The following is an exchange I had with Paul after working with him
on a recent message on Aspirin named "Reason to lower Aspirin?"
posted by Robert Rolen (message no. 1176). The exchange was sparked
by a confusion I had about a certain part of the message.
Previously Paul had asked me to check the accuracy of Robert's logic
and computations as well as add any other comments I had including
possibly checking the amount of curcumin contained in turmeric.
After adding my comments Paul asked me a question about one of the
comments I had made. I had been explaining the roles of COX-1 and
COX-2 which are two similar enzymes which produce several kinds of
inflammatory prostaglandins. Paul thought I had mixed the roles of
COX-1 and COX-2 and asked if I was sure it wasn't the other way
around. I responded to him by saying that I was pretty sure it was
not the other way around and I followed it up by showing him a few
quotes from scientific abstracts supporting my position. He then
responded by showing me that I did indeed get it backwards and that
the quotes I had shown him actually were in contradiction to my
position not in support of it as I originally thought.

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:58:21 -0700
From: "Paul Wakfer" <tom@...>
To: "Ólafur Páll Ólafsson" <olafurpall@...>
Subject: COX confusion

Hi Olafur,

I hope that you don't feel bad about this mix up. The logic of
promoters and inhibitors and the double negation involved is very
difficult to hold in one's head. And with you also needing to
translate, it is a wonder that you do as well as you do. Kitty has a
great deal of trouble following some of these involved logical
arguments and she is always helped by diagramming the logic in some
manner. I agree that is helpful and I sometimes also benefit from
it, often by seeing relationships that I missed without it.

--Paul

--------------------------EOM-------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:26:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Olafur Pall Olafsson" <olafurpall@...>
Subject: Re: COX confusion
To: "Paul Wakfer" <tom@...>

Hi Paul,

Paul Wakfer <tom@...> wrote:

> Hi Olafur,
>
> I hope that you don't feel bad about this mix up. The logic of promoters
> and inhibitors and the double negation involved is very difficult to
> hold in one's head. And with you also needing to translate, it is a
> wonder that you do as well as you do. Kitty has a great deal of trouble
> following some of these involved logical arguments and she is always
> helped by diagramming the logic in some manner. I agree that is helpful
> and I sometimes also benefit from it, often by seeing relationships that
> I missed without it.
>
> --Paul

I felt a little bad at first but I was over it shortly afterwards.
What I did as I normally do when working on posts like this is that
I started by collecting data. I do so by putting several useful
quotes I find from abstracts and full text articles in a text
document putting the PMID number by the quote so I know where it
came from. After collecting sufficient amounts of data this way I
have a good overview of it all in a single text document making it
easier for me to start working on replying to the message. When
working on this message the first thing I started was collecting
data on what each of the COXs produce and what the effects of their
products are. After collecting good amounts on data on this
including reading parts of some full text articles I tried to put it
all together and figure this out and write it down. This was the
hardest part of working on the message and just looking at the data
I had and trying to figure it out took quite a time, so I got it all
backwards and wrote it that way before starting the reply so I was
replying to it with the wrong information in my head all the time.
Consequently things were even more confusing than they had to be but
it makes more sense now that I know it was the other way around.
What would've helped alot would've been finding an overview picture
of the effects of COXs and their products so I could better
visualise it. I searched for such a picture in a few full text
articles but did not find any good one except the one I linked to in
the message but that one did not make a distinction between the
effects of COX-1 and COX-2 so it didn't help much in that regard.

I think it is great to work with you and Kitty on answering life-
extension related questions on the More Life Yahoo group. The
manner in which we can help each other out and correct each others
mistakes while answering messages makes it a more valuable learning
experience than if each of us would work separately.

