
Would you take smart drugs to perform better at work? - wslh
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131212-smart-drugs-at-work-good-idea
======
gambiting
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our
international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run
commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the
profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new
BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital
activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

That is all great and all, but it's not answering the most important question
- how can I, as a UK user, access this content? If I can't, then you just got
an answer to why piracy is still a thing.

~~~
Nursie
This annoys the hell out of me but apparently it's due to a ruling that the
BBC cannot compete with the private sector in the UK market, due to its tax
funding, non-profit nature.

I kind of understand it, but it does lead to ludicrous outcomes like this.

~~~
lugg
I didn't have the issue but I dont think I could ever "understand" such a
thing. Sounds like a pretty big oversight.

------
Theodores
Some professions could go the way pro-cycling has been for much of its
history: you have to take the drugs to just keep up with everyone else.

If we assume 'miracle drugs' with no side-effects then there is the small
matter of money. Drugs are expensive, market forces tends to keep it that way.
So, to be a 'rockstar programmer' you might have to fork out $100K a year in
pills, therefore making entry into 'the sport' cost prohibitive to outsiders
that aren't on the drugs and able to ride with 'the pack'. Lance Armstrong and
co. were selling their sponsor provided bikes on eBay to pay for the pills and
riding old bikes, things got so desperate for the drugs slush-fund.

Even if we assume legal status for pills (so they don't have to be paid for
with unaccounted funds) and affordable pills (supply exceeds demand), the
money spent on pills means money not spent on other things such as the
mortgage, the pension fund, fruit and vegetables etc.

~~~
JamesArgo
Any simple means of raising IQ would be so powerful economicly that many
countries would have a huge incentives to disregard IP agreements. The market
for illicit synthisis in contries that enforce monopolies would likely be
bigger than modern recreational drug markets. It's the type of thing that
would get cheap fast, as pretty much everyone would like to be smarter, most
people don't care about improving their biking speed.

------
sharpneli
I would. I already take one, caffeine.

As long as there are no harmful effects and no-one is forced to use anything I
have nothing against it.

~~~
chao-
A heavy caffeine user, I also have occasional seasonal allergies (a week per
quarter?) and rather than take simple Loratadine, I always prefer the versions
that include Pseudoephedrine. It noticeably gives me a bit of extra pep to
push on through the sniffles. I'm honest with myself that caffeine is a drug,
and that my occasional consumption of Psuedoephedrine is a step away from
being low-grade meth user.

So would I use something with cognitive benefits at concentrations (or
consumption rates) that exhibit no harmful effects? I already do.

------
gygygy
[http://web.archive.org/web/20140123002343/http://www.bbc.com...](http://web.archive.org/web/20140123002343/http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131212-smart-
drugs-at-work-good-idea)

------
teoruiz
This is a very comprehensive write-up by Daniel Tenner, startup founder, about
his experience taking Modafinil:

[http://swombat.com/2012/2/27/modafinil-and-
startups](http://swombat.com/2012/2/27/modafinil-and-startups)

------
Nursie
No, because I don't trust that they wouldn't just make things worse later,
increase the chance of burnout etc.

Also I'm already amazing, thanks.

------
PeterWhittaker
I'm a caffeine user, have been for years. But the most important thing I've
done for my cognitive fitness is to be aware of and adapt to my changing
reaction to food.

As a teen, I could - and did - consume frightening quantities of sugar with
few ill effects, at least intellectually (very high metabolism, about 145 lbs
all through high school, A+ student, great scholarships). University wasn't
too much different, though adding beer added weight.

Now in my late forties, I can feel the difference between sharp days and dull
days. Too little sleep is the biggest contributor, too much sugar - or, more
to the point, a protein-fat-carb imbalance - the other.

I know how much coffee I need, and I know how much is too much. I can feel the
glucose hit and insulin rush if I have the wrong sweets at the wrong time.

Sometimes I can feel my sharpness, my intellect, being just out of reach. I
hate days like that, when I feel stupider.

I also know that if I can skip one day of exercise after 2 or 3 days on, but
not skip two. Without the squats and weights and deadlifts, I can feel myself
slipping all the more.

Would I take enhancing drugs? At 48? Knowing that I am on the slow decline,
that I need to slowly but continuously up my dietary awareness and slowly but
continuously ease off foods I've always liked?

Yeah, maybe. What are the risks? And am I am objective enough to evaluate
them?

Dunno.

------
tomp
I haven't read the article (I'm in the UK), but I currently do not, and I hope
I can continue with this principle.

