
My dalliance with smart drugs - and the lesson I learned - caustic
http://www.johannhari.com/2009/06/21/my-dalliance-with-smart-drugs-and-the-lesson-i-learned
======
Construct
Taking Modafinil will not make you smarter, but it will heavily diminish the
negative effects of sleep deprivation. Remember, the primary indications for
this medication are narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and excessive daytime sleepiness.

It also increases dopamine and norepinephrine activity in certain areas of the
brain, similar to Adderall and Ritalin, so it will boost your concentration.
It actually showed a positive effect on concentration in ADHD treatment
trials, but the FDA declined to approve it for that purpose due to some
concerns over a rare skin-rash disorder. Many people are under the
misconception that it is not a stimulant, but it most certainly is.

As for controlled, double-blind trials, the results are not promising in non-
sleep-deprived individuals. Controlled tests tend to show self-reported
increases in restlessness, aggression, and anxiety, but the standardized
cognitive and memory tests show very little, if any, improvement in the
Modafinil groups. (See <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672167> and
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738750> for more).

Finally, don't try to import Modafinil (Provigil) into the US without a
prescription. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance and the legal
ramifications for importing a controlled substance can be serious. If you're
still eager to try it outside of a doctor's supervision, which I definitely do
not recommend, then know that Adrafinil is metabolized (partly) to Modafinil
within the body but is not a controlled substance. Importing it is a still a
gray area, though.

Bottom line: Getting a healthy amount of sleep should be your #1 goal for
cognitive improvement. If that isn't actually possible, then Modafinil could
be helpful for reversing the effects of sleep deprivation. If concentration is
your problem, Modafinil may help you, but you'd probably be better off
pursuing proper ADHD treatment with a medication approved for ADHD.

~~~
j_baker
One important thing that's worth noting: Just because you have trouble
concentrating doesn't mean you have ADHD. There are a lot of other things that
could cause that.

~~~
Construct
Excellent point, and definitely worth pointing out.

It's amazing how many people are quick to self-diagnose ADHD, but have no
problem spending hours on their hobbies or interesting projects. In fact,
you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the coding community who never has
problems concentrating on uninteresting projects.

~~~
warfangle
There's a weird thing that can happen to ADHD individuals, and its actually
considered a symptom: the ability to 'hyperfocus' on certain tasks. It's very
similar to The Zone, but it's random and difficult to predict when it will
manifest: <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocus>

~~~
Construct
The term hyperfocus doesn't appear in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, the gold standard by which all mental disorders,
including ADHD, are officially defined) at all.

The term shows 0 results on PubMed, a repository for studies, journals, and
other biomedical literature. (Note: If you search for 'hyperfocus' it will
give you results for 'hypertonus' because the original term returned no
results)

And finally, the Wikipedia article is heavily flagged with 'Original Research'
and 'Unverifiable/Biased Information' tags, and is also flagged for not having
any real sources or citations.

I know the term 'hyperfocus' has worked its way into pop-psychology lately,
but I've never been able to find reliable research supporting the claim. I am
a bit wary of how easily it stretches the definition of ADHD to encompass just
about every person I've ever worked with. After all, who wouldn't identify
with the idea that they can 'hyperfocus' on video games or fun projects, but
have difficulty concentrating on difficult or uninteresting work? Very
slippery slope here.

~~~
j_baker
I have ADHD and hyperfocus. Sometimes I go for hours and forget to eat or
drink anything. Two things:

1\. The DSM only defines mental illness so that it can be diagnosed. For
instance, it doesn't say "prescribe drugs x, y, and z for ADHD". If the DSM
doesn't include hyperfocus, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means
it isn't a diagnostic criteria.

2\. How much research can you find proving that depression makes people sad or
that ADHD makes people unable to pay attention? Do chemists do research on how
wet water is? Remember, ADHD is one of the most well-known mental disorders
out there. Doctors have been treating it with stimulants for over 70 years. If
you can't find research on the subject, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
It just means that there's not really any new ground to be broken in the area.

That said, hyperfocus is well known among Psychiatrists and Psychologists.
It's just like the other symptoms: pathological versions of normal behaviors.
A normal person can put down video games long enough to go to school or work.
I can't without medication.

------
silentbicycle
Wow! Yet another article about "smart drugs" that's actually about stimulants!
I give it one hour before people start mentioning Erdos and talking about
amphetamines instead. (Edit: Yup, and now I'm getting downvoted.)

Here's a much better article about _actual_ smart drugs
(<http://sites.google.com/site/thinkinginanutshell/nootropics>), and its HN
discussion (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211959>). Sorting them in
terms of risk & body load is a good idea, I think. He's not kidding when he
says vaso-/desmopressin messes with homeostasis.

The racetams (piracetam, aniracetam, oxiracetam, etc.) are probably the least
risky, though I've had the best long-term effects from getting enough sleep
and exercise, eating reasonably well, and not spiking and crashing on caffeine
all the time. If you want to try nootropics, be informed and careful, and
address the obvious factors that may be messing with your concentration first.
(For me it was sleep debt and too much caffeine.)

