
Brain Gain: The Underground World of Neuroenhancing Drugs - lightcatcher
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all
======
joezydeco
I was expecting an exploration of nootropics like Piracetam or Vasopressin.
Stuff we'e been reading about for 30 years and maybe there's new research.

But this all reads like a generation of kids amped on semilegal stimulants and
nothing else. Is that really "neuroenhancing"?

~~~
tokenadult
Here's a sincere informational question. Where is there a sound research base
on any "nootropic" or "neuroenhancer" or "smart drug" or the like that has
been subjected to thoughtful scientific examination

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

and has resulted in genuinely superior levels of human cognitive performance?
I'm not talking about Wikipedia articles. (I'm a Wikipedian, and I know how
many fudged references and commercial product-pushing there is on Wikipedia.)
I'm talking about large-n, placebo-controlled, double-blind experimental
studies that get published in a major, high-impact journal and pass muster
with a process like Cochrane Review

<http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews>

or at least the joint blog Science-Based Medicine

<http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/>

or prominent mention in a major textbook or practitioner's handbook on
pharmacology.

There is huge worldwide interest in people engaging in smarter behavior, but
where is there the evidence that anyone really, truly becomes smarter at
anything in a sustained way under the influence of any of the "smart drugs,"
"nootropics," or "neuroenhancers"?

I ask, because I have been reading claims for smart drugs in online
communities since 1992, and I have yet to see any examples of especially smart
behavior on the part of anyone making those claims. I have acquaintance with
the behavior of highly smart young people,

<http://cty.jhu.edu/set/>

<http://www.davidsongifted.org/>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/>

so perhaps I know smart behavior when I see it, but I have not found, after
diligent search, any reliable evidence that any drug intervention is more
effective in bringing about smart behavior than drinking coffee. Where is the
good quality evidence?

P.S. I just found the earlier submission, from the year of publication, to HN
of this article:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571686>

The duplicate submssion detector was defeated here by submitting a
noncanonical form of the URL.

~~~
nl
There are plenty of studies showing "genuinely superior levels of human
cognitive performance". However it is unclear how well these tests
("microbenchmarks" if you will) correspond with "smart behavior". It is
difficult to imagine how improvements to short-term memory span, visual
memory, spatial planning etc would cause a _decrease_ in "smart behaviour",
though.

Having said that, here are a couple of studies I've posted elsewhere on this
story (ironically in rely to another similar comment by you, which you seem to
have missed?):

 _Modafinil produced a similar pattern of cognitive enhancement to that
observed in healthy adults, with improvements on tests of short-term memory
span, visual memory, spatial planning, and stop-signal motor inhibition. On
several measures, increased accuracy was accompanied by slowed response
latency. This alteration in the speed-accuracy trade-off may indicate that
modafinil increases the ability to "reflect" on problems coupled with
decreased impulsive responding. Improvements were also seen in sustained
attention, which was unaffected in healthy subjects._

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121488>

 _Modafinil significantly enhanced performance on tests of digit span, visual
pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time.
These performance improvements were complemented by a slowing in latency on
three tests: delayed matching to sample, a decision-making task and the
spatial planning task. Subjects reported feeling more alert, attentive and
energetic on drug. The effects were not clearly dose dependent, except for
those seen with the stop-signal paradigm. In contrast to previous findings
with methylphenidate, there were no significant effects of drug on spatial
memory span, spatial working memory, rapid visual information processing or
attentional set-shifting. Additionally, no effects on paired associates
learning were identified._

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12417966>

------
Jach
If you're going to try it, consider following a similar procedure here before
you commit to it since it's rather expensive compared to other enhancers:
<http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics#adderall>

~~~
danneu
What an interesting web page.

However, there's a massive difference between instant release (IR) and
extended release (XR) Adderall pills. The body is effective at downregulating
pharmacological peaks as they happen, so IR is less effectively potent than
XR. For example, for me, a 20mg XR lasts longer with greater effects than an
entire 40mg IR pill rationed apart and taken within 4 hours.

I'd go as far as to recommend _against_ IR amphetamine. The peaking of IR
doses builds tolerance incredibly fast. I'd place XR amphetamine on a
different plane entirely.

If anyone isn't having success with IR, I recommend XR.

Finally, prescription amphetamine is dirt cheap with insurance. I don't have
script drug insurance and pay $160 for 30 pills of generic 20mg Adderall XR.
With insurance, it's a mere $12 for a month's worth.

