This is an email relating to the nature or validity of the QEEG scans and what they expressed... Since even though they were clearly described in layman's terms and easy to follow, this may be of benefit to those who also hold similar thoughts or questions, particularly since we are prone to question the validity of anything we do not understand. (Hint: Its built in..If we didnt question what we did not know, we would never think, learn, or figure things out - A.K.A. "Evolve." Thinking is good. QUESTIONING EVERYTHING).
"..The brain scans interested/amused me, but I'm not convinced they prove anything :) I'm not in the field so I don't know how to read them, and I've been hearing more and more about brain scans basically being used as props to make bad paper seem good i.e. dead salmon study."
"... These are not like MRIs and EEGs, things of that nature. (Note; meaning they are not subjective to interpretation. Im not calling into question the validity of imaging in any way. Perceptions are always subjective.. thats why we get second opinions.. Thats also why I like to deal with facts). They are quantifiable and scientifically measured and compared against the standard of normal. You can skew numbers and statistics, but findings such as my closed-eye frame-rate being @ 23 frames-per-second ("fps") and not 9-11fps, are factual and cannot be argued or manipulated in any way, as they are facts.
I value facts and deplore the general practice of valuing subjective opinion over concrete fact. Doctors are notorious for this, and it has been very damaging to me, and is also what has highly driven me to do the work I do. As an example, you may think Im high, hyper, manic, hyper-manic, in acute anxious distress or any number of things that your subjective opinion not based on solid knowledge but "observed" over coffee (he wanted to have coffee to determine for himself if I was really smart) would tell you. All of these would be misleading and inaccurate... But make sense to you, based on your perceptions. Which are highly subjective.. to any number of things, such as prior experience and even possible subconscious bias towards "hyper" people based on a former relationship, your experience with family members, co-workers, inaccurate portrayals of any number of things in media/documentaries/movies/television, etc... When the simple truth is I have an I.Q. of 181, Im actually excessively coherent, and my mouth is simply trying to keep up with my brain, which, again is functioning at 23 fps.. and not 9-11.. Which is again, going to form your basis of comparison that you will be comparing and forming your judgements off of.. (Not to mention the rate you'll be trying to not only follow and keep up with me at, but simultaneously trying to figure me out and make your assessment with.*) When, I pretty much broke the scale.
There is nothing in any way subjective or that can be viewed in any way other than what the measurements were... Im referring to the measurements.. Which speak for themselves.
Now, regarding good scores not demonstrating phenomenal behavioral traits, thats entirely possible. One of my favorite terms I have coined is that of those who are "educated beyond their intelligence." We all know them. Book smart, dumb as a brick. No common sense. Absolutely... But, aside from the fact that I specifically addressed that and said common sense is of even greater value than intellect, and I also said it wasnt about your IQ aptitude, but that you used what you had, combined with the general nature and expressions in the ad, the ability to articulate and demonstrate reason in this email, I think even the subjective skeptic would be hard-pressed to think of this as a ..dead salmon. Im not a pharmaceutical company trying to manipulate data to make anything look any particular way for a substance that may or may not perform as described or has variable results in any way."
*note: The significance of this statement is that like the frame-speed difference that makes them have to digitally create television in movies or on videos due to the different "flicker" rates, the difference in real-life causing a "flickering" effect on film,is how you are perceiving me.. Things that are vibrating or processed faster than we can perceive are not noticed and occurr somewhat "invisibly." If I told you you would not be able to tell if the light was on half the time you were in the room and off half the time you were in the room, you'd be convinced I was crazy. Right?
But, in a room with flourescent lights, they are "flickering" on and off so fast, we can not perceive it.. because its at a higher "frame-rate" than we are.. This is why flourescent lights use so much less energy, lol.. they arent constantly on.
So, if youre trying to keep up with something operating at a higher frame-rate, youre not seeing everything there is to see.. it is not physically possible due to system limitations inherent to using 11fps to capture 23fps.. Youre figuring out the parts you catch, which are also biased by your system.. ("System" meaning beliefs, education, experiences, thoughts, history, and everything that contributes to bias).
