Slashdot Mirror
Cosmetic Neurology
The New Yorker has a long piece examining the growing trend of healthy people, not diagnosed with any mental condition, taking drugs that enhance mental functioning, including Adderall and Provigil. The profiles include a Harvard student, a professional poker player, a number of brain researchers, and a self-described transhumanist. "Zack [Lynch]... has a book being published this summer, called 'The Neuro Revolution'... In coming years, he said, scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use therapeutically, others because they are 'on the borderline of needing them therapeutically,' and others purely 'for competitive advantage.' ... Even if today's smart drugs aren't as powerful as such drugs may someday be, there are plenty of questions that need to be asked about them. How much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then, there's the question of what we mean by 'smarter.' Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of Americans who are performing daily experiments on their own brains. ... [A cognitive researcher said,] 'Cognitive psychologists have found that there is a trade-off between attentional focus and creativity. And there is some evidence that suggests that individuals who are better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions tend to be less creative. ... I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.'"
Everyone has been taking caffeine. So what else is new?
Bah, I say! I am no more or less creative when I take my prescribed adderall, only more able to apt to finish the task at hand before wondering off into a new creation or idea.
Demented But Determined.
"... I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.'""
What about those of us that are already "focused accountants" what do we get out of this "Neuro Revolution"?
I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
I'm an accountant, you insensitive clod!
more like you get more ideas and never complete them all. Could be cool in a team setting.
At least that's the way i am.
I literally have about a dozen ideas at any time and get to them all to completion in time , i just seem to get inspired and then DO, if it's a sci fi game , ill watch movies similar to the design and that seems to perk the senses.
Perhaps that research should be looked at rather then doping people out with out knowing long term side effects and genetic problems that may result.
I just finished up undergraduate classes as an electrical engineer, and I would say the majority of people in my department used Adderall to help them study longer. Those people all ended up with better GPA's for it. It's almost the same question with sports and steroids, if I had used that kind of drug to increase my studying capacity, I probably could have gotten enough of an extra boost to enter "free Ph.D." territory.
Singulatarian/transhumanist/atheist here. Effects are mostly subtle. The non-racemic Nuvigil may be slightly better, but I wouldn't expect much.
I, for one, seriously, welcome accountants becoming more focused and less creative.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
In the march to the Singularity, we don't need history majors writing papers or Baseball players hitting homeruns. We need science. A neuroscientist taking a cognitive-enhancing drug is a direct example of recursive, exponential growth to the Singularity. Keep it coming.
>I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
Very focused accountants isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I've taken some of these drugs myself - medical necessity. Couldn't focus on tasks worth a damn. Slept through high school, slept through college. I'd fall asleep at work, fall asleep while driving. Right now I've got a regimen that's working pretty good. If it were really good I would be doing something useful rather than goofing off on Slashdot, but the brain's working well enough that I tend to get my work done, just slower than I should be.
I feel like I'm performing the best I ever have. More ambitious about taking on projects, doing new things. I don't think I'm less creative for it, unless by creative they mean the dream-like half-conscious state I was in for twenty years.
But I've been doing all this by the book, under medical supervision. I don't think I'd be taking this stuff illegally for competitive reasons, like athletes do steroids - not sure if that makes me righteous or stupid.
The general idea of amping up brains seems like a positive to me, but I wouldn't be the guinea pig if I didn't have medical need.
Ithinkthisstuffisgreatialreadyfeelreallysmartandnotatalladdictedwhere'sthatpillbottle???????
There have been a few pieces of that kind in recent months, among those one in The Economist. They all follow the very same scenario and use the same rhetoric. Comments from readers testified of few benefits (confusion and excitation rather than concentration) and dramatic, often tragic side effects, with dependency consequences, etc. Each time the piece resurfaces, none of the downsides are mentioned and the same rhetoric: benign use, everybody uses it, unquestioned efficiency is brought back. Deregulating the sale of those drugs seems to be a coveted objective of Big Pharma and no wonder, considering the fabulous sums involved. Soma anyone?
The best neuroenhancer the world will ever see is obecalp. Remember, boys and girls, obecalp is placebo spelled backwards!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I would like to see an analysis for controlled marijuana usage and the effects it has on the brain (long term and short term). Of course this would be for people not diagnosed with any mental conditions.
