It's not so simple as simply increasing the amount of CSF influx into the brain, but also increasing interstitial space via adrenergic receptor inhibition.
The clearance of beta-amyloid, etc. is largely linked to the state of sleeping that would be tough to isolate without inducing sleeping itself.
+1 for looking into peer reviewed publications, specifically review articles.
Not only are they concise, but they are highly referenced and well annotated. As long as you are willing to dig into the specific terms and concepts relevant to the subject yourself, you will find a very high S:N ratio in these papers.
The best part is that you can easily find yourself down 4-5 different rabbit holes by the time you are done because of the easy to follow references.
The problem is that, from the inside, imposter syndrome feels like an accurate, negative self assessment. Writing off the latter as the former is not the right way to go; for every person who's wrong in that direction, there's probably another who's right in the same direction.
What we should be doing is teaching people how to make well-calibrated self-assessments, not repeat the ridiculous line that "lol no one knows what they're doing, everything's guesswork". We should teach people how spot the evidence of success that they miss -- but also the evidence of failure.
Vsauce makes a good point that we just aren't made to intuitively understand this type of stuff. Recognizing this fact, in my opinion, is a key driver in helping to wrap our minds around these concepts. It's important to understand that these concepts are valid in both our visible world and the hidden quantum world, the main difference is scale.
For example, I could never wrap my head around the fact that electrons can have multiple paths/histories simultaneously when travelling. The same is true of a baseball thrown in the air, the only difference is that on the visible scale that we are used to the chance of that baseball taking a different path/history is so small that it will never happen.
I actually think it's very possible to have an "intuitive understanding" of Banach Tarski (I would say I have one, but perhaps we disagree on what is mean by such an understanding).
My "intuitive understanding" of this comes via an intuitive understanding of a paradoxical decomposition of the free group and its Cayley graph, which is flashed briefly in the video here[0] but sadly not discussed at length.
It's his passion for the material that always keeps me watching. Listening to someone explain a topic that they find deeply intriguing is a pleasure. Reminds me of Feynman.
Amazing how quick the honey bees respond in unison to attack the hornet.
Even more amazing that the honey bee can withstand temperatures up to 118 degrees F, just 3 degrees higher than the hornet, and yet they still manage to use heat as a means of attack.
Fair enough, but as the level of abstraction increases in crime it becomes easier for people to commit crimes that wouldn't have otherwise. Remove the human interaction and the guilt that comes along with that situation is suddenly minimized.
More and more companies are staying private as VC/hedge fund/private equity firm valuations stay high, it's fairly easy to continually raise money through private avenues, etc. There is less of a need to go public for the founders and investors of these backed companies to get rich.
I've thought about this often and the only solution I can come up with is to disallow myself to think quickly when solving problems, even when I believe that I should reliably be able to do so[0].
I've noticed that when I take the time to think slowly through problems, although the initial activation energy is higher, that I end up saving time in the long run. Also, I tend to end up with a higher percentage of correct answers. This trend tends to increase with the complexity of the problem.
Yes, you probably lose some time on the easy problems, but I look at it as a method of gaining net time over days, weeks, etc.
This, unfortunately, is tough to stick with. It's tempting to skip the easy steps along the way (and let our System 1 do all the work, leaving System 2 to collect dust).
[0] - This is still a working hypothesis that I will undoubtedly go back and forth on for the years to come.
At least for those problems, I don't think it's about trying to slow down. It's about trying to poke holes in your answer and make sure it holds up to some testing.
The intuitive answer to the first problem is $.10 but if you take time to double check and add a dollar to that, you see it's wrong.
I don't think this is too different from programming... the time you take to re-read some code you just wrote and think like a compiler and mentally execute the edge cases, etc.
I just wish we'd learn to appreciate this in the software/startup world and stop expecting people to come up with code/answers as quickly as possible. This is exactly why whiteboard coding is so bad of an interview metric.
The clearance of beta-amyloid, etc. is largely linked to the state of sleeping that would be tough to isolate without inducing sleeping itself.