gib65

They say that to get over a fear, one has to expose themselves to that fear over and over until the fear goes away (assuming of course they experience no adverse effects). For example, I have a fear of public speaking. I'm trying to get over it by going to public speaking sessions. For example, toastmasters. I've been going for the past several months and I'm not experiencing the effects I was expecting. I still get very nervous speaking in front of crowds and it shows.

What I'm wondering is, is there any research to show that to get over a fear of public speaking (or any phobia), one has to expose themselves to that fear at a sufficient frequency? I mean, to take a ridiculously extreme example, I don't think one would ever get over a fear by exposing one's self to it once a year. But do it once a day, then maybe.

I go to Toastmasters once a week and I'm wondering if that's not frequent enough. I'm wondering if it should be more like twice or three times a week.

Has there been any research to show that the frequency with which one is exposed to a certain fear makes a difference? In particular, is there a frequency below which it has no effect whatsoever?

Thank you Strange,

What is the earliest that scientists can "see" the state of the early universe? I mean, I know scientists can look at the early universe by observing the CMBR in deep space, but this happened much after the first picosecond. Can they actually "look" that far back, to the first picosecond, or is it all based on mathematical models at that point?

I am told that scientists don’t know what happened within the first picosecond of the universe.

If this is true, I have a question:

How do they know it was a picosecond? I guess the assumption is that if you extrapolate the current expansion of the universe back to its origin, you don’t have to assume anything unusual in the first picosecond. But what if scientists could somehow see into the first picosecond? Is it possible that what they find is that it was way longer than a picosecond? In other words, the universe originally started expanding very slowly, and for the longest time didn’t grow much bigger than its original size, and then for some reason went through the explosive expansion scientists are familiar with?

Hello,

I'm wondering if there are any books out there on the subject of finding substitutes to drugs. Specifically, I'm looking for substitutes to caffeine. It doesn't have to be other substances either like yerba mate or probiotics, but lifestyle changes or changes in perspective as well.

I figure that finding substitutes to drugs is such a common approach to overcoming substance abuse that there must be tons of research on it. <-- That's what I'm looking for.

Can anyone help me out? Thank you so much.

PS - I realize this is not the place to ask for medical advice (or any kind of advice) so please take this as a request for information resource (books, articles, studies, etc.). Thank you.

Hello,

I've been doing some research on hypnosis. Trying to understand how it works. I came across this website here:

https://gshypnosis.com/does-hypnosis-work-understanding-the-science-of-hypnotherapy-2/#

I thought I'd ask about this on a science forum like this one.

According to the link above, the way hypnosis works is by inhibiting what they call "top down" thinking thereby allowing "bottom up" processing to work more effectively. Top down thinking is the way our expectations and assumptions influence the way we interpret our immediate experiences. One example they site is this:

A group of participants were asked to take a wine taste test. They were given two choices: A glass of “expensive” wine and another of moderately priced wine. The truth was: Both glasses were the same wine. But participants expected the expensive wine to taste better, and therefore, they gave it much higher marks for taste.

So their expectation of how the wine should taste, which was set by being told it was more expensive, determined how the wine actually tasted. Their expectation is an example of "top down" thinking.

The link suggests that hypnosis inhibits top down thinking so that whatever is suggested to them (which would count as bottom up thinking) has a much more powerful effect.

How established is this theory in science? Should it be dismissed as bunk? As well established? Unknown? And what's everyone opinion on it? 

On 29/08/2018 at 12:41 PM, Phi for All said:

https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/30/8/611/714415?view=extract

 

^ This is a great abstract.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I've quit consuming caffeine. I no longer drink coffee. But on occasion, I will order a decaf. Now, it may just be the placebo effect, but I swear on some occasions, the decaf gives me a slight buzz. Is decaf coffee really 100% caffeine free? Or is it more like 99%? 95%? Maybe only 90%?

Hello,

Some people just don't listening. Everyone's encountered them. I usually get them on the phone--the customer service reps--and when they talk, they don't listen to me when I try to intervene with my own input. For example, I was on the phone the other day with a bank rep. I had transferred some funds from them to a different institution and was charged a $50 fee for doing so. The other institution I transfered money to was willing to compensate me for the $50 fee but wanted proof that the original institution charged it. The rep on the phone was explaining to me that they don't issue out statements indicating the fee but it is their policy to charge $50. While he was rambling on and on about it, I tried to intervene with the suggestion that if it is a policy, they must have it written somewhere and that if he could direct me to their terms and policy on their website (where presumably the $50 fee is stated), I could forward that to the other institution. But I tried 3 times to suggest that to him without his hearing me at all. He just kept rambling on for 5 minutes. Finally, when he was done, I repeated my question for the fourth time, and then he heard me, forwarding me to the excat spot where the transfer fee was stated.

