Okay, I have read the fine blog post (which took a while to load). The article leads off by defining nootropics as "substances which purportedly improve mental functioning with relatively few side effects when used responsibility." The blog post author mentions a few small-n, limited duration studies, and then describes his voluntary-response survey methodology: "I asked people in the two largest online nootropics co…
Medical progress often starts with observations, and is confirmed by trials. Penicillin is one such example.
To discount the value of observations is to ignore an important part of the discovery process.
There is extremely limited data available around the use of nootropics for mind enhancement (as opposed to in medical use for treating illness). In the absence of of such data a survey like this indicates that there are a few things worth studying in more depth (and some supposed nootropics that seem worthless).
The author appears extremely aware of the problems with their methodology, and makes no attempts to hide these problems. To pull quotes:
The online nootropics community consists of mostly healthy individuals looking to use these substances to gain motivation or clearer thinking. They tend to “outpace” the scientific literature, using some substances that haven’t yet been shown to work, or haven’t been shown to benefit healthy individuals. ... " I would have liked to have some placebo nootropics to use as a comparison, but since I wasn’t running a trial, I didn’t have that option. I did, however, try to assess the placebo effect in a couple of sneaky ways." ... "I have very low confidence that these represent real effects rather than artifacts of the gymnastics I had to do to make the data correlatable at all, and I report them only to encourage other people to do more sober analyses."
I think attempting to do this - knowing that people will criticize the methodology - is admirable.