I know some people who say it actually helps them be more productive (and creative) which I am sure is a biased opinion because of the fields that they are in (design, programming, etc).
Maybe there is a report like this already out there?
Lots of people take mind altering drugs:
1% of the population is bipolar - and
society will treat you as more of a freak if you do not take the tablets.
The red pill or the blue pill - hell take them all. anti depressants, stabilizers, drugs that make you shake, drugs that make you put on weight (or not care about anything - which amounts to the same thing), drugs that make you shake, drugs for stopping you shaking.
Hey chemistry set for grown up psychiatrists... I wish they had better things to do...
It's like saying driving a car instead of walking is "cosmetic transportation". Something whose main purpose is to provide functionality is pretty much the exact opposite of "cosmetic".
To reply to this post, or when you took Provigil?
Same way you don't businesses catering to gay marriage--big money usually has religious hangups.
While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution. Perhaps evolution could come up with many of these modifications (intelligence/less drowsiness) naturally.
Heck, it's only a theory, and would be impossible to enforce in reality, but if nobody say... showered, shaved or brushed their teeth, I bet evolution would eventually bias towards those who were naturally less smelly, or clean-shaven looking. Thus saving everyone half an hour per day or whatever in the future.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
I don't really see anything wrong with this, as long as the drugs aren't over-used to the point where health is compromised.
I took Ritalin for a while. It was effective for a number of months and really helped me to focus, but it did cost me a great deal in terms of creativity, which is something I depend on more than I realized before taking Ritalin.
Eventually the Ritalin stopped working and my choice was between raising the dose (and probably having to boost my blood pressure meds concurrently), or quit. I chose to quit since I was missing my creativity.
While I understand the concern of doctors from the "if it ain't broke" camp, most doctor are happy enough to start throwing Paxil, Prozac and other SSRIs at people at the first hint of anxiety or depression, without even a hint of trying to address the real problem (whatever is causing the anxiety or depression). Why should they be so skittish about giving drugs to make people focus better and otherwise improve the quality of their lives?
AFAIK amphetamines were popular already in WW2 among soldiers being able to stay sharp extended periods (weeks or so), in 1960's truck drivers and students did it for the same purpose. This is really nothing new, just amphetamines renamed. The extremely addictive nature of amphetamines will create once again another generation of drug addicts from unsuspecting students who fall for the hype.
Many people are taking smart drugs now -- solely for advantage, without prescribed a medical need -- but in most fields, I don't think it's to the point that *not* taking them is a disadvantage, yet. I admit to a certain amount of interest in nootropic drugs, especially those that could help me hyperfocus. However, I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
I've seen too many retirees and seniors slide away into fuzziness, dementia, or worse. On the other hand, I've seen a few that remained sharp as tacks into their 80s and 90s. There are some pretty clear differences between the lifestyles of these two groups. I've tried to learn something from those differences.
I'm turning 40 this year, which is about when most people say they start to feel age-related decline. I want a healthy, well-functioning brain for now and the future. So, I pay a lot more attention to my nutrition than I used to, have started a regular exercise program, and engage in a few different "brain training" activities on a regular basis. I actually feel many benefits now -- I feel better, I'm happier, and my mind seems a little sharper.
In addition to the above, I take a prepared "stack" that includes a variety of nutrients and compounds for both mild cognitive enhancement and neuroprotection. I did a lot of research before I picked AOR's Ortho-Mind, which seems pretty well-balanced and reasonably priced. I also take an Omega-3 supplement daily, along with a good multi-vitamin and a "green" drink with a lot of antioxidants and phytonutrients. My monthly investment, dollar-wise, is less than $100. I have friends that spend that amount each month on coffee.
The big thing here is to be careful in what you choose to take. I chose to focus first on overall brain health, and I'm happy with results so far. Only then did I start adding some mild cognitive enhancers, but even then, I made sure my chosen stack included agents specifically chosen for their neuroprotective properties. If I ever become convinced that any of the various smart drugs make sense from that perspective, then maybe I'll change my strategy... but right now, I think a little conservatism is a good thing.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
No mention of energy of Aniracetam? Or the focus of DMAE?