~~~
jamesbritt
_If anyone isn't having success with IR, I recommend XR._

SWIM[0] (who couldn't get IR) didn't get much lasting value from XR, because
it took too long over the course of the day, but discovered that opening the
caplet and crushing the contents before ingesting made for a bigger immediate
kick. SWIM also found it hard to find a consistent optimum dosage this way,
but experimenting has been helpful.

0: <http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showwiki.php?title=SWIM>

~~~
danneu
Well, we're talking about therapeutic use, here. I think upping an XR dose (no
more than 30mg XR) would be more effective than crushing pills and bumping
them for an "immediate kick".

~~~
jamesbritt
SWIM has found otherwise; even at a 30mg dosage the effects became neglible
after a week. Targeted immediate effects worked better.

------
mike_esspe
In Russia there is also a widely popular among students and programmers
neuroenhancing drug Phenotropil/Phenylpiracetam/Carphedon
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylpiracetam>).

Unfortunately there are no research about safety of long term use.

------
kd1221
I've tried Adderall a few times and never got the productivity burst that
users claim to receive. It tends to have the opposite effect on me. My
attention darts everywhere and my skin feels like it's being pricked by
thousands of needles.

The reason why I was productive in college and pulled 4.0s most semesters is
because I actually found my coursework interesting. It wasn't something I was
plowing through because the degree would get me fame and fortune. I didn't
need exogenous motivation in the form of a pill.

I know three people who swear by Adderall/Ritalin/Vyvanse/etc and I've heard
the same summary from each of them: "It helps you get through boring work, but
it kills your creativity." One guy will switch between pot and Adderall to do
his work. He smokes when he needs to be creative and takes Adderall when he
wants to bang out lines of boilerplate code.

The substance lifestyle really isn't something I can buy into.

~~~
jerf
"takes Adderall when he wants to bang out lines of boilerplate code."

Tell him to smoke a bit more pot and learn how to program the boilerplate
away. :)

~~~
cellis
Also, it sounds like "Takes a hit of crack just before servicing a client".

------
Dn_Ab
_Warning, Long Post_

There are a few things that you can do that are good for your mind before
considering supplementation. These are really basic but most people do not
follow them. I didn't till a few months ago.

 _Do you get enough water?_ About 2L a day is good for most people but is
something to be modulated by your activity levels. Dehydration drastically
degrades physical and mental performance (stamina, ability to focus, encode
memory etc). As you get older you get less able to notice that you are
thirsty.

 _Do you get enough sleep?_ It seems almost a matter of pride these days to
boast about how little sleep one gets. But sleep continues to be important.
There is evidence to believe that sleep aids in mental maintenance and the
encoding + consolidation of memories - moving them from the lower level
hippocampus to the higher level neocortex. Akin to transferring bits from high
speed, throughput RAM to longer lasting but slower long term storage. If you
are not getting enough sleep then you are impairing your ability to learn
higher level abstractions and patterns.

 _Exercise_ \- Everyone knows exercises is good for you. In addition to all
the other cardiovascular benefits it is also good for your mood (opiates - yes
opiates as in opium - such as endorphins get released) and memory. Exercise
has been linked to neuron growth in the hippocampus and new nerve cell
survival rates. As well as benefits to spatial reasoning and memory (makes
sense).

 _Diet_

This one is involved. But the greatest offenders are high Glycemic Index foods
such as Refined grains and sugary food/drinks and hydrogenated fats. Other
than the fact that providing nutrients to your body in a suboptimal way will
reduce the performance of your mind and body and wanting to maintain a health
weight, such foods have further negative effects. The brain does not store
energy so low GI food that provide a more smooth delivery insure that your
brain will have access to energy across the day. In addition, sugar spikes
will result in a release of insulin to manage the glucose, antagonising
further use by say your brain and thus making you feel tired and unable to
focus. Constant Insulin and glucose spikes are no good in general though e.g.
increased diabetes risk. Furthermore chronic high levels of blood sugar has
been linked to memory, mood and attention disorders as well as
nueroinflamation.