~~~
joshu
Modafinil isn't a stimulant.

~~~
silentbicycle
Then what _is_ it? I don't have a PDR on hand, but Wikipedia says it's an
"analeptic", a central nervous system _stimulant_ used specifically to control
sleepiness.

~~~
digitailor
The PDR describes its action as "unknown."

~~~
silentbicycle
Does that mean something like, "it has stimulant-like effects, but its actual
mechanism is more complex and not fully understood"?

Serious question, not trying to sound flippant.

~~~
digitailor
The PDR is very vague on this for a reason- they have no idea. The doctors I
have spoken to about it seem to think it is not a stimulant, it is something
"better." They are calling it a wakefulness promoting agent. This isn't just
PR boobspeak- the docs don't equate it with speed or coke, and with good
reason. It has NOT been shown to have the long term damaging effects on
dopamine and serotonin receptors those drugs do.

~~~
silentbicycle
Ok, thanks.

IIRC, the exact mechanism for piracetam isn't fully understood either
(something involving acetylcholine) - they decided to create the "nootropic"
designation for it rather than classify it as a stimulant. The general
consensus is that it's safe (no known LD-50, relatively mild side-effects) and
makes orange juice taste horrible.

------
swombat
My experience was similar. I wouldn't say it kills all your creativity, but it
makes it slightly more unnatural to practice lateral thinking. That said, I
have come up with some great ideas while on Modafinil.

My best tips if you're going to use this drug is:

1) Take a very small dose. 50mg (taken around 8 or 9) is usually more than
enough to get me through the day. Occasionally I used to take a 25mg bump in
the early afternoon which carried over the hyper feeling into the early
evening.

2) Try it out on a day when you're by yourself first, so you understand how it
changes your perception of the world, because it does alter your perception.
You might be quicker to make decisions or react to things, and you need to
understand this and compensate for it before you interact with other people.
If you can't be alone, at least tell your partner about it so they understand
that you might behave slightly differently over that period (possibly more
aggressively...).

3) The best way to make the most of it, for me, has been to prepare a solid
list of big items that I want to get through before I take it, so I don't have
to think about what to do next. Modafinil allows you to focus really well on
whatever it is you decide to do, but it really doesn't help your executive
ability (i.e. deciding what to do). I did once find myself having a really
solid, focused, deep, 6-hour session of World of Warcraft. Don't give yourself
too much opportunity to wander, or you'll find yourself doing anything that
comes to your mind (whether that's reading a book, cleaning the kitchen,
reorganising your office, or actually doing some productive work). Best to
decide ahead of time so you don't fall into that trap.

~~~
CoffeeDregs
1) Totally agree. 100 mg made me nutty, aggressive; 50 mg still made me a bit
agressive; 25mg is just right and makes me quite alert all day without making
me an aggressive drone.

2) Totally agree. See #1, but I definitely look back at some interactions-
while-on-100mg (super judgmental, aggressive) and think that I would have
handled them better if not on modafinil. Interactions with my wife/kids can
suffer.

3) Definitely. Taking modafinil without a plan leads to reading every article
on Hacker News.

Generally, I consider modafinil to be a tool. As when using a hammer, I don't
look to accomplish tasks that don't benefit from the tool.

------
mindcreek
I'm dyslexic, I cannot write with a pen and even though my discrete math is
good I struggled throughout my school life and computer science degree with
calculus and differentials etc.

In my second year in university one of my teachers suggested to me I might be
dyslexic and later I found a professor in an university hospital who deals
with ADD and dyslexia in younger patients. She suggested to me Ritalin and
then concerta which I didn't want to use then, after school when I really
needed the 6-7 hour coding marathons for the projects I'm working on I strated
using concerta and ritalin here is my experience.

