I may be out of the loop here, but would somebody mind catching me up on the abandonment of the "fructose explanation"?
Fructose has been the be-all and end-all of my hypothesis for the last little while. I find that when I avoid fructose in its many forms, including "invert sugar syrup", sugar feels like it has a more natural effect. It "does what it should", i.e. provide me with a quick burst of dopamine, rather than leaving me suddenly hungry again when I just ate.
For those without the context for this, fructose suppresses leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite in our brains, causing a "bottomless" feeling. This makes sense: for a wild animal, fruit gluts are a great time to store calories for winter.
As far as I can see, knowledge of this is relatively widespread, so I have to assume people noted it and moved on.
Is there an argument against this I haven't heard?
Hi Korin, in case it's of any interest I did eventually find that I will need to filter my home made SAD lamp using UV blocking film or similar. Purpose built SAD lamps come with built in filtration. Just a heads up in case. See this comment.
I just thought I'd return here a few months later to add an update for people who may be considering building their own lamp.
Having built my own lamp with 6000K LEDs that are not designed specifically for SAD treatment, I have found that it does tan my skin and create a feeling of sensitivity.
On doing some research, it seems that purpose-built SAD lamps filter out the UV part of the spectrum.
This seems like an important consideration for anyone who may be planning on building their own.
For my own filter, I am considering buying some UV blocking film! Hopefully this will solve the problem.
That was fun. I enjoyed that. Thank you.
There's something very satisfying about an end for Quirrell that he can control. I always thought he deserved better than that - better than passivity. You've improved it, in my eyes!
Experimental psychologists spend their working lives devising empirical tests for questions like these.
One way for Alice to test her theory would be to find a fact that people had motivation to lie about, and see whether their public or private statements were more likely to represent the truth.
Oooh, great response! I was hoping for something like this - a good reason to get involved with something I didn't initially see the utility of.
It also seems related to Elizabeth's article on internet literacy atrophy, which I happened to stumble on today - so there's another reason too.
Thanks again!
This is a really handy formalisation of this. One thing did stand out to me - I'm curious about your rationale for watching out for new media platforms?
What do people think about the effects of such bright light on skin? I have heard anecdotally that some SAD lights can cause sunburn. The long term oxidative effects may not be desirable, either aesthetically in terms of skin ageing, or for health in terms of skin cancer risk.
The health effects of stress/loneliness/depression and sheer subjective misery are powerful counter-arguments regardless.
I'm currently in the middle of building a light setup based on this one by David Chapman of Meaningness. Wearing sunscreen is one option I've been considering! Would be interested to hear if anyone has experiences to share.
My problem with this comment is it takes people who:
and who:
by simply doing as they are told - and it assumes they are incapable of reasoning under any circumstances.
It also then denies people who are incapable of independent reasoning the right to be protected from harm.
Hello! Here I am, letting you know. I would not have known about this meetup unless it had conveniently popped up in my email inbox like it just did. Thanks for doing that!