Como saben he estado tomando piracetam e hydergina en dosis más bien bajas. También algunas vitaminas y aceite de pescado. Últimamente agregué un poco de DMAE (dimetilaminoetanol).
Como algunos otros miembros de la lista de discusión sobre nootrópicos han mencionado he notado algunos efectos positivos, como más alerta, rapidez (noto eso al escribir en el teclado). También he notado más disposición para tareas que tienen que ver con algo más lógico y cierta intolerancia para lo que no lo parece (incluido tal vez personas). En discusiones he podido argumentar más fácil (no me gusta discutir).
En estos días he decidido suspender por un tiempo dado que noto una tendencia a la preocupación y a un ánimo bajo (debido en parte a situaciones adversas). Es algo que me suele pasar cuando hay estimulación. Tengo una tendencia a la serotonina baja, tal vez tuviera que suplementar con precursores pero son caros.
Además creo que la técnica de tomar descansos (cycling dicen los fisicoculturistas para sus stacks y tengo entendido que en la medicina tradicional china se toma el ginseng por ejemplo de esta manera, por períodos y no en forma continua) es algo que deberíamos analizar bien para que estas cosas funcionen mejor y sigan haciéndolo por más tiempo.
Espero comentarios y sugerencias.
Nootrópicos (smartdrugs, drogas inteligentes, potenciadores cognitivos) son sustancias artificiales (medicamentos como piracetam, hydergina, citicolina, fosfatidilserina, vinpocetina, etc.) o naturales (suplementos nutricionales, vitaminas, aminoácidos, hormonas, hierbas, etc. como vitaminas B, piroglutamato, Gingko Biloba, fenilalanina, DHEA, pregnenolona, etc.) que se utilizan para mejorar la capacidad cognitiva (memoria, atención, etc.) en personas con trastornos o normales.
lunes, mayo 15, 2006
Ser experto no es cuestion de talento sino de entrenamiento
Freakonomics
A Star Is Made
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Extracto:
This success, coupled with later research showing that memory itself is not genetically determined, led Ericsson to conclude that the act of memorizing is more of a cognitive exercise than an intuitive one. In other words, whatever innate differences two people may exhibit in their abilities to memorize, those differences are swamped by how well each person "encodes" the information. And the best way to learn how to encode information meaningfully, Ericsson determined, was a process known as deliberate practice.
Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task — playing a C-minor scale 100 times, for instance, or hitting tennis serves until your shoulder pops out of its socket. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.
...
Ericsson and his colleagues have thus taken to studying expert performers in a wide range of pursuits, including soccer, golf, surgery, piano playing, Scrabble, writing, chess, software design, stock picking and darts. They gather all the data they can, not just performance statistics and biographical details but also the results of their own laboratory experiments with high achievers.
Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. These may be the sort of clichés that parents are fond of whispering to their children. But these particular clichés just happen to be true.
Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.
nyt.com
A Star Is Made
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Extracto:
This success, coupled with later research showing that memory itself is not genetically determined, led Ericsson to conclude that the act of memorizing is more of a cognitive exercise than an intuitive one. In other words, whatever innate differences two people may exhibit in their abilities to memorize, those differences are swamped by how well each person "encodes" the information. And the best way to learn how to encode information meaningfully, Ericsson determined, was a process known as deliberate practice.
Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task — playing a C-minor scale 100 times, for instance, or hitting tennis serves until your shoulder pops out of its socket. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome.
...
Ericsson and his colleagues have thus taken to studying expert performers in a wide range of pursuits, including soccer, golf, surgery, piano playing, Scrabble, writing, chess, software design, stock picking and darts. They gather all the data they can, not just performance statistics and biographical details but also the results of their own laboratory experiments with high achievers.
Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. These may be the sort of clichés that parents are fond of whispering to their children. But these particular clichés just happen to be true.
Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.
nyt.com
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)