Comment · Fri, September 27, 2013 · Ceretropic
Cerebral Health Pyritinol Test Results (WARNING)
Original post in this thread
MisterYouAreSoDumb · 491 points
Many of you may remember the issue that came up with Cerebral Health/Bioscience Nutraceuticals a few months ago, where their choline bitartrate was numbing people's mouths. After sending those samples in to the lab, the tests came back negative for choline bitartrate. We suspected it was choline salacylate, but decided further testing to ascertain the exact compound would not be worth the cost. Unfortunately that was not the last issue to come from Cerebral Health.
A few weeks ago, another Redditor placed an order pyritinol from CH, along with some alpha GPC and oxiracetam. When the order arrived, both the alpha GPC and oxiracetam seemed alright. However, the pyritinol seemed off. Before thinking about it, he took his normal 400mg dose of pyritinol and went out for a mountain bike ride. Within 15-20 minutes he was getting a weird euphoria and detachment. After another couple minutes, his memory gets very fuzzy.
Eventually his sister found him in the garage in a manic/psychotic state. He was biting his lips very hard, shaking, and holding his fists tight. Eventually he went into seizures when the paramedics came. He was taken to the hospital and seized again while waiting for th…
What they were answering
moktarino · 9 points
When confronting new information, there are generally two response patterns observed which correspond to the pre-existing relationship between the observer and the topic. These patterns implement an "information validity weighting ratio", described here as "for:against", where X is an arbitrary value that depends on the subject's existing bias.
1. "Do I have to believe it?" (1:X)
2. "Can I believe it?" (X:1)
When the ratio is 1:X, this suggests that prior to testing the subject holds an opinion in opposition to an opinion supported by the information presented, and their existing "information validity weight" of the "against" information is greater than 1. Colloquially, this subject would be referred to as a "skeptic".
When the ratio is X:1, the reverse is true, such that the "for" information is weighted more heavily than "against" information. Colloquially, this subject would be referred to as a "believer".
Paradoxically, exposing a subject to condition 1 actually increases the value of X, even when the subject is shown that their X is larger than can be logically supported by the dataset!
For more information on this topic, please see Jonathan Haidt's wonderful book, "The Righteous Mind". The bibliography within is also an excellent source on similar information.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
I understand the psychology behind it. However, I have worked very hard with my own thinking to try and eliminate that bias. If someone approaches me with information that is contrary to my withheld beliefs, I first look at my stance and why it is what it is, rather than looking at theirs. You must know the reason why you hold your beliefs, or have a stance, before you can ever begin to refute others. Sometimes it makes me realize that my stance is built on shaky evidence, and I alter it based on the new information. I just wish more people would try to do the same.
So my comment was more an emotional manifestation of my annoyance, rather than me stating I don't understand why people react the way they do.