1\. My concentration is longer and more productive, the urge to continuously
get up and do something else is gone. 2\. As far as 3 years go I had no
noticeable side effects, I asked my doctor about it and he told me
methylfenidaat hydroclorine which is the active ingredient in both drugs is
considered to safe and no long term effect are observed to date(about 20 years
or so) 3\. The drugs do not cause addiction because I had periods without the
drugs one 6 months one three months just to prove myself I can do without them
so far both were uneventful Except I went back to my old self. 4\. My IQ or
creativity seems unaffected by the drug I'm always the same. 5\. I was
forgetting little things my keys wallet phone back then after the drugs I
don't. 6\. If I forget to take the drug my wife or colleagues ask me If I
forgot to take my pills today, so the difference is noticeable from the
outside. 7\. Both drugs are strictly controlled substances in Turkey so I have
to struggle with bureaucracy every month for refills, renewals.

Thanks for reading If you have any question I'll try to check the comments
later.

~~~
bkj123
Do you mind telling what dosages you were taking? Thank you.

~~~
mindcreek
36 mg concerta daily in the morning it usually keeps me on 12 hours or so.

or a 10mg ritalin which keeps the effect about 5 hours or so so I can take
another if it will be a long nigth, taking concerta in the nigth is not a good
idea because you will burn out and wont be able to sleep if you decide to.

Concerta is a small container with a laser drilled hole and a constant
delivery mechanism for 12 hours or so and ritalin is bumpier on the dosage but
concerta is more expensive about 120$ in Turkey for a month worth refill where
ritalin is only 20$ for a month excluding the doctors fee which is 150$ so it
costs around 200$ for a month and no insurance scheme covers it.

------
jakerocheleau
I can't speak for Provigil but I've used both Focalin (dexmethylphenidate) and
Adderall (basically amphetamines) to help me study/work on tough projects and
have had phenomenal results. I don't notice any "lack" in my creativity and
honestly I find myself pumping out higher-quality work when I can focus in and
get "in the zone". My writing improves, programming skills shoot through the
fucking roof, and I find I can work from many different perspectives on any
given problem.

Always in moderation of course. I couldn't imagine speeding every work day
just to finish projects

------
corin_
Can anyone recomend somewhere to get hold of a (preferably small) amount of
Provigil? (Shipping to UK) Would like to try it myself.

edit: Found
[http://www.unitedpharmacies.co.uk/product.php?productid=973&...](http://www.unitedpharmacies.co.uk/product.php?productid=973&cat=0&page=1)
and placed a small order with a throwaway credit card, will see if that
arrives in the next 7-14 days as promised. Would still like any
recomendations, though.

~~~
swombat
I've ordered a number of times from: <http://www.qhi.co.uk/intro.asp>

They have not defrauded the cards I used and the stuff they delivered was, as
far as I could tell, real (both from the packaging and from the effects).

~~~
corin_
Thanks for the link - pretty expensive at 30 for 81euro (Alertec) or 30 for
143euro (Provigil)

~~~
swombat
Well, I know a number of websites where you can buy sugar pills for a lot
cheaper...

I ordered the Alertec from those guys quite a few times, and it always arrived
without any issues. There's a slightly fussy initial sign-up procedure which
involves sending them a fax, but beyond that I've had no problems.

~~~
corin_
Have taken your advice and ordered 30x100mg of the Alertec, and will sort the
fax out on Monday - cheers :)

(I assume I'm right in thinking there's no advantage to Provigil over
Alertec?)

~~~
swombat
I don't know, I always took the Alertec. As far as I know there should be no
difference, but I'm not a pharmacologist...

------
phowat
I took ritalin for about a month to be able to play longer stretches of online
poker. During the time I thought I was doing great but after reviewing my
sessions later I discovered I was making a bunch of silly mistakes I don't
think I would have done otherwise. And it was usually when I was already deep
into the session, when I would otherwise have already stopped playing. After a
month I found out that the amount of extra money was marginally paying for the
cost of the drugs and stopped (yes, I played really small stakes). I know it's
just anecdotal evidence and even my own sample size ( just one month ) is
small but I think it's worth sharing.

------
parenthesis
Previous discussions:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=190676>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1524757>

------
dholowiski
Side effects (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil#Side_effects>)

In 2007, the FDA ordered Cephalon to modify the Provigil leaflet in bold-face
print of several serious and potentially fatal conditions attributed to
modafinil use, including TEN, DRESS syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
(SJS). The long term safety and effectiveness of modafinil has not been
determined.

Webmd:<http://bit.ly/9dSAg6> Headache, nausea, nervousness, anxiety,
dizziness, and difficulty sleeping may occur. If any of these effects persist
or worsen, notify your doctor or pharmacist promptly.

Tell your doctor immediately if any of these rare but serious side effects
occur: mental/mood changes (e.g., agitation, confusion, depression, abnormal
thoughts, hallucinations). Seek immediate medical attention if any of these
rare but very serious side effects occur: chest pain, fast/pounding/irregular
heartbeat, signs of infection (e.g., fever, persistent sore throat).