 _Do you know if your fatty acids balance is optimal?_ DHA in omega 3 is
important for optimal brain function.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#The_n.E2.88....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#The_n.E2.88.926_to_n.E2.88.923_ratio)

 _Adequate Choline intake?_ Choline is often not sourced at adequate levels
despite being an important nutrient. It is also a precursor to acetylcholine
which is involved in arousal, reward, attention and synaptic plasticity (in
particular to do with learning).

Other minerals such as Magnesium, iodine and selenium have been shown to have
a positive effect on mental health but are not sourced well enough in modern
diets. Also indicated for energy and mental function are B Vitamins.

 _Other considerations_

 _Think More_ \- your brain is not some static rock. See nueroplasticity.
Using your brain increases survival rates of new neurons. This stacks well
with exercise, meditation and calorie restriction.

Did you know that your foods contain drugs (they obviously must if they are
nueroactive). Eating foods that are high in precursors to certain monoamines -
e.g. high in tryptophan or tyrosine etc. such as turkey, eggs, parmesan cheese
may or may not have an effect - at the least they increase the bioavailabity
of chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine. Also consider foods that interact
with the GABA pathway for anxiolytic effects (various teas ++green) and a
healthier way to achieve the so called Ballmer peak.

 _Reduced Calorie Intake_ \- There is aging related benefits to this. But
there is also evidence that it is neuroprotective as well as inducing nueron
growth. This tricking the body to releasing stress proteins is well studied.
You must come to your own conclusions.

Did you notice I sourced nothing here? This is because I don't want you to
blindly follow my writing. I am not a medical expert and so I prefer you to
search, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I did leave
search able key phrases interleaved through out.

==================================

I don't take what people typically mean by drugs. But before going on I will
ask you, do you know what you or I mean by drugs? When I say drugs I mean the
stuff that is neurotoxic or prone to tolerance and or addiction (ethyl-
alchohol, Tobacco: MAOIs in herbs + nicotine is culprit of addiction, MDMA,
amphetamines, cocaine,heroin,opium, etc). I also have never taken the less
harmful stuff like LSD or marijuana because they are illegal and hence not
regulated. But more importantly I don't want to aggravate my chances of
getting arrested by dealing with the people who typically deal such things. I
also do not take marijuana beacause although it has been shown to be
neuroprotective and anticarcinogenic it is also indicated in short term memory
damage. And short term memory is strongly correlated to IQ.

When you say drugs you probably mean stuff that the government has deemed
illegal and waging war on for whatever arbitrary reasons without thinking
about what the term actually means. For me anything that is psychoactive is a
drugs. So I am amused by the contradictions of people who say they don't take
drugs while drinking beer or coffee, eating chocolate, eggs, meat or eating
foods that are high in sugar (nueroactive by serotonin pathway amongst
others).

~~~
adrianwaj
Try and get some non-fluoridated water too, sodium fluoride is neurotoxic -
move to Europe or <http://findaspring.com>.

"Drinking fluoridated water is linked with reduced cognitive ability in
children. There are also over 30 animal studies showing that fluoride is a
neurotoxin which reduces learning and memory. Essentially, fluoride makes you
a bit less intelligent."

[http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/07/whats-the-deal-
with...](http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/07/whats-the-deal-with-
fluoride/)

~~~
sireat
Please, research your topic more carefully.