Come on! Get with the program! Speed is an old drug
For once, an article that carries through the excellent understanding of the researchers. They have a very good grasp of the current state of cognition research. I've not seen the balance between focus (under control of executive function) and heuristic (purposefully instigated but unconsciously operating) cognition.
However, they answer has already been obtained. True nootropics (cognition enhancing drugs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropics were first created/discovered over 50 years ago. If it weren't for the fact he discovered/created LSD, Albert Hoffmann would have been in line for a Nobel for Hydergine. It, and its many derivatives (the racetams), have been in use for more than half a century. Hoffmann himself credited hydergine for his longetivity (he died not long ago at age 103). These drugs are frequently reclassified, almost invariably downwards, to "possibly effective" in the US, and only recommended for late stage dementias. Elsewhere these drugs are used for all stages of cognitive decline as well as cases such as illustrated by TFA, desire for improved cognitive processing.
Despite widespread positive results, clinical and real life, in the US the FDA has been dragging its feet on approving these drugs so long that the patents on some are expiring. Their efforts have been so effective that Nobel winner Eric Kandel (major player in describing the dopamine system) announced that he would use his prize money to start a company to create the first nootropic, apparently unaware that he was at the time almost 50 years too late.
Thanks to the 1989 AIDS law, people in the US can obtain a 90 day supply of any drug approved anywhere in the world, as long as they can get a prescription for it. There are many non-US pharma companies willing to accept such prescriptions and ship the meds. I won't go as far as to suggest their use by others for any particular purpose, but I will state that despite the correlation/caustion problem in a single data point, I credit a 9 month course of hydergine and nootropil with a decade long suspension and even partial reversal in the progress of my Parkinsons. I only have a background in these nootropics as can be obtained by sources not under the influence of the FDA. I do have a professional research background in Parkinsons and other dopaminergic disorders and can find no other reason for such a lengthy remission and reversal of some symptoms beyond the frequent but under-reported medical observation of "inexplicable".
The use of drugs that force the system into a state of enhanced cognition will always prove futile and usually addictive in some sense. Drugs that promote natural enhancement have already proven effective.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"Cosmetic neurology"? What's wrong with the existing term for someone who takes Adderall without a prescription: Amphetamine abuser. Take it from someone actually has (quite pronounced) ADD: It doesn't work the same way on someone who doesn't have ADD. Likewise, if I overdose, I don't get the intended effect either. (and the dosage that 'works' best for me is about ~30-60 mg a day. Not really an addictive-level dose. In fact, I have a much harder time holding up on coffee) It's hardly news that someone taking amphetamines can be more productive than someone who's not. But not for the same reasons that an ADD patient is. Amphetamines don't make ordinary folks more concentrated. It makes them more active. Whereas, at the correct dosage, it has the opposite effect in an ADD patient. (I can literally take 30 mg of amphetamine and then go to bed and fall asleep.) When you're using a prescription drug without a prescription, that's drug abuse. When you're using a drug in a way its not intended to be used, that's drug abuse. Let's not kid ourselves with name games here.
in a long time. So taking speed is now called "Cosmetic Neurology". The meth- and coke-freaks will be very glad to hear that.
What hasn't yet been brought up in this discussion is the fact that these are all controlled substances, meaning that they are not just prescription drugs, but that their use and prescription by a physician is closely monitored to ensure they they are only given for FDA-approved uses. In fact, Adderall is a Schedule II controlled substance, which puts in in the same category as Opium, Morphine, Percocet, Hydrocodone, etc. Whatever your position on using these substances is, all of the above uses are not FDA approved and if a physician is caught prescribing these medications for these uses, he/she would have his/her medical license revoked.
The above summary makes it sound as if anyone can go to their physician and ask for Adderall or Provigil to enhance their study routine. As a physician myself, this is simply not the case.
...you knew, that question "Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others?" is always answered with "yes". See it as a partially limited resource.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
In Soviet Union there was common practice to give Piracetam to children with headaches or suspected neurological problems. The usage habit stayed for some... I doubt there is research that looks for long term usage (~30 year); I suspect there are some changes in behaviour.