--------------------------------EOM----------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:08:17 -0700
From: "Paul Wakfer" <tom@...>
To: "Olafur Pall Olafsson" <olafurpall@...>
CC: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...>
Subject: Re: COX confusion

Olafur Pall Olafsson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Paul Wakfer <tom@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi Olafur,
> >
> > I hope that you don't feel bad about this mix up. The logic of
> > promoters and inhibitors and the double negation involved is
> > very difficult to hold in one's head. And with you also needing
> > to translate, it is a wonder that you do as well as you do.
> > Kitty has a great deal of trouble following some of these
> > involved logical arguments and she is always helped by
> > diagramming the logic in some manner. I agree that is helpful
> > and I sometimes also benefit from it, often by seeing
> > relationships that I missed without it.
> >
> > --Paul
>
> I felt a little bad at first but I was over it shortly
> afterwards. What I did as I normally do when working on posts
> like this is that I started by collecting data. I do so by
> putting several useful quotes I find from abstracts and full text
> articles in a text document putting the PMID number by the quote
> so I know where it came from. After collecting sufficient amounts
> of data this way I have a good overview of it all in a single text
> document making it easier for me to start working on replying to
> the message. When working on this message the first thing I
> started was collecting data on what each of the COXs produce and
> what the effects of their products are. After collecting good
> amounts on data on this including reading parts of some full
> text articles I tried to put it all together and figure this out
> and write it down. This was the hardest part of working on the
> message and just looking at the data I had and trying to figure it
> out took quite a time, so I got it all backwards and wrote it that
> way before starting the reply so I was replying to it with the
> wrong information in my head all the time. Consequently things
> were even more confusing than they had to be but it makes more
> sense now that I know it was the other way around. What would've
> helped alot would've been finding an overview picture of the
> effects of COXs and their products so I could better visualise
> it. I searched for such a picture in a few full text articles but
> did not find any good one except the one I linked to in the
> message but that one did not make a distinction between the
> effects of COX-1 and COX-2 so it didn't help much in that regard.

Thanks for the explanation. I can well understand how that happened.
It seems to me the lesson that you need to learn from this to be a
little bit more *open* to change of view, particularly when you are
finding things to be a bit more confusing than you really think they
should be. In other words, stop dead, take a step backwards and
reexamine all your assumptions to find out where something might be
wrong. I have had to do this time and time again with respect to the
Self-Sovereign Individual Project. This is what enables me to create
so many novel ways of looking at things, but, of course, it is also
what is taking me so long to do it.

> I think it is great to work with you and Kitty on answering life-
> extension related questions on the More Life Yahoo group. The
> manner in which we can help each other out and correct each others
> mistakes while answering messages makes it a more valuable
> learning experience than if each of us would work separately.

That is because you are now part of a cooperative group (as Kitty
and I have been with each other since we met), rather than a
competitive group (as it is with most people). With a cooperative
group each member knows that it will best increase hir own lifetime
happiness if s/he also works to help every other member to increase
hir lifetime happiness. With a competitive group it is: "looking out
for number 1" or "me first and everyone else either second or not at
all". With a cooperative group it is truly: "all for one and one for
all". A competitive approach is based on the philosophy that there
is only so much value in existence and one can only gain some if
someone else losses some. A cooperative approach is based on the
philosophy that the amount of value obtainable is unbounded because
value is created by the cooperative actions of the group members
helping themselves and each other to gain it.

--Paul

-------------------------------EOM---------------------------------

When I was working on Robert's message I had a feeling something
wasn't right and that things were a bit more confusing than they
should be. Had I listened more to that feeling and tried to analyse
what it meant I might have figured this out myself instead of Paul
needing to point my mistake out to me. As Paul mentioned above when
things tend to be overly confused that is an indicator that
something might be wrong. So my mistake was twofold, first of all
it involved not listening carefully to and trying to analyse my
feeling that something was wrong, secondly it involved not being
very open to look at things from a different perspective when Paul
pointed out to me that I might be wrong. I thank Paul for pointing
out my mistake and I will try to improve on this in the future to
prevent such mistakes from happening again.

[But you have the most important thing of all *correct*, Olafur, and that is
that you do not get upset about making mistakes and particularly about being
corrected. Easily acknowledging errors and even greatly desiring any that one
makes to be found are the most important steps on the road to bettering oneself.
--Paul]

[Especially after viewing Olafur's remarks about the email exchange between him
and Paul, I am glad that I suggested that he make this post. Instead of seeking
to conceal errors (including those of judgment), and even suggesting that s/he
never (or rarely) makes any, a person can gain value by making the actual error
process known to others. Doing this evaluation in a formal manner, meant to be
read by other(s), allows the person hirself to closely reexamine the steps that
were taken, thereby decreasing the likelihood that the same or even similar
incorrect ones will be taken in the future. In addition, others can increase
their knowledge of error-prone situations, with the consequent prevention of
similar mistakes with respect to their own decision making before future
actions. **Kitty]