I would be hesitant to depend on Steve's conclusions, this is a man who
believes number 11 rules his life:
<http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/02/1111/>

~~~
adrianwaj
Speaking of research, check this out:

"Nationwide, pharmaceutical manufacturers routinely pay medical
professionals..State-employed doctors and researchers are generally no
exception, though they are supposed to comply with their individual
institutions' conflict-of-interest policies."

"Beginning in March, federal law will require drug and device companies to
report and disclose all of their payments to medical professionals and
researchers; by September, the data is supposed to be displayed in a
searchable online government database."

[http://preventdisease.com/news/11/112811_Doctors-
Researchers...](http://preventdisease.com/news/11/112811_Doctors-Researchers-
and-Medical-Experts-Routinely-Paid-Off-By-Pharmaceutical-Companies.shtml)

So who do you trust for health information, agents of pharmaceutical
companies, or self-help experts?

------
patrobs2
Advocating the daily use of stimulants is dangerous. I have tried Adderall but
could never do anything productive while using it. It'd make me feel odd and
irritated.

My roommate had a prescription and ultimately abused it to the point of
destroying his life. Of course, it was his abuse that was the problem not the
drug per se.

But to me, Adderall is no different than meth. It is more pure and clean but
essentially the same thing. The best way to increase your productivity is to
do it naturally as Dn_Ab outlines above.

------
tokenadult
From the article: "Users are also more likely to belong to a fraternity or a
sorority, and to have a G.P.A. of 3.0 or lower." If what is usually said about
grade inflation

<http://gradeinflation.com/>

fits the baseline at the colleges surveyed, the implication is that the
"neuroenhancer" users have below-average G.P.A.s, which then raises the
question of whether "neuroenhancer" is really the correct term for drugs used
by below-average performers.

What's desperately needed, in the social context reported in the submitted
article, is verifiable research

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

showing what drugs might actually genuinely improve performance (as judged by
knowledgeable third parties) rather than merely gaining user self-reports of
subjective improvements in performance. Maybe there is something that can help
a harried parent, or a college student working his way through college, match
performance with a colleague or a classmate with fewer distractions in life,
but the way to find out what that is would be to do careful research. For the
moment, the help that is found from drugs seems mostly to help people at the
low end of the performance scale. Again from the article, "Farah told me,
'These drugs will definitely help some technically normal people—that is,
people who don’t meet the diagnostic criteria for A.D.H.D. or any kind of
cognitive impairment., But, she emphasized, 'they will help people in the
lower end of the ability range more than in the higher end.'"

~~~
nl
That's a fault of the article, not the research. There is adequate evidence
that some drugs help the performance of some tasks associated with
intelligence:

 _a two week regimen of piracetam was found to enhance verbal memory in
healthy college students in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study_ [1]

 _Another study of fighter pilots showed that modafinil given in three divided
100 mg doses sustained the flight control accuracy of sleep-deprived F-117
pilots to within about 27 percent of baseline levels for 37 hours, without any
considerable side effects._ [2]

 _Modafinil selectively improves neuropsychological task performance in
healthy volunteers, possibly through improved inhibitory control._ [3]

 _Modafinil significantly enhanced performance on tests of digit span, visual
pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time._
[4]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam>

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil#Military_and_astronau...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil#Military_and_astronaut_use)

[3] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121488>

[4] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12417966>

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm a libertarian and I am in favor of drug legalization. In addition, I'm a
big fan of The Singularity and believe that mankind is not going to stay the
same biological construct. I experimented with various drugs in high school. I
am a big believer of hacking my mind for optimum performance and I take a few
nutritional supplements on a regular basis because of that. Finally, I have a
sleep disorder and have both a prescription for various neuroenhancers and a
traditional reason to use them. So I'm about as big of a poster boy as
possible on the benefits of better living through modern chemistry.

But I must advise caution here. The main problem is that _your brain is not
the thing to use to measure how your brain is doing._ It doesn't work. What we
end up measuring instead is how good something makes us feel. For instance,
Provigil is great stuff; it fulfills a role of addressing wakefulness. But it
also makes a person feel really good.

I'd never support further legal restrictions, but I would most certainly
caution folks to take a hard look at what you are doing. From what I see, once
you start down this road you can never stop. Let's say you took your magic
pills and aced your exam. Was it you, or was it you _with the pills_. Well,
honestly, you don't know. Maybe you could have passed without the pills and
maybe not. So now it's a few months later and time for the next exam. Do you
take the pills again? I don't see how you couldn't -- why handicap yourself
when you know the pills give you enhanced performance?

It just continues on like that -- more and more exams, job interviews, dates,
parties -- life becomes a series of achievements. As you use neuroenhancers to
accomplish each one, the natural conclusion is that you should take them again
for the next one. The pattern builds up, and pretty soon you're telling
yourself you'd be a fool to do X without the extra help. Note: I'm not trying
to describe psychological addiction here. You may be perfectly able to
physically quit at any time. What I'm saying is that you become _logically_
addicted; that the most logical thing for you to do is to continue taking
them. So now suddenly instead of a kid who took some speed back in college to
ace an exam or two, you're the 30-something who has been taking pills on a
regular basis for over a decade to change the way his brain works. Is this
where you want to end up?