How can such a helpful class of drugs be so demonised? Pilots, mostly military -- presumably -- have often said it was what got them and their plane home alive. Clearly there is a downside, :)
but 15mG of a racemic mix is a very small dose of amphetamine. Its a very common 'programing fluid' which can be borne out by studying some code. No names mentioned, but there are those that smoke pot, drink coffee/Jolt and those that do amphetamines and amphetamine-like drugs or even beer.
If I was stoned, I might have to get stoned to understand what I did, same for 'drunk', wired or jacked up on caffein or any combination. MODERATION is key -- always. I never used stimulants,
alcohol or pot in university. (college was the reward for not using)
What's the big deal? I guess its 'still shocking' to the New Yorker types, but used properly, drugs get the job done. Personally I can't type stoned, but I can make written notes. LSD is
certainly not very smart, but it can in rare moments provide access to 'hidden insights'. Only once did I get a good piece written while tripping that impressed many when published in the
S.F. Chronicle.
Finally drugs are best on the short term. Take speed (meth) to kick out those lines of code and meet a deadline. Maybe a week of use is about all its good for? As another reader said: "What's new" and I agree. Smoke a joint to relax when done. :) If you are leaving the wrong impression on
others: Moderation! Be cool.
BillSF
See Discover Magazine, April 2009. It cites an article in Pharmacotherapy from last year.
Heh, kind of like making a +intelligence potion in Morrowind, drinking it, using your temporary intelligence boost to make a more powerful version, and then repeating until you're making +1000 potions.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
did you imply that accountants are not creative? You should meet mine. He comes up with crazy stuff to avoid taxes!
People have been using Aspirin and Codeine for head-aches and cognitive enhancement for ages. Simple cough and cold medicine also has the same effect.
It took me a few years to figure out why I tended to do better in winter exams (cold & flu season) than in summer, but the effect is unmistakeable.
It can therefore be a good idea to take a head-ache tablet before a university exam, but I sure won't recommend taking these things on an ongoing basis.
Most slashdot.org users including myself have screens that are at least 1280 pixels wide. Even you netbook users have 600 pixels. The New Yorker's website only use like 400 pixels, and leaves the rest to white space. THEY DON'T EVEN USE THE SPACE FOR ADS.
I have naturally occurring hyper-charged neurons , but am currently jacked on major drugs to slow my brain down because of frequent minor seizures . I loved my hyper brain. Though the seizures are addicting and I get into them and days of them results in psychosis --a total break from reality. My current drug cocktail that blocks chemicals in my neural synapses increases my concentration. And, people that pound too much coffee offended get frazzled and perform poorly. But steady small amounts of coffee equals more study time that will rocket a GPA. But better concentration in a super chilled out brain will too. If I get a build up of drugs in my system, the side effect flip and I get insomnia and have lots of other issues. Also if you research migraine or ADHD drugs, they are nasty on another level. I can't think of a drug that alters the chemistry in the brain that does not have wicked side effects.
Uhmmm... Omega 3 is a medium chain fat. You get that in eggs and olive oil.
Many people are taking smart drugs now -- solely for advantage, without prescribed a medical need -- but in most fields, I don't think it's to the point that *not* taking them is a disadvantage, yet.
We've hit that point a long time ago. It's called caffeine.
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your Singularity." - a 21st century Emma Goldman
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
From the article, "For breakfast every morning, he concocted a slurry of oatmeal, berries, soy milk, pomegranate juice, flaxseed, almond meal, raw eggs, and protein powder. The goal behind the recipe was efficiency: to rely on âoeone goop you could eat or drink that would have everything you need nutritionally for your brain and body.â He explained, âoeTaste was the last thing on my mind; I wanted to be able to keep it downâ"that was it.â"
I started having a nutritionally complete shake for breakfast every morning - and it rocks! But I wouldn't describe it's taste as something that I have trouble keeping down - instead it's very yummy. The recipe I usually use was designed by nutritionist Sam Graci and is:
* 1 cup of berries (blueberries, blackberries)
* 2 scoops of high alpha whey protein
* 1 tbsp high-quality fish oil
* 1/2 tsp borage oil
* 2 tbsps flax seeds and 2 tbsps sesame seeds, ground in a coffee grinder
* 4-6 tbsps plain low-fat organic yogurt
* 1 cup rice milk or soy milk
That's the basic recipe, but there are lots of other ingredients you can use to mix it up: hemp protein powder, other fruits (banana, strawberry, kiwi), acai and goji juice, raw eggs.
