

Brain Gain - rms
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_talbot

======
SapphireSun
This article makes me feel tired.

This semester has worked me harder than I've ever worked in my life. It is
scary how much I identify with the people mentioned in the article (minus the
stimulants and the partying). After reading that so many people want to live
the way I've been living for the past five months, I can't help but feel pity
for the western world. Counter intuitively, working so hard makes me feel
small, unimportant, and unhappy. None of the work I'm doing right now matters
in the long run, but it forces me to abandon side projects that might be.

For people to want to live their lives in this way for more than a few months
to achieve specific goals seems extremely shallow. There is little in life,
save saving your own life, that would warrant this kind of constant grinding
effort. We should be creative, happy creatures, not constantly constrained by
time and energy. All these drugs allow us to do is become the epitome of a
World of Warcraft player.

The marginal gains of these drugs(at the moment) do not appear to be worth it
to me. A truly transformative neuroenhancer might be attractive, but it has
yet to come.

~~~
cubedice
In the exact same boat here. Using stimulants is the most obvious solution to
meeting ever rising demands, but is it the best? I agree with you that working
hard is a difficult pill to swallow (har har), especially when the benefits of
said work are--at most--nebulous.

Unfortunately, I am not smart or clever enough to avoid these traps of society
and--like you--willingly grind myself into a soulless nub trying to work my
way to the next level. My consolation (and perhaps yours too) is that going
through this experience relatively early in life has taught me quite a bit
about how things work. No one should need stimulants to achieve that.

------
trominos
What do you guys think government policy should be on this stuff?

I go back and forth. I generally think of myself as a civil libertarian, so my
initial reaction is to say that "people can take care of themselves" and then
to let things go, but I do think that the fact that concentration drugs
provide significant competitive advantage in many fields of work and study
(and the resulting pressure to use them to keep up) has the potential to be an
_enormous_ problem. I really don't want to live in a world where people have
to choose between drugs and comparative failure.

~~~
JacobAldridge
I'd also call myself libertarian, so lean towards 'people can take care of
themselves' (which can also be translated as 'people can make their own
mistakes').

In the artificial world of university, there may be an advantage to enhancers.
Outside that world, there are some sectors where it may also be an advantage,
probably within the same "twenty-four hour work cycle" paradigm the article
mentioned. (Hacking constantly for your startup, perhaps)

But for most people, I doubt any advantage would last past college. If I
started popping Adderall my clients would wonder why I was suddenly so
intense, and my wife would wonder why we don't relax watching dvds much any
more - there's no advantage in the life I want to lead.

But hey - if your startup is built on drugs and improves my life, go for it.

------
jgfoot
Instead of learning how to manage his time and show some discipline in
committing to a reasonable schedule, this kid took neuroenhancers to help
compensate for "partying all weekend, or spen[ding] the last week being high."
Just as the kid who reads Cliffs Notes instead of The Iliad deprives himself
of an intellectual experience, this guy deprived himself of the opportunity to
train himself to develop natural work habits that he will need as he embarks
on a career.

------
jballanc
_Several pharmaceutical companies are working on drugs that target nicotine
receptors in the brain, in the hope that they can replicate the cognitive
uptick that smokers get from cigarettes._

I can't count how many articles/studies/editorials I've seen on this topic in
the past year. Here's the bottom line: Nicotine works. Caffeine too.

Let me ask you this: Why is it that Nicotine consumption is a globally
universal trend? While it doesn't qualify as biological evolution, societies
must compete with each other, and apparently those where nicotine consumption
is socially acceptable are winning.

Of course, this should be obvious. It's a stimulant. It keeps you awake,
alert, and focused (and was, consequently, distributed freely to WWI and WWII
armies). On top of that, aside from slightly decreased athletic endurance,
it's only major down-side doesn't even factor in if you don't care about
living past 55-60. Considering that, even non-tobacco users didn't have hope
of doing much better then that until recently, tobacco is a net win.

In other words, this isn't a new trend. It's a search for a safe tobacco
alternative.

~~~
anigbrowl
_apparently those where nicotine consumption is socially acceptable are
winning_

Nicotine consumption is at least as acceptable in poor or slowly developing
countries as in well-developed ones. Lots of people smoke in Egypt, Greece,
and France, but none of those countries is a trailblazing economy. France has
many virtues, but is arguably excessively paternalistic.

Sure, you do have a point. I just had a cigarette, so I am in no position to
argue :-) That said, at 38 I'm painfully aware of the deleterious effects of
smoking for the last 2 decades and unable to be flippant about this. On a
broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of tobacco
sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical relief
therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so.

One might, with equal or greater historical basis, argue for the success of
tea-drinking societies. Or marijuana. The bottom line is that the most
productive people in society will find ways to leverage productivity out of
drugs as much as anything else, while the least productive will substitute the
feeling for the practice.

~~~
anamax
> On a broader level, it's worth considering that something like 40-50% of
> tobacco sales in the US are made to mentally ill people, who find chemical
> relief therein, but aren't necessarily better off from doing so.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Perfection is rarely an option. Instead, people get to choose between what's
available to them and "chemical relief" beats their alternatives. It's not
like someone is going to solve their mental problems if they'd quit smoking.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well, I do feel it's a bad thing. Cigarettes are so far down the scale of drug
delivery methods that I feel we have an obligation to do better. Surely
something similar to an asthma inhaler that delivered a hit of nicotine or
similar would not be too expensive to develop, and could provide mental relief
without the same physical costs.