I'd be very careful about heading down this road.

~~~
saturdaysaint
There are certainly people for which your description of "drugged life" is
true, but the older I get, the more I see that everyone has a sense of self-
regulation (and at least the people I'm around seem to listen to it). People
know when they're turning into automatons, people know when they're
compromising their health. There comes a point with any drug where your
tolerance rises and you have to decide whether to consume more or take a
break, explore other avenues. Almost everyone I know on Adderall has slowed
down or quit over time. The returns diminish and regular usage of a strong
dose tends to make people noticeably neurotic (incessantly talkative) - going
off of it is kind of a relief.

My experience with Adderall has been far different than the "faster, faster
faster" characterization. It really makes the psychological term "executive
function" make sense - I temporarily get a much clearer sense of all of my
priorities and the systemic obstacles to reach them. It's made me more social,
organized and energetic long after the high wears off.

------
SkyMarshal
There are a bunch of subreddits on this topic:

<http://www.reddit.com/r/nootropics>

------
ayu
Unnecessarily long article, but I appreciate it.

I take 20+ something supplements every day, half of which are intended to
improve cognition. (You can see most of them at
<http://supplementwiki.org/Supplement_Wiki:Todo_List> ) I attest to their
utility, however their cumulative effect is actually really mild. If anyone's
taken adderall or other stimulants before, you know it kicks in and wears off
really quick. With nootropics you'd actually want to take long term, it's
almost as if they don't work. After a few months, however, you notice you
learn and observe more quickly and your speech and interactions become a lot
easier and articulate.

Also: ImmInst (for Immortality Institute) is now known as Longecity, see
<http://longecity.org/forum>

------
juiceandjuice
This article is from 2009, I'm pretty sure it's made the rounds on HN before.
Please put the year in the title.

------
sixtofour
"Since, in essence, this life was impossible, Alex began taking Adderall to
make it possible."

If you're doing this, or thinking about it, consider that it's a prescription
drug and if it's not prescribed for you then you're getting a) illegally, and
b) _reducing the supply for people who need it_.

There is a shortage of Adderall and similar drugs.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=npr%20adderall>

By using these drugs casually you're not only improving your all nighters,
you're possibly ruining someone's quality of life.

~~~
mquander
This is a lame argument, akin to complaining that people using computers for
fun are reducing the supply for people using computers for work. We can just
make computers for everyone. That is what the free market is designed to do.

You should direct your ire at the people who are actually reducing the supply
directly, namely the DEA, who are the ones preventing the production of
sufficient Adderall. If there were not arbitrary restrictions on manufacture,
then both the people who need it and the people who want it would be able to
obtain it, and more cheaply at that.

~~~
sixtofour
"This is a lame argument, akin to complaining that people using computers for
fun are reducing the supply for people using computers for work."

The DEA limits how much of these drugs are allowed to be made. Companies have
to petition to make more. The DEA says there's enough, yet people with
prescriptions sometimes have to get the drugs illegally themselves.

"CONAN: Well, I was interested in your piece to hear the DEA say there is no
shortage.

KNOX: Yes, I was - I was surprised, too, because the FDA says there is. And,
you know, they have a website on the FDA that lists all the drugs in shortage,
and there are a lot of them these days. And I've - one thing that caused me to
do the story is I found that methylphenidate, the Ritalin-type drugs, popped
up on that list a week or two ago."

[http://www.npr.org/2011/11/22/142661880/adhd-sufferers-
fear-...](http://www.npr.org/2011/11/22/142661880/adhd-sufferers-fear-an-
adderall-shortage)

If you think that's lame, maybe you could tell the DEA that we need more, so
casual users won't cut into legitimate users' supply.

~~~
eli
The DEA is only one factor. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to suggest
that Shire is giving less than 100% towards the production of Adderall since
they have a new brand-name drug Vynase that is still protected by patent.

I'm still not exactly sure how Shire managed to set it up so that they are the
only ones making the ingredients for generic Adderall.

------
torontos
A couple of relevant articles (old but good): Why it's so hard to pay
attention:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018463826033223.html?mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018463826033223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Is LSD the geek's wonder drug?
<http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015>

------
ggwicz
This isn't "underground". I'm in high school and many, many people I know pop
ADHD medication and other stimulants so they can get better grades and focus
more; AKA, to be more boring (kidding..sort of).