The basic idea of the breakfast shake is that your bodies metabolism has started to slow down since you haven't eaten since yesterday evening ... you want to have a nice balance of carbs, protein and fat to get your metabolism back in the game. Nutritionally you also want to have lots of omega 3 fatty acids (flax and fish oil) which promotes healthy brain cells and also foods with high anti-oxidant properties to promote healthy blood (berries). Finally the probiotics in the yogurt promote healthy digestion.
Combine the breakfast shake with a daily green drink and a healthy diet of lots of veggies and fruits, and you will notice a marked improvement in overall energy and mental functioning -- I estimated that I could crank out 25% more lines of code after a couple months, and overall my code was of markedly better quality. Plus since your overall mood is better I was about 25% less acerbic in conversations with my co-workers :P
For those following at home:
mrchaotica refers to The Singularity in essence as a "game design bug".
OMG HAX
I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.
perhaps preferable to a generation of very creative accountants.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage [LSD] can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.
Please supply any reference to substantiate this claim.
Da Blog
If you're drunk that comment reads really funny.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I received a compound diagnosis some time back. I opted for the performance booster, and upon being able to DO things, the depression went away on its own.
Same as AC below, but with Link Goodness.
CDO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Doesn't Ortho make insecticide? Have you been rereading Naked Lunch?
What I do need is better memory, because the way it is right now, it's pretty much bursting at the seams. I want it to be like it was when I was in my teens. I could read three pages of text once and then recite them pretty much word for word. I felt like I could keep information in my head indefinitely. Complex words (e.g. DNA, NADF, etc.), formulas, numbers, War & Peace - it was all effortless.
A little less than two decades later, I don't remember what I ate in the morning. I would gladly pay 5-10% of my substantial income every year (I hope someone from Big Pharma is reading this) to get my memory back.
As a matter of fact, yes. How about you?
Da Blog
I'm a 48 year old tenured mathematician. I've been taking methylphenidate for about 10 years. In the late 90s my productivity slumped dramatically. I talked to one of my peers (a very very well known logician who is now in his 70s) and he suggested this course to me. My physician had no problem with it, I get an ECG and bloodwork done annually to make sure i'm not having any cardiovascular problems.
After taking the medication, my work, energy, quality of sleep, quality of life really, improved dramatically. The reality is 1) it works 2) the benefits(for me at least) outway the costs. 3) Moderation and responsibility are the key. It is pharmaceutical speed and is habit forming. 4) The moral hazard debate is silly unless you like the idea of living in a nanny state. I'm extremely well informed and am making a decision that affects no one but myself.
I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
Good to know you're restricting yourself to untested and largely un-quality controlled drugs.
In the march to the Singularity, we don't need history majors writing papers or Baseball players hitting homeruns. We need science. A neuroscientist taking a cognitive-enhancing drug is a direct example of recursive, exponential growth to the Singularity. Keep it coming.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if amateur futurists (read: all futurists) understood that extrapolating exponential growth far into the future is idiotic. Not that I disagree with your premise that science is important.
So, are there any of these performance enhancers that don't require a blood workup and/or regular bloodwork to make sure you're not blowing up your liver? I don't like needles.
Sent from my iPhone
OMG HAX
That's what god will be saying when it happens.
I've limited myself to vitamins, minerals, and herbal products, with a primary goal of maintaining long-term brain health.
Good to know you're restricting yourself to untested and largely un-quality controlled drugs.
The pharmaceutical route has its own drawbacks, and some notable failures, despite testing and quality control. This page on Wikipedia lists a number of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs
I do understand your point. However, note that I said I did research. I found many apparently well-designed, double-blind, and peer-reviewed studies on vitamins, minerals, and herbal extracts. I just had to look for them. Then I went and looked for companies that appeared to have qualified medical and research staff preparing their formulations, and that had apparent quality control programs. Then I checked around for any "bad news" about the companies and their formulations.
