Live data from Hacker News

Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

slatestarcodex.com

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#61

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…

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible comment.

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.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#62

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…

What would you take as objective and verifiable information?

I get the impression that he's looking for information that has a well-defined objective measurement (e.g. performance at some standardized task), and is not subject to the selection and survivorship biases of voluntary response data or the biases inherent in subjective responses to questions about subjective experiences, when that experience can be influenced by the subject's expectations.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#63

What I find interesting is the fact that modafinil and caffeine ranked almost the same. I've always thought it would be interesting to try modafinil because of the widely claimed cognitive benefits and how it has less drawbacks than caffeine, but if it ranks essentially the same as caffeine, there's really no point to trying it that I can see. Caffeine doesn't really do that much to be honest. It seems as though none…

Many say modafinil gives you an ability to focus deeply on things for long periods of time, which caffeine doesn't really do. The downside appears to be that the "big picture" view sometimes seems to be lost.

I'm not sure that kind of thing would show up in this survey.

Yeah.. I know this is just hearsay and anecdotal evidence.

Edit: Here's a comment on this very post which reflects what I say above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249637

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: I would strongly suggest getting a RX for Modafinil (Provigil) and not Nuvigil (Amodifinil). Nuvigil is very expensive and my insurance company required a whole battery of additional tests before they paid for it. I believe Modafinil is now generic so I imagine they care much less.

Last time I checked, cephalon had some sort shady deal to keep generic modafinil off the market for a few more years (paying generic manufacturers to not bring it to market). If modafinil goes generic, it will be really good news.

It's generic, but it's still expensive. My insurance still required prior auth, but it was doable.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#65

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…

> What might big-time convince me to try out a nootropic substance would be an objective demonstration that someone with typical abilities (say, someone who goes into online discussion with a known propensity to believe what's on Reddit without checking it) can become a person with thoughtful insight (say, someone like Peter Norvig) at adult age simply by ingesting the nootropic.

I note that Norvig is a really high bar, and that reading and discussing articles is not going to have that level of effect either. (Though what effect it does have, comes at less risk.)

Many people claim that taking modafinil allows them to lose a night's sleep and feel fine the next day. It seems unlikely that they'd be so completely wrong that modafinil is not doing them any short-term good at all. Like, the typical response to "lose a night's sleep" is "have a really obviously bad day tomorrow". It would be difficult for modafinil to make someone so totally oblivious, to their own performance and the comments of people around them, as to not notice this happening.

If modafinil didn't have any clinical studies backing it up, the anecdotal evidence would be enough to convince me with high probability that modafinil has short-term benefits for many people.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#66

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…

What kind of response bias are you expecting here and how would you fix it?

I mean, obviously there is a bias in favor of people who use more nootropics and find nootropics more effective. But since all I was doing was ranking nootropics relative to one another, that should mostly cancel out. I'm not sure why respondents would, for example, be expected to be a group disproportionately likely to have a stronger response to modafinil relative to bacopa compared to the general population.

More pressingly, I'm not sure how I can avoid it besides gathering hundreds of people together and forcing them to try nootropics one by one in controlled conditions, for which I don't have the resources. Even professional studies that select their subjects ahead of time have atrociously high dropout rates. If you have an implementable idea for avoiding response bias on next year's survey I'm happy to go ahead with it, but "not collect any survey data at all because available methodology isn't perfect" seems strictly inferior.

I feel like I hedged myself pretty appropriately: " we can't get good data without way more effort and resources than anyone is willing to put in, but if we ran a survey we could at least get better anecdata", "This survey does not intend to rectify [the confusion as to whether nootropics work at all]", "a pessimist might say that [this is] extracting patterns from random noise", et cetera. But given the choice between giving up because it wasn't perfect and going ahead with hedges, I figured I might as well go ahead.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#67

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…

Scott is well aware of all those issues. Something is, however, generally better than nothing. This is not a randomised clinical trial, not even close. It's not even a longitudinal correlational study. It's an opt in survey with a small sample. Unless you get huge effect sizes you're going to be have low certainty of anything and all it's really useful for is suggesting things for people to try or treatments to be prioritised for testing in higher powered studies.

I especially invite comments from participants here who have a professional understanding of statistical studies in clinical trials of new medicines.

Scott has an M.D. and is currently doing his residency in psychiatry.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, cephalon had some sort shady deal to keep generic modafinil off the market for a few more years (paying generic manufacturers to not bring it to market). If modafinil goes generic, it will be really good news.

It's generic, but it's still expensive. My insurance still required prior auth, but it was doable.

From what I've heard before, it was almost impossible for people to get approved by insurance for modafinil, maybe times have changed and I need to pay the doctor a visit in the future.

For now though, nicotine hits the spot.

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#69
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are less sensitive to caffeine. Maybe you're one of those. Personally I'd like to try it, but it's prescription-only where I live...

Unless possessing prescription-only medicine is illegal where you live (doubtful), you can just order it on the internet. I don't think it's a restricted drug anywhere.

Be careful, in the country I live in (Austria) it is illegal to import prescription drugs. Customs made me pay a fine of about 60$ for trying to import Melatonin (and I didn't get the Melatonin either).

Re: Nootropics Survey Results And Analysis

#70
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are less sensitive to caffeine. Maybe you're one of those. Personally I'd like to try it, but it's prescription-only where I live...

Unless possessing prescription-only medicine is illegal where you live (doubtful), you can just order it on the internet. I don't think it's a restricted drug anywhere.

It is in the US, schedule 4. Oddly armodafinil metabolizes to the same thing and isn't restricted.
Post reply on HN