Find any bored suburban neighborhood and many of the people there are popping
lots of pills, openly and unashamedly (is that a word?), for lots of different
purposes.

~~~
3pt14159
Thanks for the view into high schools, things sure have changed over the past
decade.

The word you were looking for was unabashedly.

------
coffeeaddicted
I sometimes think people are less scared throwing in some mind-altering drugs
than altering their xorg.conf (that could break something and it'll take all
weekend to fix!).

------
veidr
I agree with the author that "it makes no sense to ban the use of
neuroenhancers." I'll talk about Ritalin, because that's the one I know.

Let us stipulate, for now, that Ritalin both improves certain aspects of human
cognition and causes negative physiological side effects, potentially
including addiction. (I believe both to be true.)

As it stands, doctors generally can't prescribe Ritalin if there is nothing
'wrong' with you. Just improving cognitive performance for 'normal' people
isn't allowed.

In my opinion, that is not as it should be. What could possibly be more
generically worth doing than improving human cognition -- thereby potentially
advancing all worthy human pursuits: curing disease, saving babies from
starvation, traveling the stars, etc. etc.

That's the big picture, and one reason that I think we as a society should
allow people to dope their brains if they want. But the small picture is also
interesting. What if you personally could significantly improve the quality
and rate of your output (be it software, architectural designs, robots,
whatever), but doing so involved some negative consequences and a minor amount
of risk to your health. Would you be interested? I was.

I have used Ritalin extensively, and in my mind very successfully. It
definitely helps me write cleaner code with fewer bugs in less time than
without it. It's a programming force-multiplier for me.

(It can also help with getting various other things done more efficiently.
However, I personally don't find taking a powerful simulant to do something
like clean my garage to be a worthwhile tradeoff.)

Using these stimulants need not be illegal, at least in the US. There are many
doctors you can visit, describe certain aspects of your personality, how your
concentration isn't where you'd like it to be, and recieve an ADHD diagnosis
with a prescription.

But since you have to obtain a 'disease' diagnosis to get the drug legally,
many people don't, and the result is that many kids (and adults) end up
popping their friends' pills illegally, without appropriate medical
supervision. It would be better if everybody could discuss it frankly with a
competent doctor, without the little sham of pretending they're taking it to
'fix' something rather than just to improve mental function.

Whether Ritalin is 'worth the risk' is a personal judgement, one that depends
entirely on what you are using it for. But for me, it unquestionably has been.
At certain times in my life, I've used Ritalin to _dramatically_ improve my
contribution to important projects. I think that at least one of these project
would have failed entirely, without me being in superman mode. And these are
the projects that have shaped my career, and so have pretty much directly led
to the comfortable standard of living I and my family now enjoy. Ergo, if I
had never encountered Ritalin, I think it's very likely that I would have a
smaller house and less free time than I presently do have. Verdict: Ritalin is
fucking awesome.

OTOH, I'd never use it year round (heart and addiction risks), never instead
of sleeping properly, never ever ever fucking give Ritalin to a child, I get
kinda irritable after a whole day on it, it somewhat degrades the quality of
my, uh, _stools_ , it feels a little bit speedy (which I dislike), and it
totally degrades certain _other_ aspects of human cognition, such as those
required for writing fiction, watching a dance recital, or listening
sympathetically to my wife bitch about her day.

I've always been interested in nootropics and have dabbled with most of the
ones you can get on your own -- piracetam, vasopressin, choline, DHA/DHEA,
green tea, etc. -- and none of them had nearly as noticeable an impact as
Ritalin. (Green tea is the only one of those I've stuck with.) I have never
tried Modafinil but am keenly interested, and am likely to discuss it with my
doctor the next time I have a software project where I feel that it's really
important to me to be at my absolute best.

~~~
tintin
_"Ritalin is fucking awesome."_ You are talking about Methylphenidate
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate>

Methylphenidate is a rather new drug. Until we know all the risks doctors
won't prescribe it when not (absolutely) necessary. I don't think that's a bad
thing. And I don't relate caution with banning.

~~~
veidr
Sure, I can understand that point of view, although I don't quite agree.

But I probably should have mentioned somewhere in my comment that I believe
pretty much _all_ drugs should be legal, even just for people who want to get
high -- so of course I advocate individual choice for drugs that demonstrate
benefits that can actually improve one's quality of life (beyond simple
recreation).