I am not one of those people that automatically equates "natural" to "good" and "man-made" to "bad". There is one thing to keep in mind, though: herbal products often have a much longer history of use than recently developed man-made drugs. There might not have been much hard science driving their use, but some of the herbal compounds have anecdotal evidence of safety and efficacy going back hundreds (or even thousands) of years. That can't be said for any of the pharmaceuticals. Many of the herbals have undergone significant scientific testing precisely because of their long histories (ginkgo comes to mind). Sometimes, the science shows an herbal remedy to be useless... but the converse also sometimes true. Some of the herbals even form the basis for the development of new pharmaceutical treatments.
In the end, what I'm restricting myself from is very powerful compounds that haven't been around that long and don't have long histories of safe human use. I'm also avoiding herbal extracts that have either been shown to be worthless or to have significant adverse side-effects. The result is that I'm probably not using the most powerful agents available to meet my purpose... but I still get some benefits while avoiding potentially significant side effects.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
Uhmmm... Omega 3 is a medium chain fat. You get that in eggs and olive oil.
Sure, and I also get it from fish, flax, chia, and many other foods that I consume regularly. However, there is a lot of evidence that the typical North American diet is deficient in Omega-3, or at least skewed towards Omega-6. That's why I supplement with Omega-3.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
Can someone explain in plain English, for a non-Bio major, what the difference between prescription amphetamines (Ritalin, Adderall, Modafinil) and street methamphetamine, other than legality and doseage control, is?
Sent from my iPhone
I meant a drug that would make the taker of the drug more attractive, though dumb as a post. In other words, given the chance, how many of us would choose to look like Brad or Angelina, even if it came with the mental limitations of the average actor?
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Good for you for doing the background check. That's more than most people do.
There are still some gotchas though.
The pharmaceutical route has its own drawbacks, and some notable failures, despite testing and quality control.
There are some failures, sure, but those aren't drawbacks of the evidence based testing. The fact that some drugs are withdrawn means evidence based medicine (EBM) worked. An important part of drug testing are the phase IV trials that watch what happens after the drug is in widespread use. Even if you found some phase I and II trials for herbs, a proper phase IV trial is very hard to do for something that doesn't make you pharma-patent bucks (and isn't required). A proper phase III usually isn't going to happen either. So basically you have no way of knowing if a particular herbal formulation has long term detrimental effects or not, unless they're so overwhelming that they're obvious (as some are). You've also got the problem, which affects all four phases, that it's hard to pin down just
Good for you for doing the background check. That's more than most people do.
There are still some gotchas though.
The pharmaceutical route has its own drawbacks, and some notable failures, despite testing and quality control.
There are some failures, sure, but those aren't drawbacks of the evidence based testing. The fact that some drugs are withdrawn means evidence based medicine (EBM) worked. An important part of drug testing are the phase IV trials that watch what happens after the drug is in widespread use. Even if you found some phase I and II trials for herbs, a proper phase IV trial is very hard to do for something that doesn't make you pharma-patent bucks (and isn't required). A proper phase III usually isn't going to happen either. So basically you have no way of knowing if a particular herbal formulation has long term detrimental effects or not, unless they're so overwhelming that they're obvious (as some are). You've also got the problem, which affects all four phases, that it's hard to pin down just what an herb is. Is that American or Chinese ginseng? How was it prepared? What's the error on the dose? Is it mixed with anything? How were the plants raised? What line are they from? How were they bred? Etc.
In the end, what I'm restricting myself from is very powerful compounds that haven't been around that long and don't have long histories of safe human use.
Maybe. Don't forget, we're amateurs at making powerful compounds, next to plants. Plants, bacteria and other organisms make many of the most powerful drugs we know of. Most of them are designed to kill other organisms that might like to eat the plant in question. As for having long histories of safe human use, no other system except controlled clinical trials has proven effective for assessing that, at least not to the level that those pharmaceuticals are held to. Subtle, long term effects just can't be properly assessed by anecdotal evidence.
As the neurosurgeon I used to share an office with was fond of saying, potatoes would fail to get FDA approval if they had to go through the process that new drugs do.
Maybe it will be countered by the pro-creative effects of medical Marijuana? :-)
Uhmmm... Omega 3 is a medium chain fat. You get that in eggs and olive oil.
