175 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
175 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
|||
|
title: Walpurgiskater
|
|||
|
date: 2013-05-01
|
|||
|
techne: :done
|
|||
|
episteme: :log
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
> but it’s too late, my friend\
|
|||
|
> too late\
|
|||
|
> but never mind
|
|||
|
>
|
|||
|
> all my trials, lord\
|
|||
|
> will soon be over
|
|||
|
>
|
|||
|
> – all my trials (excerpt)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As a simple safety precaution, and even though I don’t have a history of
|
|||
|
escalating addictions[^addict], I’m set up a [Beeminder
|
|||
|
goal](https://www.beeminder.com/muflax/goals/smoking) to limit my
|
|||
|
cigarette use. I mean, the financial budget already keeps it at a
|
|||
|
manageable level, but that’s what they all say, isn’t it?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Nonetheless, I did a simple cost comparisons[^patch] for a
|
|||
|
certain (fairly representative) Rich European Nation with its
|
|||
|
enlightened “heavily tax those who cost you less and who need the stuff
|
|||
|
to self-regulate” drug policy:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- decent cigarettes: \~0.25 Euro / 1mg nicotine
|
|||
|
- roll your own cigarettes: \~0.10 Euro / 1mg nicotine (all other
|
|||
|
tobacco products are somewhere between those two)
|
|||
|
- lozenges: \~0.06 Euro / 1mg nicotine (that’s for 4mg lozenges, which
|
|||
|
are easy to split in half, but if you want to actually dose 1mg,
|
|||
|
you’ll probably have to pay double)
|
|||
|
- e-cigarette: well… ok, I’m confused by how much usable nicotine they
|
|||
|
really contain, and what realistic costs are (including hardware),
|
|||
|
but my best estimate is something like \~0.10 Euro /
|
|||
|
1mg[^source] (especially as prices are expected to go up
|
|||
|
thanks to upcoming regulations), which surprises me as I thought
|
|||
|
they were a lot cheaper. Am I missing something?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I currently don’t have any reasonable way to circumvent those taxes
|
|||
|
(Eastern European border, I miss ya), so it seems like I’m not actually
|
|||
|
spending a whole lot of premium on cigarettes. Assuming a 4mg/day
|
|||
|
maximum (which is a pretty hig upper bound of my current use), I’d have
|
|||
|
to pay up to \~7 Eurons/month for the cognitive benefits through
|
|||
|
lozenges (which also ignores that I skip days irregularly because I
|
|||
|
forget about the stuff, which at least helps keep tolerance down).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If I add, say, 10 cigarettes/week (which is a similarly high long-term
|
|||
|
estimate of my current use) and use lozenges otherwise for the same
|
|||
|
4mg/day, I’d pay \~9 Eurons/months, not a lot more. (And I love tobacco
|
|||
|
smoke and discolorations anyway, so this is a reasonable cost just for
|
|||
|
the pleasant experience, but I’m weird that way. Always loved having
|
|||
|
smoker friends for their smell, even though I only got interested in the
|
|||
|
stuff itself a few years ago.) So once my current supplies run out,
|
|||
|
that’s exactly what I intend to switch to.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But why stick with 4mg? Maybe that’s too much, maybe not enough? I need
|
|||
|
a better way to quantify what benefits I get from nicotine (in terms of
|
|||
|
cognitive enhancement, reduction of *ugh*, regulation of schizotypal
|
|||
|
symptoms). So I thought about existing options to get data from:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- I can’t use sleep data because my sleep patterns are very irregular
|
|||
|
and my Zeo data is basically worthless. Back when I tracked it
|
|||
|
regularly for a few months, I virtually *never* dropped below a ZQ
|
|||
|
of 90 and saw many anomalies (catastrophic night with a ZQ \> 120
|
|||
|
etc.), and now Zeo’s dead anyway (pbut).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Comparing “time spent on useful projects” is tricky because there’s
|
|||
|
a lot of noise, but it might be workable if I do it for a
|
|||
|
sufficiently long period of time and I’m tracking this anyway.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Anki seems too noisy to evaluate. What would I even measure? Answer
|
|||
|
time? Correctness percentage is (on average) held constant by the
|
|||
|
scheduling algorithm and it’s tricky to control for difficulty.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
None of those sound too promising, so I’ve looked into useful short
|
|||
|
tests I can run once every day. I want the total test suite to be short
|
|||
|
(\<10min) so I don’t get bored, so I’ll stick with these 3 tests for 2
|
|||
|
minutes each:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. [n-back](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ) accuracy score
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I remember vaguely from gwern-sensei’s FAQ that it’s currently
|
|||
|
unknown if there’s a significant difference between single and dual
|
|||
|
n-back, and because I’m lazy I’ll start with single n-back. I’ll add
|
|||
|