In particular, I don't even drink coffee. I refuse to put my health in danger
just to please my employer. Now, I usually don't eat heavily carbohydrated
food, which makes me sleepy, during work, and on the rare occasions that I do,
I can afford to doze off for 10 minutes without fear of being fired. I know
that most people aren't that lucky.

~~~
asdfologist
What's wrong with coffee? If anything, the current state of research says it's
possibly beneficial, and otherwise inconclusive [0].

[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/coffee/](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/coffee/)

~~~
tomp
It's addictive. When people get used to it, they "have to have it in the
morning". I don't want to become one of those people.

~~~
asdfologist
And? We're also dependent on oxygen, water, and food.

------
jeffbr13
I've been using nicotine on-and-off, after reading up on Gwern's self-
experimentation[1], in order to moderate my caffeine dependency.

I would probably use other chemicals, if the cost-benefit balance was good
enough:

1\. Easy to acquire - even nicotine gum is a bother to buy, compared to the
various teas, coffees, colas, or caffeine drinks within a few metres of my
desk.

2\. Valuable - there would need to be a positive economic benefit, otherwise
it would be a recreational chemical.

To think like an economist, the 'positive economic benefit' would provide
$-amounts for:

3\. Quality of Life costs - a smart-drug which affects your sex-life (e.g.
Adderall) or causes me to lose focus on my health will have a high negative
value.

4\. Long-term Health costs - similar to above, except this is more of an
expected-cost for (the likelihood of it causing long-term health issues) *
(the negative value of those health issues). Not usually very high, but as the
article mentions, not many of these drugs have had conclusive efficacy trials,
never mind long-term studies of their effects. This one really depend on your
personal risk-aversion.

[1]: [http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine](http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine)

~~~
pistle
Ditto here on what you've been doing. Caffeine modulation (I alternate month
intervals btw caffeine and nicotine gum).

I have a preference for well understood/studied chemicals now. Previous
experiments with narcotics and pharmaceuticals were helpful in understanding
dependence/addiction, mysticism, and enlightenment. Those experiments only
revealed that most effects are aberrations and the cost+risk+utility of these
is a net loss for me. I encourage people to experience this and have offered
guidance on managing it - definitely do not try specific ones if you have ever
had a notion of dependence or inability to control things like alcohol,
smoking, etc. Addiction is not the goal and almost always is a net loss, so be
aware of yourself and don't take foolish risks.

My experiments have so far led to net positive, but I am only now about to
begin sleep modulation since I have baselines for the chemical experiments.

Basically, balanced nutrition to meet your needs for exercise and productive
knowledge and skill acquisition (and relationship building) are foundational.
Then start testing augmentation. Keep logs/journals and be open about it with
nurturing people around you who understand your life goals, etc. You can also
consider your various relationships as variables, so be careful when and how
you enter, and alter, relationships while you journey. You need to be able to
extricate yourself when you see losses not in line with your larger goals.
Developing codependent relationships AND addictions is a dark road.

~~~
jeffbr13
All this sounds great, and I've considered doing the whole quantified self
thing, but aside from a massive helping of motivation, how do you go about
keeping track of all the data?

Are there any good data-entry applications, or do you just note the data down
and transcribe it into a spreadsheet later?

------
sp332
It's going mainstream already. Brain Toniq has a "light" version that's kosher
and vegan, with no caffeine, no sugar, no artificial sweeteners (it's
sweetened with monkfruit and stevia), and ... a dose of piracetam.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam)

------
cLeEOGPw
I would take, or at least would try, even if not required by job. And I would
absolutely trust doctor or bus driver who takes the drugs, what could be the
reason not to? Maybe I'd trust even more than non-takers, because with higher
focus a driver, for example, would be less likely to go into accident.

------
simon_marklar
I take 75mg armodafinil and 30mg noopept every work day. They both help me.
Its not like some magic bullet, but thinking, recall and motivation are
definitely better.

I started taking them because my doctor put me on effexor for anxiety, and it
made me so sleepy and foggy I couldn't code. Both smart drugs really helped
clear up the fog in my brain

I was taking 150mg armodafinil but after i finally got off effexor ( a month
of hell, dont ever go on that shit! ) I found 75mg was all I needed. I've also
tried nefiracetam but I cant say I noticed a difference. I'm thinking of
cutting out the armodafinil but not the noopept.