~~~
AngryParsley
6 cases over a decade. That's pretty safe in my book. You also left out the
part about acute toxicity. For acute doses, Modafinil is safer than caffeine.

The FDA is ridiculously risk-averse when it comes to approving drugs. For
example, they recently rejected lorcaserin and qnexa, two anti-obesity drugs,
over safety concerns. They also got sibutramine withdrawn from the US market.
Even if these drugs have risks, the risks of obesity are likely much higher.

A lot of people are going to die from obesity that would have been saved if
these drugs were approved. Of course, the media reports when approved drugs
cause harm, not when rejected drugs don't save lives.

~~~
Gatsky
I think that last comment is over-calling things a bit. There are no studies
supporting the conclusion that anti-obesity drugs save lives (this is not to
say that they definitely don't, just that no one has proven it). Most of them
cause weight loss of only 2 - 5kg anyway, compared to dietary/behavioural
intervention alone.

On the other hand, surgery for obesity is dramatically effective and there is
good evidence that it saves lives. It is strongly recommended in appropriate
patients eventhough 1 - 2% of people die because of the operation.

Don't think the FDA is being risk averse, they just decided not to approve a
modestly effective agent with an unclear safety profile.

~~~
Symmetry
Don't decide that the FDA is risk averse on that one example, but I hope you
can see how, in general, the FDA has every incentive to be too cautious. If
the FDA approves a drug and people die then there'll be political hell. If the
FDA delays the approval of a medicine by a year and a few people die during
that year who could have been saved pretty much no one will say anything, and
even if they never approve a needed mediation then only if its for a disease
with a well organized group of sufferers (think AIDS or breast cancer) will
there be a political price. Its a testament to the altruism of the people who
work at the FDA that they approve things at all, since the politics of the
situation are so against them.

I've only seen one study researching whether the FDA is too risk adverse
overall. If you look at the number of drugs denied approval to, you find that
the FDA saves about 2,000 lives each year, which is really awesome. On the
other hand if you look at drugs that are later approved but which are delayed
in testing you find that the FDA causes between 5,000 and 20,000 excess deaths
each year, which sort of sucks. All of this doesn't include the effects of
making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which
really might go either way in its effect. Remember when looking at those
number that there's a definite diminishing returns effect with each additional
level of inspection saving less lives but costing the same amount.

Of course, this is only one study but its the only one I've seen. If anyone
could point to more data I'd be quite grateful.

~~~
stevenbedrick
> All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more
> careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in
> its effect.

Let's not underestimate the magnitude of this effect... the FDA is the way it
is for a reason. As incredibly and hair-pullingly frustrating as the approval
process can be, it's necessary. I'd rather have an FDA that errs on the side
of caution than one that relies on the good will and stringent standards of
the pharma industry.

Not to disparage the drug companies too heavily- most of the people who work
in the industry developing and testing drugs have their heads on straight, and
would be in favor of doing things the right way even without the FDA looking
over their shoulders... but companies are companies, and ensuring drug safety
is not something that should be left up to profit-maximizing entities. The
story about the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...

~~~
Symmetry
I think you believe I'm trying to get rid of the FDA here. I'm not, I just
want it to approve new drugs more quickly. Generally I'm in favor of things
like the late 80s/early 90s reform which reduced the gap in approval speed
between the US and Europe * , or like HR.6270 (which never made it to vote)
which would let terminally ill patients use drugs that haven't been proven
safe yet. There's no reason to get rid of the FDA, its probably both better
and politically easier to reform it.

*Europe generally approved drugs much more quickly than the US (well, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany at least) and there wasn't any statistically significant difference in the number of bad drugs let through. People noticed that and hence the reforms in the early 90s. For instance, you could use propranolol to treat hypertnsion in most of Europe by '68, but not in the US until '78. That cost 10,000s of lives right there. Luckily the modern FDA is better - though it still needs improvement.

