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

The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

scienceblogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#11

Post by tman »

Psyonic wrote: post #8
tman wrote: post #5

The blog post gives the example of how more distractable old people can outperform less distractable young people on a specially contrived mental test. Similarly, if you put a bunch of junk for someone to trip over on the way to the bathroom, it would be the old person who tripped over it all that would remember it on his return. But in what real-world mental challenges do old people have the advantage over the young…

Erdos took amphetamines (speed, Adderall, etc), not methamphetamines. They are related drugs, but meth is much stronger and dangerous.

Case of exaggeration for comedic effect.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#12

Post by Psyonic »

tman wrote: post #11
Psyonic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erdos took amphetamines (speed, Adderall, etc), not methamphetamines. They are related drugs, but meth is much stronger and dangerous.

Case of exaggeration for comedic effect.

Gotcha. I'm not a mathematician, but your comment made me feel like I'm running out of time to make a difference, and I'm only 24. It also gave me a bit of confidence that I can. Anyway, better get to it!

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#14

Post by rjurney »

Unseelie wrote: post #2

As a lifelong ADHD child, I do agree. Take a pill, write a report for 8 hours. But attempt a poem, a piece of story, and nothing happens. Attempt a daydream...nothing. You're very focused, and that means you struggle to talk to anyone...because they're not into your topic. Focus makes you boring.

I'm an ADHD OG myself, and take adderall to this day, but my experience is a bit different. Without adderall (and usually coffee) I can organize, email, hustle and promote like nobody's business... but I cannot program, finish anything or do much but bounce between 2-5 minute tasks in 30 second intervals. You can't implement metaclustering or write a cohesive paper in 30 second intervals. It's not that I'm not creative on tasks requiring more focus, it's that they are not even accessible to me without the drug, and that these 30 second bouts of activity feel like they are rewarding even if they don't amount to anything. With adderall I'm creative on a longer attention window, and can work for rewards without very fast payoff.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#17

Post by eru »

Alex3917 wrote: post #9
googler wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm told that's why you have to balance it out with weed.

It's one thing to use psychoactive drugs on occasion if you're eating healthfully, exercising, getting enough sleep, in good mental health, and using only one drug at a time. I can't even imagine what mixing weed and amphetamines on a daily basis would do to a person. That sounds like a terrible, terrible idea. As soon as drug use becomes banal you are really asking for trouble.

I tend to agree. On the other hand, people seem quite happy taking caffeine and alcohol and daily or near-daily basis. Even mixing the two. So I guess your statement doesn't hold in general?

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#18

Post by joe_the_user »

tman wrote: post #5

The blog post gives the example of how more distractable old people can outperform less distractable young people on a specially contrived mental test. Similarly, if you put a bunch of junk for someone to trip over on the way to the bathroom, it would be the old person who tripped over it all that would remember it on his return. But in what real-world mental challenges do old people have the advantage over the young…

Hmm,

Andrew Wile began work on proving Fermat's theorem in 1986 at 33. He finished first presented the proof in 1993 at age 40. He was not eligable for a Fields Medal, which I personally think is a travesty (An award reserved for the class of people considered most fit in the field? What's the justification there ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles

Raymund Smullyan received his PhD at forty and has made significant contributions to logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Smullyan

It has been hypothesized that mathematics has grown so large that mathematicians are now more likely to make contributions because of the amount of material which it is necessary to learn.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#19

Post by Dove »

Psyonic wrote: post #12
tman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case of exaggeration for comedic effect.

Gotcha. I'm not a mathematician, but your comment made me feel like I'm running out of time to make a difference, and I'm only 24. It also gave me a bit of confidence that I can. Anyway, better get to it!

Mathematics is good at making young people feel old.

Take Galois, for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois). Solved one of the major mathematical problems of his time. Founded a major branch of abstract algebra (seriously -- in a three quarter grad level course, you spend about a quarter on it).

Died at 20.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Smart Drugs (2008)

#20

Post by rictic »

geoffc wrote: post #6
googler wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm told that's why you have to balance it out with weed.

Interesting enough I find a hang over unleashes my creativity.

Agreed. I've also found that going without sleep for >24 hours has some similar effects.

It's worth doing every once in a while just to experience the altered state.

Post reply on HN