~~~
tintin
Ever heard about Thalidomide? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide> I
think there are good reasons why we are careful with prescribing drugs. Take
cocaine for example. Before 1900 they used it a lot. Even on children. But
cocaine addiction caused a lot of troubles.

~~~
gwern
Are Ritalin and Thalidomide in the same reference classes, that it makes any
sense to compare them? Specifically, one drug was offered for less than 3
years or so, and then withdrawn due to horrible unexpected side-effects that
were suspected within a year or two. And another drug has been publicly
prescribed for roughly 50 years and has been investigated in detail with a
long list of pretty well-understood side-effects. (You tell me which is
which.)

------
guard-of-terra
I don't understand why people do this. I mean, overcommit to activities which
would unlikely produce money or fame.

Why not throw it all out, watch porn and write patches for amaroK all day like
I did today?

I can understand when you're pulling a lot of weight for a short time doing
incredible things, but continuous pointless activity is a thing I strongly
resent.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I also wonder how Americans talk about ADHD as if it is something bad.
Prescribe meds against it, even.

After reading a list of symptoms, I clearly have it. But it's a part of my
_I_! How would anybody take meds aimed agains a vital part of their self?

~~~
jamesbritt
_I also wonder how Americans talk about ADHD as if it is something bad._

Last regular go-to-the-office job I had there was no end to the number of
people who would proudly declare how ADD they were. I think it was a
roundabout (and ironically commonplace) way to say, "Look at me! I'm so
creative."

I finally decide that the way to tell if someone really did have ADD was to
note how often they seemed so cheerful about it.

 _Prescribe meds against it, even._

Have you ever been driving on the highway, and found yourself struggling, I
mean really _struggling_ , to pay attention to the damned road, because it was
too boring and your brain kept deciding to redirect your attention to
everything else on the off chance it was more interesting? Knowing that if you
don't pay attention you could die, yet having to fight to look out the
windshield?

ADD is not about a lack of attention, it's about inappropriate attention.
Sometimes that's a wonderful thing. Sometimes, though, you really do have to
pay attention to something even when your brain has other plans.

BTW, schizophrenia and major clinical depression might also be considered "a
vital part of [the] self" but not everything you're born with is a 100% good
thing.

People taking brain drugs need to weigh the pros and cons.

If you're happy with whatever chemical soup is naturally in your skull, more
power to you. Other folks might need some seasoning.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I don't drive car much and when I do it's interesting enough to be able to
focus.

But I am unable to watch movies without company because I will immediately
switch tasks, either physically on my PC or mentally, focusing on something
else. And I annoy everybody who I watch movies with by commenting things we
see because this switch helps to flush temporary boredom.

~~~
jamesbritt
The list of symptoms you read, did it include hating yourself and thinking
yourself a loser because you failed to complete (or even start) important
tasks, lost jobs, failed in school, even when you knew how important it was to
pay attention, stay on task, and get shit done?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Yes it did. I failed in school a lot. Ditto for failed to complete or even
start important tasks.

I didn't lose jobs because I happen to be fairly fit to those.

------
guard-of-terra
I also concur to this:

 _“Many sectors of society have winner-take-all conditions in which small
advantages produce disproportionate rewards.” At school and at work, the
usefulness of being “smarter,” needing less sleep, and learning more quickly
are all “abundantly clear.”_

Let's drop school because you're not earning money there.

You getting rewards for needing less sleep is called "abuse" and "slave labor"
and should be strongly discouraged.

I fail to see how being a little smarter (or learning a little faster) would
help oneself in the workplace (I can see how it can be useful once per month,
but not every day). In workplace you need competence, mental model of what
you're doing, passion and the ability to see the big picture. I don't think
that the said drugs would greatly help in any of those areas.

~~~
lightcatcher
Malcolm Gladwell showed how small advantages often turn into huge advantages
over time in his book "Outliers". I realize its not universally applicable,
but his anecdote shows that more things are winner-take-all than you would
think.

