Follow TV Tropes

Following

Thinking Cap: Good thing or bad thing?

Go To

Firebert That One Guy from Somewhere in Illinois Since: Jan, 2001
That One Guy
#26: Mar 5th 2012 at 2:09:42 PM

Yeah, I have no idea why a DIY thinking cap would be a good idea. Sending currents through your brain as a layman sounds like a good way to permanently damage your nervous system. This shit would need years of testing by qualified individuals, just as Loni said.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!
Vyctorian ◥▶◀◤ from Domhain Sceal Since: Mar, 2011
◥▶◀◤
#27: Mar 6th 2012 at 12:04:21 PM

Transhumanism FTW

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com
Telcontar In uffish thought from England Since: Feb, 2012
In uffish thought
#28: Mar 6th 2012 at 1:05:29 PM

I'm very, very dubious about the benefits of this. What kind of study was done – did the researchers set out to prove a point for someone, how long did the study go on for, what follow-up work has been done, was there a control group, was the study double-blind, how many people were involved, etc. etc. etc.. I am sure that at least part of the results would be the placebo effect, but I don't know how much. Nevertheless, if it isn't dangerous and can help someone (even just through being a placebo), I guess it's a good thing.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Exelixi Lesbarian from Alchemist's workshop Since: Sep, 2011 Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
Lesbarian
#29: Mar 6th 2012 at 1:10:37 PM

I like this, with two requirements:

1. Intense, intense long-term research to identify the side-effects.

2. It must be applied by a professionally made and maintained machine.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#30: Mar 6th 2012 at 10:08:14 PM

[up][up][up]Transhumanism is not always a good thing...

"Roll for whores."
Vyctorian ◥▶◀◤ from Domhain Sceal Since: Mar, 2011
◥▶◀◤
#31: Mar 7th 2012 at 5:20:26 PM

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Nothing is objectively 100% good or bad

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#32: Mar 7th 2012 at 6:32:25 PM

I'm so with the long-term testing hypothesis. Honestly: how many drugs that have been deemed safe after a 12-month study then fall into trouble years later when all the pesky things that weren't picked up start cropping up? In hundreds of people?

Says she who's Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was most likely triggered by such a malarial drug...

Wrong genes plus wrong stimulus equals problems. I can't see that not being the case in this study, either.

What if you have incipient psychosis that has not been picked up, and you put on a wrongly configured cap for that? Hello, psychotic break!

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#33: Mar 11th 2012 at 7:30:35 PM

Honestly, I think the caffeine analogy is most appropriate. It's stimulating certain parts of your brain to make you pay more attention. Rather than messing with your mind on a fundamental level, it's just changing your mood to make you more receptive to learning.

That said, it could easily have long term consequences. And, really, it should if it expects to be useful. Without long term consequences it's kind of pointless. I don't see a reason to treat it any more or less carefully than any other kind of drug.

Add Post

Total posts: 33
Top