Discussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335730
Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
71–80 of 83 posts
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on, you can’t honestly say Adderall has no side effects.
What are its side effects?
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coffee has some very real downsides. Ironically to the GP’s point though, Adderall is like a super mega coffee without those downsides.
What downsides? I think it varies per person— but it’s a pretty ideal substance.
Could you drink a pot of coffee every few hours and still be functional? Most people would get the jitters, if not feel like their heart would explode, but that’s basically the value proposition of Adderall or Vyvanse, minus the severe side effects.
Long term coffee usage builds dependency and is linked to “chronic insomnia, constant anxiety, depression, and stomach problems.”
Meanwhile tons of people legitimately prescribed ADHD stimulant medication use it every day without developing an addiction or any of the above symptoms.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress. Adderall (correctly dosed) is precisely this.
Come on, you can’t honestly say Adderall has no side effects.
Correctly dosed it does not. Certainly not compared to coffee.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#75I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how th…
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress. Adderall (correctly dosed) is precisely this.
I can understand how people come to this conclusion.
Anecdotally, I know several people who regret ever using Adderall. To be fair, I also know a number of people who regret ever using caffeine. Compare to, for example, I don't think I know anyone who regrets taking Aleve for their headaches.
So I would categorize both Adderall and caffeine as "having some downsides". The main reason that I do support caffeine is that I know many people who happily drink coffee as part of their everyday life, and just a few who regret it, and I personally like to drink coffee. For Adderall my anecdotes are more mixed, closer to 70-30 against.
Obviously these are unscientific. I could be wrong. Perhaps in 50 years we will learn more and it will become clear that Adderall is good for the brain, or that caffeine is bad for it. But, right now, to me, the state of the science is such that I find it less convincing than anecdotes from my personal network.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#76I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how th…
>I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." How do you propose then to isolate what may be the effect of the drug then vs the participant subconsciously try…
Personally I wouldn't want to isolate the effect of the drug from the effect of the participant knowing what the drug is supposed to do. If I am considering taking a study drug, I would know what it's supposed to do, right?
Compare to a less politically contentious human performance question, like, should a point guard do strength training to increase upper body strength? This is a topic where expert thinking has evolved during my lifetime. In the 80's many people thought that strength training would mess up shooting ability. Nowadays the consensus is that strength training is good, and that basically all NBA players should do it.
Nobody did studies where secretly one set of basketball players worked out and got stronger arms, and the other half did "placebo workouts" that didn't make them any stronger. It's just obviously impossible to do that sort of study. I think it's equally impossible to do a good study on Adderall with placebos. But we still learn over time, by having experts try out different things, analyze the results subjectively, and discuss and share the outcomes.
What I would like to see is making study drugs like Adderall and Modafinil legal, and for people to openly share their experiences, positive and negative. I think over time our society would learn from that and grow wiser, even if formal studies never quite worked.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#77I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how th…
Tak Modafinil as an example: > The real problems with these drugs are addiction, Not addictive. > side effects, Same as caffeine while active. Irritating comedown after. > and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect. Abstaining during weekends helps. The real problem is lack of sleep it can somewhat mask. > Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, tha…
I would probably give Modafinil a try if I could just buy it over the counter at Walgreens.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#78I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how th…
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress. Adderall (correctly dosed) is precisely this.
Adderall also has addictive properties, so users develop tolerance and habituation, so hitting the correct dosage is quite a challenge, and a real downside in my opinion, given the consequences of over-use.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#79I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how th…
AFIK the "main" use of study drugs is to be able to study longer not better. General more studying isn't better the more you do it. You need to do it right and that involves having enough brakes to let your brain digest. In turn many situations where study drugs are used are such where the user already doesn't expect high efficiency. I would argue that any situation where it's not uncommon for pre-university students…
That makes sense. My main experience with "study drugs" isn't in the academic system, it's with software engineers. It seems like the main effect isn't that they make you a much better programmer, it's that they make you much more able to keep programming for longer periods of time. Someone who normally gets distracted a lot and only gets a few hours of real work done in a day, maybe they would prefer to be able to spend 12 hours consecutively programming, even if it takes them down to 80% of their intellectual horsepower.
Re: Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
What downsides? I think it varies per person— but it’s a pretty ideal substance.
Could you drink a pot of coffee every few hours and still be functional? Most people would get the jitters, if not feel like their heart would explode, but that’s basically the value proposition of Adderall or Vyvanse, minus the severe side effects. Long term coffee usage builds dependency and is linked to “chronic insomnia, constant anxiety, depression, and stomach problems.” Meanwhile tons of people legitimately pr…
As someone who does both… why make the comparison “a pot of coffee every few hours” versus just “drinking coffee every few hours.” Personally, I can’t drink coffee after 2pm.
Long-term coffee usage is just fine. It is actually protective. Same with ADHD meds. Fewer heart problems, actually, on average.