Obviously, I have a chip on my shoulder about these issues; you're not wrong,
I'd just like see a better ange of therapeutic options.

~~~
menloparkbum
There's been a nicotine inhaler available in the states since 1998. It
requires a prescription and hasn't been very popular.

~~~
anigbrowl
Interesting. It seems to have got stalled in the gray area between the right
to sell cigarettes as a commodity and the argument to have tobacco regulated
by the FDA: [http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/30/business/fi-
chrysali...](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/30/business/fi-chrysalis30)

------
rms
Here is the Nature editorial mentioned towards the end of this article:
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/13134612/Naturrecom456702a>

------
tokenadult
"Alex was happy enough to talk about his frequent use of Adderall at Harvard,
but he didn’t want to see his name in print; he’s involved with an Internet
start-up, and worried that potential investors might disapprove of his habit."

Does this sound to all of you like how start-up investors would react to this
issue? Is it a plus or a minus to be known as a start-up founder who uses
Adderall to perform?

~~~
frossie
I am not an investor nor do I play one on TV, but that would worry me, sure.
First, there is the issue of burnout or escalating addiction or withdrawal or
all the usual problems that could threaten the business. Secondly, many VCs
see investing in a startup not so much as an investment in the business, but
in the founder(s). Would you place your chips on a guy who can't organise his
life without the aid of pills?

I view these kinds of mental stimulants the same way as I view make-up: you
can't have it on all the time, it is a way of papering over problems, so why
not learn to live your life without it?

One of the ways you achieve maturity in life is by learning how to triage when
there is simply too much to do. Popping pills is to life skills is what
bulimia is to healthy eating: you might achieve the same result (success or
thinness respectively), but kind of defeats the whole point.

~~~
asciilifeform
>Would you place your chips on a guy who can't organise his life without the
aid of pills?

Would you place your chips on a guy who can't see beyond arm's length without
eyeglasses? How about one incapable of regulating his own blood sugar without
insulin injections?

~~~
ciupicri
Good point, but you're still not 100% right because FBI for example requires
its agents to have a pretty good vision (<http://www.fbijobs.gov/1113.asp#2>).

~~~
asciilifeform
In a combat/police role, you might always lose your glasses/meds/cyborg suit
and end up fighting hand-to-hand, naked. Such requirements make sense there.

------
anigbrowl
sounds like Freud's temporary conviction that cocaine was the key to
liberating man from his natural limitations. What goes around comes around...I
guess writers like these articles, because we're always on the cusp a social
change, and there will always be new people trying drugs for the first time
and getting some positive benefits.

tl;dr; 'intellectuals get high like everyone else - film at 11'.

~~~
metaguri
Indeed. I, as many others I'm sure, have always wondered if my inability to
concentrate was ADHD (although I'm sure it's not). I liked the other article
today (link: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=570893>) about focus. I'm
going to pick up a few of those books to see if I can get inspired, although I
believe the key is doing concentration calisthetics.

Regarding other drugs and intellectuals, this article comes to mind as well:

<http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015>

~~~
anigbrowl
I have chronic case of ADHD (medically diagnosed) although I am not currently
taking any drugs for it. Good habits help as do good tools (Gmail has
literally lowered my blood pressure), but the most important aids are an
understanding but challenging partner and/or employer. I don't think of it as
a disorder but as a condition, neither good nor bad; I'm lucky enough to have
a high IQ that allows me to exploit the upside and try not to use the
downsides as an excuse for inactivity.

Good second link. I have nothing bad to say about Dr. Hoffman's 'problem
child'.

------
xiaoma
This article is idiotic.

Adderall is _not_ a neuroenhancer. It is _not_ nootropipc. It's an anti-
narcaleptic (something that keeps you from falling asleep).

A true nootropic doesn't increase the amount of crappy work you can put out.
It makes your brain capable of greater peak performance. At this time, there
aren't many drugs that fit this category, but there are a few. Caffeine, for
one, does have nootropic effects after long term use. In multiple long-term
studies, it's been strongly correlated with extra "spindly" dendrite structure
and enhanced short term memory.

Probably the most effective well-research neuroenhancers are
racetams(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racetams>) (such as piracetam). They
aren't popular with struggling students because they're a long term treatment.
I.e., they won't help with your test next Friday, but after months to years of
use, they'll make you a smarter person.

What Margaret Talbot did in this article would be akin to writing about
athletic enhancers, ignoring things like steroids and just writing about
people who take speed before the big game.

------
jaxn
Adderall? How about Provigil.

From what I understand the Navy uses Provigil for long-flight pilots to be
able to stay awake and alert without clouded judgement.

So, what if there were no discernible side effects? What if it was a just that
just helped you stay focused and alert for longer hours?

------
asciilifeform
<http://yarchive.net/med/lifestyle_drugs.html>

------
octane
I've tried all these drugs at one point or another during college, and let me
tell you from first hand experience that coffee is the hands down winner.

It's cheap, readily available, 100% legal, not regulated, delicious, and gives
you motivation in addition to performance.

Furthermore, you can do it with other people in a social setting and you can
do it fairly regularly (every morning and lunch) without completely wrecking
your biological sleep cycles.

It warms you up on cold days, can cool you down on hot days, will refresh you
on both, and there's a ton of cool paraphernalia associated with it that
doesn't put you into creepy junkie territory.

The most important of all: you have perfect recollection afterwards of what
you did while on it.

~~~
madcaptenor
And mathematicians turn it into theorems!

~~~
davidmathers
Not Paul Erdős!