------
jedwhite
Funnily enough I get a similar result from a good night's sleep, not eating
crap, and going for a ride on my bike. It also helps weight loss. :)

------
binarymax
How do these drugs effect memory? If you can tear through books while on
Provigil, is what you learned well retained when your brain reverts to its
"scrappier state"?

------
dawson
My experience with Concerta (albeit a different drug), is not the same. I have
seen a massive increase in my ability to concentrate and complete tasks, as
well as be creative (in relation to my start up and business development).
Though, creativity is relative to any one person and context.

------
nickpinkston
I resisted for many years, but I recently got a script for Adderall, and it's
made me a better thinker and doer. I haven't experienced the lack of
creativity that some report - on the contrary actually. I've also found that I
sleep better - which is actually common my doctor says.

I've been taking 15mg morning and after-lunch, but not on weekends so as to
reduce my dependency and tolerance to it. This has worked well so far.

I'm not sure if perhaps people who have the gene coding for reduced dopamine
re-uptake (i.e. a big predictor of ADD diagnoses - like myself) are the ones
who get the strongest benefits and the reports of bad reactions could possibly
be from those without this genotype?

------
proexploit
I'm not going to speak out for or against the use of smart drugs, but please
note that although Adrafinil does metabolize to Modafinil and thus appears to
be a legal (depending on your location) alternative, it can damage your liver
and cause stomach pain.

------
joelangeway
You'll find more scientifically oriented articles about this subject if you
call it nootropics. Here is another personal (not me) anecdote about it which
comes off quite differently.

[http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/36691-ten-months-of-
resea...](http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/36691-ten-months-of-research-
condensed-a-total-newbies-guide-to-nootropics/)

------
mr_luc
This article could not have been written to tempt me any more effectively.

'It doesn't cause hyperfocused procrastination, like Adderal or Dexedrine.
It's 'deep concentration.' And you can go off it whenever you want! It's a
temporary smart pill with no withdrawal symptoms!'

D'oh. "Get behind me, Satan!"

~~~
jfb
Pros: it's killer for jet lag -- I fly between the US and HK fairly regularly,
and suffer extraordinarily from jet lag. Modafinil helps a lot in reseting my
internal clock. I also see the deep concentration effect, particularly on a
project that I'm avoiding due to the inherent dullitude -- when high, I can
power through stuff that I would deflect and ignore.

On the down side, if I forget and drink a beer after taking Modafinil, the
hangover is epic. Too, it makes my pee smell really weird. And I have a
tendency towards chatterboxery, which is exacerbated beyond all reason.

Anecdotes/evidence/&c.

~~~
gwern
> Too, it makes my pee smell really weird.

As people point out above, this is a _good_ thing. Makes counterfeiting that
much harder. It would be nice if all drugs came with such signatures of
authenticity. ('Remember, real Viagra will cause a little shamrock tattoo to
appear under your right armpit for an hour.')

------
zaidf
I would say, if anything, I've had the opposite experience with adderall. I've
had some crazy creative bursts. I am probably the exception because almost
everyone I talk with has the opposite experience.

------
chapel
This seems to pop up a lot.

After reading about this the first time I researched for about a month before
purchasing any. My general experience with them is that they work, they keep
you up longer than you would normally be able to, they keep you alert, you
don't feel like you are hopped up either.

The effect only lasts so long though, after being up for over 24 hours, your
body gets tired, and the effectiveness of the drug gets worse. I didn't really
go past 36 hours, but if I wanted to I could have. Note that I didn't
purposely try and stay up all those times, I work graveyard shifts and ended
up having important things come up when I needed to sleep and I was forced to
stay up.

Modafinil really did help me when I was tired, but as far as being a 'smart
drug' it wasn't exactly mind blowing. It did make it easier to focus, but I
could just as easily focus on a TV show, or a website, versus a piece of code
I wanted to finish. So if you need to stay up, study, or get something done
and you are determined to do it, this is great. If you want something to
augment your day to day life and make you 'smarter' this really isn't for you.