sound when I get a [round tuit](http://blog.beeminder.com/tuit/).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Answer time on simple arithmetic problems (“3+2=?”)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is [Seth Roberts](http://blog.sethroberts.net/)’ favorite. Many
|
|||
|
data points per day, plausible mechanism, useful skill. What’s not
|
|||
|
to like?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. [Stroop task](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect) answer
|
|||
|
time
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There have been several studies that have shown that schizophrenics
|
|||
|
have significantly increased Stroop latencies, so it seems like a
|
|||
|
useful proxy test for schizotypy. The traditional positive/negative
|
|||
|
symptom tests (besides applying to most people in a philosophy
|
|||
|
department) are way too imprecise, so this will have to do.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I’ve [hacked together a quick
|
|||
|
script](https://github.com/muflax/cogatrice) that takes care of the
|
|||
|
assignments and tests, added a [simple Beeminder
|
|||
|
goal](https://www.beeminder.com/muflax/goals/cogtest) to ensure daily
|
|||
|
measurements and I’ll figure out how to analyze the data once I have
|
|||
|
some. (It’ll take a bit for them to plateau anyway, so I can still work
|
|||
|
out problems in the protocol as they come up.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There’s of course still the issue of randomization and blinding.
|
|||
|
E-cigarettes are relatively easy to blind, but everything else seems
|
|||
|
hard (use herbal / low-nicotine tobacco that tastes similar?) to
|
|||
|
impossible (find similar mint lozenges?). So I can’t properly control
|
|||
|
for placebo, but I can still learn some information about dosage. Next
|
|||
|
time I buy new lozenges, I’ll also buy weaker ones because they all look
|
|||
|
and taste the same and so I can blind *strength*. Until then and in
|
|||
|
addition, I can randomize *scheduling* - I simply randomly do the tests
|
|||
|
first and then take the nicotine or the other way around. That still
|
|||
|
provides a baseline to compare the intervention with. Lastly, I’ve also
|
|||
|
re-instituted my detailed drug log (which I only needed to avoid some
|
|||
|
nasty interactions, mostly with MAOIs, which I haven’t taken in some
|
|||
|
time) so I can spot potential patterns.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Empiricism!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So it seems I’m getting back into statistics and how to read scientific
|
|||
|
papers, and hey, I have some old notes but how much can I’ve really
|
|||
|
forgotten? Let’s review some simple stuff. What was a p-value again,
|
|||
|
Wiki-sama?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
> In statistical significance testing the p-value is the probability of
|
|||
|
> obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was
|
|||
|
> actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. One
|
|||
|
> often “rejects the null hypothesis” when the p-value is less than the
|
|||
|
> predetermined significance level which is often 0.05 or 0.01,
|
|||
|
> indicating that the observed result would be highly unlikely under the
|
|||
|
> null hypothesis. Many common statistical tests, such as chi-squared
|
|||
|
> tests or Student’s t-test, produce test statistics which can be
|
|||
|
> interpreted using p-values.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Oh for fuck’s sake.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[^addict]:
|
|||
|
I mean, look at that graph. If being very inconsistent in everything
|
|||
|
I do is a superpower, drug use is probably the only area where it
|
|||
|
pays off.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[^patch]:
|
|||
|
Ignoring patches, which I found really hard to dose, and gum, which
|
|||
|
everyone I know who tried to use it had issues with. I also find it
|
|||
|
difficult to take absorption rates into account, but the “1mg”
|
|||
|
number is my best guess of effective nicotine, taking the numbers on
|
|||
|
cigarette boxes at face-value.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It’s also funny how the nicotine content for each product does *not*
|
|||
|
generally affect it’s price much (if at all).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[^source]:
|
|||
|
Raw nicotine content in the liquid isn’t informative as such because
|
|||
|
it ignores the absorption rate (for which I couldn’t find a good
|
|||
|
source), other components besides nicotine, and so on. I ultimately
|
|||
|
went with the quantity of liquid former smokers typically end up
|
|||
|
using, which seems like a more useful proxy. However, even there
|
|||
|
good correlations are rarely present and estimates vary a lot. My
|
|||
|
(not particularly informed) best guess, based on that one study with
|
|||
|
self-medicating schizophrenics and various forums with smokers, is
|
|||
|
that one medium-to-high-strength cartridge equals \~6-10 cigarettes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I did find decent estimates for lozenges (and they fit my personal
|
|||
|
experience), so those costs are more reliable.
|