Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nootropics

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 404 posts

Re: Nootropics

#381

Post by rpcope1 »

wolfgoatcabbage wrote: post #157
jonathankoren wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the write up? Many people, including myself, find exercise to be mind numbingly boring, and intellectually insulting. (Pick up a weight and put it down? That is quantitatively zero work, buddy. No thanks.) Never underestimate the motivation to find a quick fix.

On the other hand, sitting in a chair all day could be construed as physically insulting. Two counters: 1) There's no reason exercise by nature has to be boring or free of intellect. Physics greatly applies to freestyle snowboarding, for instance, and the adrenaline is top-shelf. Not to mention the scenery and vitamin D! Gymnastic and weightlifting activities in general encourage a practical understanding of leverage…

Another super fun, pretty intellectual form of sports/exercise is climbing. It always seeming like the physics and engineering types gravitate towards it, and I can attest it's another excellent way to get some exercise and to have some fun working on "problems".

As tech workers, I think I would even beyond sitting in a chair all day being physically insulting, to say that it's perhaps one of the greatest (and really a non-trivial one) occupational hazards we face.

Re: Nootropics

#382

Post by joelmeckert »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #115
perfectfire wrote: post #61

I've been on (legally, with a prescription) Modafinil (4 straight days of nausea), Armodafinil (made me really sleepy), Dextroamphetamine (3 times including right now), Adderall (constantly felt sick), Adderall XR (even worse than Adderall), Ritalin SR (about the same as Adderall), Bupropion twice (Wellbutrin, no noticeable effect). Pretty much everything other than Dextroamphetamine either made me feel sick or stran…

Like you, I once was on a roller-coaster of cognition enhancing drugs. I did find that I was more productive, but only if I planned out what exactly I wanted to do beforehand and removed all distractions from my workspace. (Phone on airplane mode in another room, email/chat closed, websites blocked, etc.) However, the side effects made it rarely worth it. However, I started going to see a new doctor. He recommended t…

I had some excellent results with selegiline / Deprenyl in my 20's, Cyprenil (liquid) seemed to be the best. I had mad cash back then and could afford to spend money on life extension and cognitive enhancers. It certainly helped me focus.

Re: Nootropics

#383

Post by AstralStorm »

ared38 wrote: post #30

Shoutout to examine.com which aggregates and assesses research studies for nootropics and other supplements

Of which there are surprisingly few. Big pharma has trouble marketing those, typical attempts include Alzheimer, stroke management, ADD and narcolepsy, which are pretty hard to run a trial for. These are good enough to establish safety at least. There are even fewer in people without disorders.

Re: Nootropics

#384

Post by argonaut »

computerphage wrote: post #280
bbctol wrote: post #257

There is a huge, huge placebo effect when it comes to cognitive enhancement, and while I understand that this is intended as a series of anecdotes, it still seems that the author doesn't fully understand this. Most notably, for his attempts at blinding himself, he doesn't seem to have measured any actual cognitive improvement , just whether or not he could successfully distinguish drug and placebo. This is a large mi…

I think Gwern understands many of the limits of his experimental design. He's has written extensively on a wide variety of statistical and scientific topics. Here's an example related to placebo that's linked to from his blog. http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/689936-My-Paper-quot-Noo... See also: https://www.gwern.net/Statistical%20notes I'm not saying he's a perfect researcher, but give him some credit instead of…

That would be even worse - he knows the limits of the designs and chooses to ignore them anyways and publish anecdata.

Re: Nootropics

#385

Post by cyphar »

beachstartup wrote: post #372
cyphar wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the statement is elitist, but since gravity is a conservative force I think that the strict definition of "work" from physics (W = \int_a^b{\vec{F} \dot d\vec{s}}) would mean you get as 0 a result.

if we're going to get pedantic, what is the chance that the weight ended up in exactly the same spot that it started in, when moved by a person?

The position doesn't matter, as gravity doesn't act along the surface of the Earth -- it only acts radially. So the work is only affected by the height above the ground (or radial distance from centre of the Earth if you prefer).

So if the person puts the weight on the floor where they picked it up from they will have done zero work on it. Your attempt at pedantry was misdirected -- I would've said that because of the change in density of the Earth's crust that technically the force of gravity does change and thus is not an entirely conservative force.

Also, I wasn't getting pedantic. I was quoting the definition of work, which I believe that GGP misunderstood.