Though there are more things popping up saying that it might have worse long
term side effects than previously thought, I didn't really have any that I
know of, but if I get brain cancer in a year I guess I know why. :)

~~~
farnsworth
And may I ask where you purchased it?

------
csomar
Isn't their a natural counterpart? Like a mind hack or something similar. I
found myself ,in the last week, deeply concentrating and working on something
that is very boring and I usually tend to lose concentration on it very
quickly. I was surprised how the hours passed without complaints.

May be I ate something special that made that day goes like that, but I felt
like I fall into that deep concentration state of mind. My creative abilities
weren't touched, though.

------
digitailor
I have a legal prescription for 200 mg Provigil.

Many of the comments here have factual inaccuracies.

\- Provigil is Schedule IV, which is not highly restricted, and is prescribed
on regular scrip paper, not DEA paper.

\- Some STATES restrict its dispersal more stringently, like New York, even
with a scrip. Others do not, like California.

\- Provigil has NOT been classed a stimulant. Its action is currently
described as "unknown."

This information comes from my doctor and my doctor's PDR.

EDIT: for grammar error, and mistake about its schedule level.

~~~
j_baker
"Provigil is NOT a Schedule IV drug. It is prescribed on regular prescription
paper, NOT DEA paper."

I think you have it backwards. Schedule IV drugs are prescription-only, but
don't require DEA papers like Schedule II drugs do (such as Adderall, Ritalin,
etc). They aren't as highly regulated, but they _do_ still require a
prescription.

~~~
digitailor
You are correct; I forgot IV is not very stringent.

------
MtL
Have any programmers in here had any experiences with nootropics (*racetams,
DMAE, etc)?

~~~
silentbicycle
Yes. Search the archives for "piracetam", "aniracetam", etc. Discussions about
nootropics seem to come up a few times a year (though they usually get
derailed to talking about amphetamines and provigil pretty quickly).

------
alexandradavis
My experience matches caustics: I was able to settle into work, but my
creativity was killed.

I'd recommend smart drugs for doing drudgery, but if you need to engage the
right brain for inventiveness, chocolate works great :)

~~~
roadnottaken
I disagree, in a way. I used to take amphetamines when studying (adderall) and
I'd find that I could completely get lost in whatever task I was pursuing. So,
if I stayed focused on my study material, I'd absorb the material very
thoroughly and quickly (relatively speaking). However, if I'd get distracted
by something ~creative like, say, drawing a picture or composing a song (I
didn't do any coding back then) I could get similarly lost in that task. That
ability to "get lost" in something is, to me, very powerful creatively.

Here's an example of the sort of artwork that I would do on speed that I
probably wouldn't have the patience for, otherwise:

<http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5550/penroseknotv3sm.jpg>

I'm sure there are some types of creativity that are blunted, but the ability
to direct extended focus and attention to any task (even creative ones) is a
powerful thing that shouldn't be overlooked.

------
araneae
My SO takes Provigil infrequently and has reported no loss of creativity.

Next this guy is going to tell us that LSD bring him closer to God, and you're
going to believe him?

Anecdotal evidence about the effects of drugs are mostly worthless.

~~~
swombat
For what it's worth, depending on your definition of God and how much LSD you
take, I'd be inclined to believe that second statement.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is not worth much, however the problem with
psychoactive drugs is that many of the most interesting effects are subjective
(and thus the best data is always anecdotal) and that scientific studies of
certain interesting drugs is illegal. Anecdotal evidence may not be worth
much, but it's certainly worth more than prejudices based on zero evidence.

Also worth pointing out that not all interesting things in life can be studied
with objective double-blind studies.

------
seanmcq
I can verify this behavior on Provigil. You shine at your full brilliance, but
become incapable of having unique/new thoughts.

I cut it completely, but I'm curious to see if the author has luck oscillating
on it.

------
zkirill
My concern is that once you start taking these drugs to artificially boost
your intelligence your natural ability to concentrate without them might
atrophy because it's no longer used. I guess this isn't an issue if you only
take them every now and then, but isn't it a better idea to seek alternate
ways to energize your brain that use your own body such as having a solid
exercise routine, proper diet and getting enough sleep?

------
danielnicollet
I never even thought of taking a drug to get ahead or be better at what I do.
I don't think I knew people did self-medicate to improve their productivity
either. It seems so wrong to me and so unauthentic. The brain is a fragile
mission critical component we know so little about. I am amazed so many seem
here discuss it so candidly. Good luck and make sure you don't turn into
veggies by 50 y.o.

~~~
DanI-S
If you're concerned about being inauthentic, you should write all your code on
paper rather than using anything as performance-enhancing as a text editor.
And forget about that morning coffee!