~~~
selectiveshift
I hear you about the effexor. The only reason I'm still on it is because of
the withdrawal effects. Those brain zaps are nasty!

~~~
simon_marklar
man, fuck those brain zaps.

i dropped down to 35mg for 4 weeks, then started taking them every 2 days for
a week, then every 3 days, then i stopped.

When I dropped to the every two days per week period i was taking nefiracetam
and also exercising. I still got the brain zaps but it wasnt the full on
'whats going on in my head, make it stop! ouch! fucccckkk!' zap that came with
the 75mg doses. it was doable.

nefiracetam supposedly gives you some seretonin so it may of helped there. Its
hard to say, im not exactly going to get back on effexor just to see if i can
quit them without the nef :O

GOOD LUCK!!!!

------
Igglyboo
I have had ADHD since I was a child, so I can and do take these drugs(Vyvanse)
when I go to work/school. Even though I have ADHD I feel like they give me an
edge over those that do not take them, from my perspective I seem to have
better concentration than my peers.

~~~
zebra
The people with ADHD have the so called "hyperfocus". It's like the flow, but
you cannot stay in it if there are distractions. Pills help to ignore those
distractions. You are more resourceful by training (from your condition),
pills just enable you to show it.

~~~
kazagistar
The real issue with hyperfocus is not so much being distracted out of it as
not being able to target it. Sure, you can sometimes focus on something for 6
hours, but if it is the wrong thing, then you can blow through deadlines like
nobodies business.

When I started on ADHD medications, the biggest thing I noticed was that I
would worry more, and then actually adjust my focus to those problems.

------
desarun
I took modafinil for around 3 months last year when I started on a huge
porject at work.

I work as a software engineer and my output was pretty staggering in
comparison. The code was cleaner & probably better than anything I'd done
before.

It was fantastic at keeping me focused for hours...

~~~
asdfologist
Why did you stop taking it? Any side effects?

~~~
desarun
I stopped taking it as I didn't feel the need to. As far as I can tell there's
no reports on long term usage.

As for side effects, was a little harder to sleep, and I had to remember to
eat. I lost about a stone in a month, but then my appetite came back.

Oh, and it has asparagus-like effects on the body.

I've still got some in a drawer I keep for the days I've got a hangover. Beats
the hell out of coffee & a fry-up as a cure.

------
zebra
I've been there (legally). You have to be motivated by your goal. And be
prepared for a few bad days when the pills end. And you will miss this extra
power you've tasted.

Its a slippery slope. Please plan very well.

------
leashless
DMAE. Went through FDA testing a long time ago and was so safe and effective
they made it over the counter.

I don't use it more than a month a year, though. I just don't believe that
lunch is free.

------
trhway
is better performance at work is the goal or is it a mean that would
supposedly [magically] lead to some better things?

~~~
wslh
I think better performance at work can be converted to better performance in
your side project.

------
jonnybgood
I don't like drinking coffee, so my go to stimulant is 200mg of caffeine with
200mg of l-theanine (Suntheanine).

~~~
DonGateley
I took l-theanine for a long time, four or five years, and with tolerance I
don't know whether or not it still had any positive effect but that same
concern for tolerance also made me too cautious to stop it and take the
possible rebound.

That happened anyway for silly reasons and it took me a few days to realize
that the serious and ever increasing neck pain I had been suffering for a
couple years (and blamed on computer use) had simply vanished. It's been a
couple of months and what had been chronic has not returned with even a trace.

There was no psychological expectation or placebo factors because I never had
considered the possibility that they might be connected, the cessation was
inadvertent with no intent and something I thought little about, and it was
several days before I realized that I had been completely free of increasingly
disabling pain for the same several days. This could be coincidence but I
don't think so. Just sayin'.

------
swayvil
I would use smart drugs to make myself smart enough to escape work.

------
kazagistar
I really wish the BBC would cite their source...

------
mpg33
Stimulants = smart?

------
michaelochurch
For most white-collar professionals, very little is going to be gained by
doing so. Drugs might help you grind out more hours, and they can give you
confidence in your focus (the subjective sense of accomplishment is increased
more than actual performance). Those drugs certainly make boredom less of an
issue if you're at the bottom in a very demanding firm (e.g. an investment
bank's analyst program). They're not going to make you better at politics,
however.

Overperformance is far more dangerous to your career in a typical office job
than underperformance. That's why the highs of a cyclic mood disorder like
bipolar are more dangerous to one's employment than the lows. In a low, you
underperform and might attract bad notice after a couple months. On a high,
you work hard on something you weren't asked to do, it's brilliant, and then
you get canned for (whether in fact or in appearance) neglecting your assigned
work. Most white-collar workers are 25% depressed, chronically, by middle age
and it doesn't hurt their ability to keep a job (although it's a disadvantage
in interviews for new ones). It helps them fit in.

I'd say that it's worth using "smart drugs" for short bursts of work, or
possibly in the creative professions if you don't answer to anyone. But most
corporate workers don't need more "smart". They'd fare better with the
opposite.

