. Fcnprq ercrgvgvba zrzbevmngvba grpuavdhrf bssre hacnenyyryrq nqinagntrf gb fghqragf. Abbgebcvpf ner gur rcvgbzr bs rnfr (whfg fjnyybj!), naq gurve rssrpgf ner zhpu zber rnfvyl nffrffrq - bar pna rira eha qbhoyr-oyvaq rkcrevzragf ba barfrys, vzcbffvoyr jvgu qhny A-onpx. Bgure fhccyrzragf yvxr zryngbava pna qryvire orarsvgf vapbzzrafhenoyr jvgu QAO - jung vf gur pbtavgvir inyhr bs nabgure ahzore va jbexvat zrzbel gunaxf gb QAO pbzcnerq gb n tbbq avtug’f fyrrc gunaxf gb zryngbava? Zbqrfg punatrf gb bar’f qvrg naq raivebaf pna shaqnzragnyyl vzcebir bar’f jryy-orvat. Rira onfvp genvavat va ernqvat, jvgu gur pehqrfg gnpuvfgbfpbcr grpuavdhrf, pna cnl ynetr qvivqraqf vs bar vf orybj n onfvp yriry bs ernqvat yvxr 200JCZ & fgvyy fhoibpnyvmvat. Naq nyy bs gurfr pna fgneg cnlvat bss vzzrqvngryl.

...and his favorite nootropics are:

1. Zbqnsvavy/nezbqnsvavy
2. Zryngbava
3. Pnssrvar+gurnavar
4. Cvenprgnz+pubyvar
5. Ivgnzva Q
6. Fhyohgvnzvar
7. Svfu bvy

What was the name of that rule where you commit yourself to not getting offended?

I've always practiced it, though not always as perfectly as I've wanted (when I do slip up, it's never during an argument though; my stoicism muscle is fully alert at those points in time). An annoying aspect of it is when other people get offended - my emotions are my own problem, why won't they deal with theirs; do I have to play babysitter with their thought process? You can't force someone to become a stoic, but you can probably convince them that their reaction is hurting them and show them that it's desirable for them to ignore offense. To that end, I'm thankful for this post, upvoted.