Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Attention lapses due to sleep deprivation due to flushing fluid from brain

    (news.mit.edu)
    589 points gmays | 12 comments | 31 Oct 25 13:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source | bottom
    Show context
    earless1 ◴[31 Oct 25 14:40 UTC] No.45772465[source]▶
    So biological garbage collection pauses then? skip sleep, and the brain tries to run gc cycles during runtime. Causing attention and performance latency spikes. Evolution wrote the original JVM.
    replies(5): >>45772560 #>>45773351 #>>45776679 #>>45777047 #>>45778878 #
    layer8 ◴[31 Oct 25 14:47 UTC] No.45772560[source]▶
    Luckily it doesn’t clear all unreferenced memory, though.
    replies(5): >>45772666 #>>45772718 #>>45773046 #>>45773081 #>>45773625 #
    blauditore ◴[31 Oct 25 15:24 UTC] No.45773081[source]▶
    Fun fact: Suppressed/hidden/lost memories due to trauma that appear to re-surface through therapy are not a real thing, as previously thought (and still by some psychotherapists). Nowadays it's understood by psychology that any memories "re-surfacing" in therapy are in fact newly created, although the patient themselves cannot tell the difference. Allegedly, whole accusations of childhood abuse may have been created out of thin air, without the victim realizing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy (see research section)

    replies(13): >>45773112 #>>45773304 #>>45773410 #>>45773443 #>>45773605 #>>45773714 #>>45774406 #>>45774423 #>>45774650 #>>45775152 #>>45775849 #>>45776382 #>>45786868 #
    1. slater ◴[31 Oct 25 15:26 UTC] No.45773112[source]▶
    Gonna need some citations on that “fun fact”
    replies(2): >>45773175 #>>45773772 #
    2. blauditore ◴[31 Oct 25 15:30 UTC] No.45773175[source]▶
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy (especially the research section)
    replies(3): >>45773297 #>>45773405 #>>45773748 #
    3. svnt ◴[31 Oct 25 15:48 UTC] No.45773405[source]▶
    That is extremely weak to nonexistent counter-evidence that seems to focus on supporting Loftus, who has put a lot of effort into the defense of her public persona. I don’t disagree that it is possible to manufacture memories but the evidence isn’t there to support your conclusion or the converse.
    replies(1): >>45773944 #
    4. ghurtado ◴[31 Oct 25 16:16 UTC] No.45773748[source]▶
    Claim: "modern cancer research is a scam"

    Proof: "colloidal silver has been used to attempt to cure cancer".

    Solid logic.

    5. ghurtado ◴[31 Oct 25 16:17 UTC] No.45773772[source]▶
    People downvoting a request for supporting evidence is peak Hacker News.
    replies(1): >>45773948 #
    6. Aurornis ◴[31 Oct 25 16:36 UTC] No.45773944{3}[source]▶
    Recovered-memory therapy (the topic of the Wikipedia article) is very clearly quack science and has been discredited.

    Some of the techniques used in the therapy include giving patients sedative-hypnotic drugs to put the patient in a waking dream-like state while the therapist asks leading questions to get them to "remember" an event. The same drugs they used are known to be associated with false memories, like when someone falsely recalls something from a vivid dream as having actually happened.

    replies(1): >>45776095 #
    7. fsckboy ◴[31 Oct 25 16:36 UTC] No.45773948[source]▶
    people demanding supporting evidence without expending any effort themselves is peak internet.
    replies(2): >>45774899 #>>45776374 #
    8. jjk166 ◴[31 Oct 25 18:06 UTC] No.45774899{3}[source]▶
    The onus of proof lies on those making a claim. If you're unwilling to back up what you say, don't say it.
    replies(2): >>45777546 #>>45779299 #
    9. svnt ◴[31 Oct 25 20:02 UTC] No.45776095{4}[source]▶
    It has fallen out of favor based on a lack of evidential support, for sure. It has not really been dismantled publicly scientifically, but mostly quietly, perhaps in order to protect its practitioners, perhaps because the research cannot currently be ethically conducted.

    I am not advocating for it, just stating the near total lack of substantive scientific evidence presented either in support or opposed.

    10. theshackleford ◴[31 Oct 25 20:30 UTC] No.45776374{3}[source]▶
    It’s not my job to track down proof only every bullshit claim thrown at me.
    11. nwienert ◴[31 Oct 25 22:47 UTC] No.45777546{4}[source]▶
    In science. On a casual forum you have no obligation and I’d rather someone leave a short comment so I at least know, if I’m interested I’ll go look and verify myself.
    12. fsckboy ◴[01 Nov 25 04:41 UTC] No.45779299{4}[source]▶
    on a discussion board? no, there is no onus of proof, because nothing is riding on it, just as you don't need proof to reject the ideas.

    demanding citations is the favorite trick of people who want to waste your time precisely because they disagree with you and no matter what you come up with, they'll never give in. therefore, one should never give in to it.

    rather, doing your own research and contributing it to the discussion is the lifeblood of online communities.