I have always had issues with false awakening. For those who dont know it's when you try to wake up in a dream succeed and find yourself still stuck in a dream. For me it's been getting worse. Today I must have gone through around 12 layers of false awakening/possible sleep paralysis before actually waking up.
Should I be concerned? Is this another sign of mental illness. Discuss.
Edit:btw I am not making this up, although I dont mind joking about it, this genuinely happens to me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"The studies" as if there isn't dozens of them that have reached the same conclusion, you literally just put someone in a room and increase the CO2 PPM, it not only has been done multiple times, but random mooks on youtube can replicate it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
dozens of studies have concluded “co2 <somehow reduces> some measure of performance”. But for different concentrations and timeframes. And just as many studies find no effect.
Submarines find that at 40000ppm (4%) co2 there is no effect - https://nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 - suggesting all the studies at lower concentrations may be bad.
Examples: effect: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ina.12746 https://nature.com/articles/s41370%20-018-0055-8 https://conference.iza.org/conference_files/environ_2019/palacios_j24419.pdf no effect; https://nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0071-6 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00855.2017 https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8262780/
There’s a negative study for every positive. Usually in these situations it’s bad studies and publication bias and there’s nothing there. And the link I showed was Scott trying to replicate it himself and quite clearly failing. It is possible to do bad studies and half of all studies in google have mistakes enough to be bad, giving the overused but relevant half of studies don’t replicate statistic. That’s not evenly distributed per study - two studies on the same topic are likely to replicate or not dependently on the topic, so 12 studies that conclude the same still could be bad. So many studies conclude bullshit, don’t believe the abstract understand the study involved.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not going to read all that shit but I did gloss over a few key details, many of those studies state they have small sample sizes, and several used people trained for oxygen deprivation but fail to mention that very important detail. There could be big deviations in result because of these things.
Using your own logic here how do you know these studies weren't all flawed?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that is literally my point
all the studies are flawed. Both types have tiny sample sizes and poor methods They’re basically as useless as having no evidence at all. And therefore, absent any good reason to believe co2 makes you mayobrained, it probably doesn’t!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Except that CO2 displaces oxygen and has literally killed people through oxygen deprivation, which was an impetus for its study. May want to rethink your hunch there.
Or do you think that CO2 scrubbers are a myth too, Einstein II?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
4% of 1ppm is .04*.000001 so 4%ppm could theoretically mean 4*10^-8. If you didn’t mean that then what you meant was dumb. And wrong whatever value you meant
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Algebra enjoyers failing to realise that units of measurement don't have a value on their own. You're writing something very different.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ppm and percent aren’t units, they’re literally ratios. ppm = 1 per million. Percent = 1 per 100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why would you think percent is a unit of measurement. PPM is though, it is also expressed as mg/l.
Also you don't multiply ratios by themselves either.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
yeah, 400000 ppm co2 is bad. 4000 ppm co2 isn’t necessarily bad. Similarly, 4 10^7 ppm o2 would be bad but 10^6ppm o2 isn’t, etc. ditto for water.
maybe even 40000ppm co2 might have psychological effects, but not 4000ppm. Same reason
and lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
40000 is 4% ppm, and yes it does have some cognitive effects... just like I said shockingly enough.
Easier to get that high than you'd think too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
can’t tell if bit tbh.
40,000 ppm is not “4% ppm”. It is “4% converted to ppm”, also known as “4%”. And it is not easy to get that high. At all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
lmao
1 ppm = 1/1000000, 5%=5/100, 5%ppm = 5% of one part per million = 5/100000000. 40000 is 4%, which is 4000000% ppm. 4% co2 means 4% of the mass/moles/volume/something is co2. 1 ppm means 1 in a million is. 5% ppm would mean one in 20 million. Not what you meant
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A percent of ppm is a percent volume, not whatever you're doing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Intuitively, exhaled air (and therefore probably closer to blood levels) is 4% co2. Blood levels of co2 are 40-60mmHg (probably) with artery - venous = -6mmHg or less
So it seems, intuitively, that 5000ppm or especially less co2 shouldn’t matter THAT much given that the baseline is 40000ppm and other sources of variation like breathing rate can make as much of a difference
... what’s 5% ppm? That’s not even a properly written measurement. 500 ppm? 5000 ppm?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So you say intuitively nonstop and then ask me what's 5% of a million?
Ventilate your basement.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
well if you meant 5% of 1 ppm that’s 50 parts per billion. The atmospheric co2 is 400 ppm. So that can’t be it can it!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You probably know it as percent volume, or well you do now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That’s % not %ppm which isn’t meaningful lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Shows what you know, king.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context