Re: Nootropics

#386

Post by saiya-jin »

Houshalter wrote: post #333
saiya-jin wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you need only a bit of willpower to fix your own diet, nothing more. many people are unwilling to get into any form of unpleasant state (ie abstaining from sweet stuff, workouts etc), they are 'too soft' and avoid hardships. that's all. and none of what you mentioned could be magically achieved by one person popping a pill to gain some short term effect, and probably lose something in longer run. feel free to experim…

The vast majority of diets fail in the long run. Fat people forced to lose weight develop the symptoms of starving people and obsess about food, and always quickly return to their previous weights after release. During diets their metabolisms slow down to keep them at the same body weight despite the decreased calories.

that's because people are 'lazy' - they don't want to do the hard work, rather they spend significant amount of time, energy and cash to chase pure dietary solutions. they expect that some 30-day dietary course will change their life, especially when right after they go back to their old eating habits. obviously, it doesn't work, ever. so they try another diet and so on...

I believe massive changes in life can be done just by permanently altering diet, but best, fastest and most durable results are in combination of diet and exercise. proper workout stimulates metabolism, makes people more happy and the feeling of strength and endurance coming from your own body is just priceless. oh and it prolongs life too on top of adding massive quality to it.

did I laid out a massive change in somebody's life? yes. so what? great rewards come after great hardships, naturally. but many people will keep throwing money at their problems, refusing to change, instead of pouring sweat for free and keep wondering why it doesn't work.

Re: Nootropics

#387

Post by carbonatedmilk »

My takeaway from this article: Ingesting 38 different purported nootropics may cause you to write super long rambling blog posts and inadvisably apply statistics to poorly designed experiments.

Re: Nootropics

#388

Post by codingmyway »

HalfwayToDice wrote: post #74

The best nootropic is getting a good nights sleep. It takes effort! Preparing for bed early and disciplining yourself to put the light out is not easy. Not nearly as easy as popping a pill. But it's so much more effective than any drug listed here. And for a safe and provable quick cognitive boost, take some caffeine, preferable green tea with theanine.

Powernaps are way more effective than caffeine, I know that. I seem to be in a minority though.

Re: Nootropics

#389

Post by pc86 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #315
daveguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His testing and analysis are not exactly rigorous. Even with an N=1 he comments about how he can smell the difference between the placebo and treatment. In his most highly rated drug, modafinil, he took it on 8 different days and could tell which one it was 5/8 times. 8 days, couldn't tell the difference 3/8 times and it is his most highly recommended drug. He definitely needs to try drug free, exercise and sleep ove…

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. If you compare his rigor to that of a fully funded NIH experiment, yes it will be found lacking. But if you compare it to all of the personal the experimentation that any of us do on a regular basis i.e. trying out a low protein diet, a paleolithic diet, TDD, sleeping more, not being on the computer before bed etc... Then it is the height of rigor.

Even to that standard, "the height of rigor" it is most certainly not.

Re: Nootropics

#390

Post by imagist »

npsimons wrote: post #362
imagist wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I may be of the minority here but I am definitely not the minority in the real world. I disagree. I think huge numbers of people take nootropics frequently if not daily (caffeine and prescribed mood-altering drugs) and I'd bet that you'd consider these completely normal and non-crazy. But that belief is based in normativity, not logic. All of these substances have negative side effects, and the industry around pres…

> health definitely is not the only factor But it is the biggest factor; without your health, you have nothing. When I'm weighing alternatives and tradeoffs, I tend to think in a sort of "three laws" mode: 1) If it's good for my long-term health, do it. 2) If it increases my athletic performance and doesn't conflict with 1), do it. 3) If it makes me look or feel better and doesn't conflict with 1) or 2), do it.

> But it is the biggest factor; without your health, you have nothing.

That's simply not true. That may be your priority, but it's not everyone's, and the assertion that "you have nothing" is ridiculous.

If I could live to the age of 50, make a major positive change in the world in that time, and then die, I'd make that trade. Of course, you don't get a guarantee that solid, everything is probabilistic. But there are definitely cases where you can trade health for some other value, and many of us are willing to make that trade.

> 1) If it's good for my long-term health, do it.

> 2) If it increases my athletic performance and doesn't conflict with 1), do it.

> 3) If it makes me look or feel better and doesn't conflict with 1) or 2), do it.

This is laughably simplistic. For example, according to this, money never comes into your considerations. Cool story, bro.

Post reply on HN