Brief Summary of His Case Study: A hugely disproportionate number of Canadian
NHL players are born in the first couple months of the year. Someone
investigated this, and attributed this to the cutoff date for kids' hockey
leagues was January 1st. Note that this is for ~7 year old kids or something.
Because kids grow so rapidly, the boys born in January and February had a
small but real size and strength advantage over the hockey players born
towards the end of the year. This lead to the older players being perceived as
superior (because they were), and therefore getting more attention from
coaches and more playing time. This in turn made the gap one not just of size,
but also skill. These better players eventually went to play on travel teams
and play even more hockey with more attention, and got much better. Some of
these eventually went to play in the NFL.

~~~
guard-of-terra
One year difference is huge when in that age range.

I went to school when I was 6,5 years old. Everybody else in class was 7 with
some months. I was the weakest and could not do anything properly despite the
fact that I'm pretty gifted. I could only get good grades for any subjects in
the fifth grade. And even now I feel the weakest and the least protected by
default. ADHD certainly didn't help too.

So no, being 7 years old and being 7 and 3/4 years does give you a big
advantage. The fact that everybody is uniform only magnifies it.

In the workplace everybody have the different age, story and skill set, so
this hardly applies. It's no longer a function of two variables monotonous on
both of them, but a function on dozen.

And also while small difference give clear boost in competitive environments,
it's not so obvious in cooperative environment.

------
hendrix
Lulz at the history major needing adderal/Ritalin to write papers/gpa. Most
likely he was procrastinating all night too, and using the drugs as a crutch
to be coherent at 3 in the morning. Many people have survived
ochem/thermo/analysis without anything other than coffee, you just have to be
_interested_ in the subject.

------
ambertch
It's quite clear not a lot of the posters in this thread have actually used
these illegal substances. Which is understandable, as those who have would be
reticent to come out.

I'll come out and say that although I haven't used amphetamines (though I know
the story of Erdos as well as the military using it), I have been prescribed
valium for anxiety issues. It's helped with random things in life like
striking up conversations with completely random women at bars by reducing the
anxiety felt in a situation.

Anecdotally I know in the SF startup scene, amphetamines are used quite a bit.
Amphetamines (of which adderall is one) are basically a better version of
caffeine. It allows you to stay up three or four days perfectly lucid (unlike
the stress response from caffeine from increasing cortisol levels in your
bloodstream), and you also get a mental speedup (quite literally, the clock
speed of your brain is increased)

Anyways, I really hope they legalize this stuff someday hah! I'd be a lot more
productive, especially with reading the laundry list of books on my reading
list...

~~~
rue
> _[Amphetamine] allows you to stay up three or four days perfectly lucid_

Nope. No known stimulants negate the need for sleep, nor do amphetamines
significantly “increase your clock speed” (certainly not by the amount
necessary to counteract sleep deprivation even before the end of your second
day).

By the end of day three, you'll suffer from increasingly severe effects of
sleep deprivation including but not limited to: cognitive dysfunction,
paranoia, and hallucinations (probably auditory at first), plus of course the
compulsive behaviour induced by most stimulants.

~~~
nl
>> [Amphetamine] allows you to stay up three or four days perfectly lucid

> Nope. No known stimulants negate the need for sleep

Technically true, but there is a whole class of _non-stimulant_ drugs that do
approach this level, without the weird, "amped" feeling of stimulant. Provigil
(modafinil) is the best known of these.

Eg: _Another study of fighter pilots showed that modafinil given in three
divided 100 mg doses sustained the flight control accuracy of sleep-deprived
F-117 pilots to within about 27 percent of baseline levels for 37 hours,
without any considerable side effects._
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil>

~~~
rue
That's correct, I used “stimulants” in the narrow sense and should have been
clearer.

I don't have much information on modafinil or other substances in its class so
I can't speak to it except to say that the early studies seem promising (I say
this as someone who really, really _hates_ the waste of time that is a good
night's sleep) despite some reported side-effects.

I would certainly like to see more studies, as well as further information
about sustainability. That is, it's great if it really does let you work
reasonably well for 3-4 days (within 30% for < 2 days isn't really
conclusive), but even then there's the question of what happens after. I doubt
you'd just be able to sleep 8 hours and get right back on track.