~~~
danielnicollet
wow - you see no difference between coffee and a neural enhancer? this is way
off the chart for me here. I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what
I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen (maybe that's why I am getting
downvoted here). I would also say it keep me very happy so far. So I wish good
luck to those who choose that instead :)

~~~
petercooper
Perhaps not coffee, but _caffeine_ , the active ingredient, is a "neural
enhancer." Wikipedia defines it as a "psychoactive stimulant drug" and says
that it "has a generally disinhibitory effect on neural activity." You would
have done better to call out the comparison between using drugs and a text
editor ;-)

~~~
danielnicollet
hehe - I am getting a coffee chemistry course now! I don't even drink coffee
;-) you would have done much better not replying at all.

------
dsplittgerber
What I find most astonishing is that people administer 'smart' drugs without
having the slightest clue to their long-term side effects. You discount long-
term risks in favor of short-term gains.

We humans simply don't understand much of what goes on in the brain - I
wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing
cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.

~~~
AngryParsley
_...long-term side effects._

Modafinil has been around since the 70's. So far, no studies have found issues
with long-term use. Actually, some studies found it to have a neuroprotective
effect.

 _I wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like
enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences._

The environment we evolved in is quite different from the environment we now
live in. Humans used to have much more limited supplies of food and nutrients.
Our bodies are built for famine resistance instead of maximum performance.
There's probably a similar trade-off in our brain functions, since the brain
is a pretty big energy hog (responsible for around 25% of calories burned).

We can use drugs to tweak the trade-offs made by evolution. We don't have to
worry about food and nutrients today. Stimulants can decrease appetite and
need for sleep, both of which would be disastrous in a food-limited
environment. Even the effect of stimulants we find beneficial (spending hours
in concentrated thought) would likely be harmful on the African savannah.

The precautionary principle is too often applied in the case of enhancement.
We don't completely understand the brain yet, but we do have some idea of how
it works, and today there are safe effective drugs that improve cognitive
abilities.

~~~
rsheridan6
>So far, no studies have found issues with long-term use.

Most likely translation: there have been no long-term studies of modafinil. A
quick search doesn't turn any up.

------
nikster
The new discovery here is that the drug kills creativity - that's a pretty big
deal for me.

It's also quite different from meditation, which fosters creativity.

~~~
grovulent
I think a better description of the process - at least, as it applies to my
own usage (prescribed) goes like this:

When you are on these sorts of drugs think of it as opening the tap. You
execute with the full force of your creative reserves that you've built up.
The more pent up you are - the more the ideas just pour through you as you
write/code/compose - whatever.

And because the tap is open, eventually the waters on one side of the dam
level out with those on the other. The rate of creative execution slows down
because it's not pent up.

But I think it's a mistake to say one is LESS creative. You remain as creative
as you ever were. The same amount of water flows through your stream as it
ever did. One just doesn't have the same pent up backlog of ideas to execute
anymore - just that steady stream.

~~~
StavrosK
Basically, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to take a pill one weekend in the
month. You'll do all the things you've been meaning to for ages, and then go
back to normal.

I'd try it myself if I weren't dubious of the "no side-effects" thing. I don't
think it's very likely that a drug makes you supersmart without having ill
effects...

~~~
dlokshin
Agreed. It seems extremely unlikely that a drug which alters your brain
chemistry does not have any ill side effects. If it doesn't have chemically
addictive properties, it most certainly has emotionally addictive qualities.

~~~
StavrosK
I just remember hearing about sudden deaths of people who were on a nootropic
drug (not sure if it was this one). Does anyone remember the drug? I don't
think the risk is worth the reward...

------
baddox
> _Is this the equivalent of athletes taking steroids?_

Yes, they are equivalent, and both should be legal.

------
keefe
>Creative thoughts don't come to you any more.

I've taken more than my share of modafinil and I've never experienced this.

------
scotth
There's a lot of conjecture here. Not sure why it's being upvoted.

------
markbao
So you smoke some weed and take modafinil to get both?

------
beefman
Try stablon.

~~~
beefman
No seriously. I've tried most of the smart drugs in existence, had exactly the
same reaction to modafinil, and found stablon does much of the same but
without the drawback mentioned. YMMV, of course.

------
confuzatron
If anyone needs smart drugs it's Johann Hari. That he's currently running in
scrappy mode does explain the sloppiness of his journalism though.

(Note to downvoter: I say this because he's notorious for peppering his feel-
good rants with factual inaccuracies)