But my question is not about banking or self-absorbed bank reps... it's about how the human brain listens when interupted. I'm wondering if some people's brain literally block other people out when they're talking. Was the bank rep really that self-absorbed or could he literally not hear me while he was talking. I've only ever noticed this while on the phone. In person, it seems people generally notice when I've trying to intervene and stop talking. So it might require some visual cues for some. Then I wonder if everyone's like this--even me. I do remember plenty of times being interrupted (and stopping to listen to the other person), but do I remember every time? And do I remember times like this while on the phone with someone?

I think this is an interesting question for neurology and I wonder if any studies have been done to answer it.

Thanks both, good to know.

Have scientists invented an age reversal pill yet? Or some equivalent technology? Is it likely we'll see such a technology within, say, the next 50 years?

Hello,

I'm looking for substitutes to caffeine. A friend told me that vegetable juices raise one's alkaline levels. Raised alkaline levels are supposed to increase oxygen levels and higher energy levels.

Is any of this true?

Are there other substitutes to caffeine for raising one's energy levels and alertness?

I take vitamin pills. If I take vitamin pills on an empty stomach they make me nauseous. Is this normal? Why do they make me nauseous?

...I feed them only fruit.

I found over the years that while it can be difficult to get my kids to eat their vegetables, it's easy to get them to eat fruit. So I figured: why not just feed them fruit? Fruits are, after all, just vegetables with a higher concentration of sugar.

^ Is this right though? Am I causing my children an imbalance in their diet by feeding them only fruits and no vegetables?

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Sleep it is.

If I'm trying to get over my caffeine tolerance by abstaining from caffeine, what would be the more effective approach:

1) When I feel tired, try to resist going to sleep. This way, the body will get the message: better adapt to staying awake since that seems to be the general rule.

2) When I feel tired, sleep. This way, the body will get the message: better try to stay awake more since I seem to be sleeping way too much.

Or do neither have any effect on how quickly my tolerance goes down?

If the fifth Solvey Conference is the one where Heisenberg and Bohr officially settled on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, then this is the one I'm asking about.

My editor just asked me: who else besides Heisenberg and Bohr attended the Copenhager Convention in 1927. I always assumed it was just Heisenberg and Bohr themselves, but were there others?

The thing about the Atkins diet I don't understand is that it just seems like putting off fat burning 'til later.

Suppose you consumed enough carbs to last you 4 hours. After that 4 hours, your body starts burning fat, right?

But if the carbs you consume were to increase insulin levels, some of the energy from those carbs gets turned to fat. Suppose the carbs you consumed raised insulin levels enough to convert 2 hours worth of the total 4 hours worth into fat. Now you only have 2 hours of carb energy flowing through your veins. Now, after the 2 hours is up, that's when your body starts burning fat. But wouldn't it be burning the fat that your insulin just previously converted to fat? So on the whole, it seems to me that you burn just as much fat either way?

Is my logic wrong?

Hello,

According to this website, which explains how the Atkins diet works, it says that cutting out the carbs works better for losing weight than cutting out other source of energy because the body stores fat when it detects that sugar levels are higher than a certain point. Thus, consuming, say, 300 calories of carbs is more likely to cause you to gain weight than 300 calories of fat.

Is there any truth to this, and if so does anybody recommend the Atkins diet for losing weight?

However every schoolteacher knows of broadly the symptoms you describe...

Sounds like it might be a thing.

Yeah, I was thinking of the actual separation perhaps giving you psychosomatic effects after every time you saw your kids.

It's an interesting theory. Just keep in mind I've had this stomach bug before the separation. I don't know if it was consistently on Mondays or not at that time, but I do know that I only started worrying about my work thinking I was playing hooky (trying to get an extra day out of the weekend) only in the last year or so.

A mixture of stress, psychosomatic reaction and confirmation bias sounds like a likely culprit to me.

So nobody knows of any case on record of a stomach bug that lays dormant until awoken by an immune response to other viruses/bugs going around (like a cold)?

I wonder if it's possible that instead of developing these symptoms due to re-infection by a foreign pathogen, could they be triggered by your own immune response based on that first exposure you experienced several years ago - almost like an allergy?

That's exactly what I'm thinking. A cold goes around (or germs/viruses of any kind), my immune system has an initial reaction (not enough to catch a cold or feel the symptoms), and that wakes up the stomach bug. Meanwhile, whatever it is that my immune system is reacting to get taken care of before I even feel it. <-- That's my theory anyway.

Bear in mind that I'm not a medical professional, so my question is more directed to others that may read his thread and not something that may be relevant to your individual situation. An internet forum is a really bad place to get actual medical advice.

I know. I don't consider this looking for advice, more like bouncing thoughts off people with some knowledge/experience in these matters.

I doubt it. My kids aren't that much of a handful.

It probably doesn't help that I don't see them for two weeks. It's like the colonists bringing new diseases to the natives.

Thanks Janus and md for answering my questions (the world is right again for me ).

People will fill in their own details and interpretations unless everything is unambiguously specified

I've cautioned you on this before.

I hope my questions aren't offensive to you guys. I'm not a scientist and my understanding of this stuff is at an amateur level. Your answers do help though, so I'm thankful for that.