Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs” • Hacker News Board

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#31

Post by zmjones » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:03 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #23

stephengillie wrote: post #4

Unlike in athletics, academics isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information. No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions. Does this me…

Life is a competition. May the best man win. Remember Darwin? The strongest will survive. I'm not going to proactively try and injure someone else or hold someone else back, but you can bet i'll do whatever I possibly can get get the leg up. It's a dog eat dog world. High school prepares you for college, and college ultimately, cough somewhat sarcastic , prepares you for the real world. People are too concerned with…

No the "strongest" don't necessarily survive. Evolution is only about individual survival insofar is a longer lifespan may result in more reproduction. The best adapted species in an particular environmental niche will outlast competitors.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#32

Post by millerc » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:06 PM UTC

aelaguiz wrote: post #22

The article is really interesting, but I can't help but be suspicious of the data (opinion) contained within. The expert used in the article is John Holcomb, who owns a supplement e-commerce site. I can't find anything on his site that talks about his qualifications or any hard facts to back up most of this. I'm really interested in nootropics and increasing mental efficacy - but there is no shortage of snake-oil ven…

FWIW, that article has very little more information than you could find on bookshelves for the past 20 years. http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Drugs-Nutrients-Intelligence-Neu...

Besides Piracetam having become only one in a class of nootropics, you can find the same information in that book.

There used to be a large subculture around nootropics on the Net, but most of the discussions were based on anectdotal evidence. It seems not much have changed since then.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#33

Post by Tooluka » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:10 PM UTC

> No one talks about this stuff!

Yeah, right. Probably in some other internet. You can't find a site today where there they weren't discussed at least once.

Personally I won't take them without prescription from a doctor. Yes, downsides are pretty obscure and rare but the same are benefits. Based on reviews they are not some magic pills like in Limitless. Closer to placebo actually.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#34

Post by elemeno » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:11 PM UTC

logn wrote: post #15

crntaylor wrote: post #7

Potentially relevant - Johann Hari's article in HuffPost about his experiment with Provigil (aka Modafinil). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/my-experiment-with...

Some poker players have been talking about this one too to boost their performance. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/20/science/sci-braindop... http://groanblog.livejournal.com/865.html I've read elsewhere that it can be addictive. Also, the LA Time article discusses Inderal, a beta-blocker which could be considered a smart drug since it eases nerves by reducing adrenaline rushes (no more shaky hands or pounding…

Everything I've read about Modafinil suggests that it's not addictive - for everything being Wikipedia along with some other sites which I don't recall off the top of my head (it was about six months ago when I did any research about it).

It's a lovely little thing though, very nice clean focused sensation coupled with a lack of tiredness.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#35

Post by 001sky » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:18 PM UTC

konstruktor wrote: post #27

huhtenberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Sports are essentially about competing , so the playing field being leveled is important. Academics is about the advancement of science. If doping helps a student to find a cure for cancer, I see no reason to object.

That is valid only if those substances are equally helpful for exams (and their preparation) and actual research. Otherwise, the wrong people may get into great schools and graduate programs. Of course the problem of selection criteria being different from the actual work also exists without smart drugs. However, reading some articles about Provigil, I can't help but feel that the uber-disciplined and concentrated in…

An interesting thought -- is this for performance on the "hamster wheel" stuff or does it actually improve "deep" thought. alot of the latter seems to come more from perserverence, inspiration, and character than IQ per-se.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#36

Post by ryeguy » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:19 PM UTC

Some helpful links: http://examine.com is an excellent, unbiased, citation-oriented database of supplements and nutrition information. Reddit also has a nootropics subreddit: http://reddit.com/r/nootropics.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#37

Post by gaunab » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

Here's a thread on Bluelight on Nootropics, usage, dose and reports on their effects that I found quite informative: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/206147-Aniracetam-holy-cr...!

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#38

Post by paborden » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

Please, please, please ... Be careful with Nootropics.

I'm a bit of a consciousness-naut and self-experimenter who's obsessed about increasing productivity. I've experimented a lot with Nootropics.

My thoughts?

Modafinil. Stay away from it. The stuff is wickedly addictive and many people have experienced significant long-term side effects, especially if they try to go off it.

Piracetam. Does a lot to reduce ADD and has strong anti-anxiety properties. That said, I found the benefits (minimally increased focus and less anxiety) to be far outweighed by the fact that you have to keep taking the stuff obsessively lest you go into withdrawal (coming off the stuff is horrible once you've been on it for a couple weeks).

If you want to increase productivity and focus there are a ton of other things you can do, starting with the basics of exercise, proper nutrition, and meditation.

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#39

Post by intended » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:34 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #4

Unlike in athletics, academics isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information. No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions. Does this me…

This was the most self serving, disingenuous, logically unsound sentence I've read in the past few days.

Firstly - "isn't necessarily a competition". A half truth. The rest of the time it is a competiton and is bloody damned important.

In classes graded on a curve? Percentile based rankings?

What about a country like India or Japan or any country where competitive exams determine your chance to gain an extremely competitive seat?

This becomes more pernicious in a country which is trying to build an educated populace.

Who is going to have access to these drugs in a third world country?

Aside from a few outliers, let's agree that that subset of people with the means and knowledge won't be the chap who doesn't get three square meals a day.

it entrenches older families/competitors with money unfairly

Re: Nootropics – The Facts About “Smart Drugs”

#40

Post by theorique » Thu, Sep 13, 2012, 2:37 PM UTC

huhtenberg wrote: post #8

stephengillie wrote: post #4

Unlike in athletics, academics isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information. No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions. Does this me…

So what? Sports are essentially about competing , so the playing field being leveled is important. Academics is about the advancement of science. If doping helps a student to find a cure for cancer, I see no reason to object.

Academics is about the advancement of science.

Academics is also about fighting for the esteem and attention of your peers, winning grants and awards, and getting yourself known. If athletes are willing to risk their health for a few hundredths of a second in a race, I can imagine some academics would be willing to dope their brains for a better shot at a publication in Nature.