Its counter-intuitive to think we easily miss the obvious. Even though we think/say/hear "Never saw it coming (as in we clearly should have)," a million times through our lives..
And all this is just related or in regard to following a single statement, thought, or idea... And it's (the images are) when I was calm, relaxed, semi-meditative.. Imagine trying to grasp me, as whole, when there's a lot going on and Im actually "amped" up and functioning in a hyper-mode or more exciteable..as tends to be the case when I most desperately need to be understood. (Which makes me more exciteable and anxious/stressed/pressured because I need you to undertand me and you dont, thus; the vicious cycle I live).
Are you getting the big picture and full idea of how much of what Im trying to get across you are missing? Thats why I like to write.. So you, (yes, "you," specifically [in as far as anyone I have to or am communicating with], though it's something I also do) can read, review, reconsider.. re-evaluate..re-visit.. And, understand. Understanding is the goal.You're good with black and white... (As in text on paper, not polarity). Not so good with me.
This phenomena will, from here on out, be referred to as the "Flicker-Effect."
lol.. To give you an idea, if you think Im sitting down and putting effort into this with great consternation and focus... LOL... Its an afterthought to an email regarding an ad on craigslist.. ...nothing more.
UPDATE: 07.30.14 0224hrs
When I sent
this to the individual in question, they indicated in their response they
did now understand and after going back to the site and actually paying attention
and reading the email Id sent, it all made sense. Considering this is a big
problem I know affecting me and that likely impacts communication between
others, I wanted to post this portion of my response:
"... LOL, its funny, re: skimming and re-reading my emails.. thats the problem behind the way most people communicate, these days... you can get away with it with most people, as they dont strictly speak from a standpoint of concentrated substance, dont say what they mean and you can kind of just skim and get the gist... thats like, the worst thing you can do with me, and contributes strongly to and intensifies the FE dynamic. Glad once you reread it and went to the site, you got a better idea of what I meant and who I was and what I was talking about and all... Theres a lot to me. lol. this is like.. the tip of a multifaceted iceburg.
I agree the point of your confusion was that youd never heard of a QEEG test. But, if you are presented with information you are not familiar with, the logical deduction would be either to suspend judgement considering you didnt know how to interpret the data, or look into what you didnt know so you could understand what was being presented. This doesnt just apply to me or my site, but all things and life in general. Again, highly indicative, typical, and a common problem most people express and that seems to be some kind of idiosyncratic human epidemic.
Considering your point regarding my explaining what the test is (he mentioned I could go more into detail about what the test measured, how it worked, etc...), what it does, what it measures.. I pretty much explain that it measures the activity levels.. the coherence.. and the levels (again) regarding processing and functioning of the brain, in the explanations as they relate to me. Considering what Im doing, if people want to know more, they can do their own research into it. Im doing amazing levels of work, Im under phenomenal stress and dealing with a lot of issues outside of just this... Im gathering the info (related to FE) doing the case study, I figured it out in the first place, Im taking notes and keeping extensive documentation regarding the amazingly immediately effective application of techniques based on it in the most extreme cases it could be experienced in.. Im working with doctors and researchers furthering the info and to network with other professionals in the field so as to get this developed and "out there" for people, and Ill be writing a book about it, as well... So, people can do their own research as needed into what they do or do not understand or what they may need further clarification of. Thats part of learning... finding information.. looking into things of importance to you... You know?"
So, yes. I want you to understand and be able to digest the data, but this page for one thing is my personal site and not a technical page. As such, its presented in the most simple, easily comprehended layman's terms for ease of comprehension by the public at large, and if youre interested in knowing more about anything mentioned in this site... Google is your friend. If you have any specific questions and I can be of help, I certainly will. But, Im not here to hold your hand and do all the work for you and I dont know what you need to know, dont understand, or need to figure it all out, so you're going to have to put some effort into pursuing your own interests.
Note: He goes on his his next highly significant response to demonstrate how even intelligent people can jump to the wrong and generally typical conclusions about me. He articulates himself and his thought processes very well, and illustrates the key point of thinking Ive actually made a more focused version version of the website, when in fact the site is more random and complex, but whats changed is *his* awareness, comprehension, and understanding of it.