You don't get very much Omega 3 in olive oil; you get much more Omega 9. Eggs are also not a good source of Omega 3, unless you buy the special Omega 3 enhanced eggs, but those are still high in cholesterol. The best sources are flax oil, and cold-water fish such as salmon.
Omega 3 is also tremendously unstable; it goes rancid easily. The vast majority of foods eaten in developed countries have almost no Omega 3 in them, because Omega 3 would give poor shelf life and/or the food was overheated during processing, which wrecks the Omega 3.
I also supplement my diet with Omega 3.
http://www.udoerasmus.com/FAQ/FAQ_index_en.htm
P.S. The sarcastic "Uhmmm..." is not needed and makes you look like a bit of a jerk. I'm just saying.
I appreciate the points you make. I guess that, in some ways, I am making a gamble that the products I'm using will not have major adverse effects. I think I'm reducing the risk by choosing companies and products pretty carefully. I'm also being pretty conservative in my expectations and avoiding any really strong stuff.
You sound like you might know a lot about this type of thing, so let me just ask... if you had a goal of long-term preservation (and maybe mild enhancement) of brain health and function, what kind of program would you follow? (My experience is that diet and exercise are good, but only get you so far.)
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
"Cosmetic" neurology at its fines - using a deadly neurotoxin to enhance looks. Almost as good as using belladonna a couple of centuries ago.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The same as cosmetics.
Without the drugs you can't do whatever, otherwise you wouldn't be dependent on them.
Deleted
Go to a cultural exposition which ranges over as many ancient and "primitive" cultures and see them in one day.
You will come to the conclusion the local types of drugs, spiritual experiencing, culture, local resources, ability to spread and gain external influence and creativity is interwoven: the closer to nature, the more drugs are used to experience the "divine", which reflects in the artwork and monuments. (look at the artwork of Mexicans: bright, psychedelic, but other arts didn't seem very existing, they used peyoté and cacti. Compare to the Inca's, square and geometrical, very psychedelic, the Indians more "soul searching" with certain "medicine". African cultures being more of tools and attributes to come to "transic spiritual experiences".
Our western culture has always taken the best of worlds and merged, adopted to novelty and utilized it opportunistic as Europeans were in contact with the Eastern worlds, Africa's, cross-contaminating with idea's and cultural habits through merchants and travellers. It hasn't been too long ago we drugged people with morphine as a medical practice and still do.
I do not see why use with a specific purpose, out of context, without pre-assessing consequences, is anything different of anything the Western world has adopted over the last couple thousands of years.
The contrast with more isolated cultures, does show where the "creative inspiration" and "novelty" was gained. Our western culture is a merging and composition of novel and interesting attributes and habits out of different cultures within reach.
A generation of very focused accountants? Sounds exactly like what the US needs right now if you ask me...
mediocrity rules, man
A generation of very focused accountants? Sounds exactly like what the US needs right now if you ask me...
Yep. Very focused, and definitely not too creative.
...no short URL, although I would like to know how to do it on slashdot.
<a href="http://your.long.url.goes.here">link text here</a>
Comes out like this (assuming you are posting HTML Formatted).
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
First Mentats, next Jet and Psycho! Where will it end?!!
People make all kinds of claims about these sorts of medications, but the effect isn't going to beat just eating a healthy diet, getting exercise and going to bed for a reasonable amount of time.
So does that mean it WOULD be effective for the 99.8% of the population that doesn't get a healthy diet, enough exercise and plenty of sleep?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future
Quite enlightening. Read, digest, discuss.
Somewhere in there is an example of just such technology creep.
It starts out optional, but soon everyone will be on this stuff just to get a few
more IQ points.
A lot of sci-fi discusses the dangers of depending on tech too much.
Better living thru chemistry is just as bad.
They Live, We Sleep
Adderall is just speed. People have been tweeking for years. It is a combination of four amphetamine salts. Straight up legal speed. I have seen the effects of this drug first hand and you may as well be using Meth. Down with Adderall!!!
I personally am not adverse to taking recreational drugs; but it has to be strictly recreational. If you begin to base all or even part of your life or career on taking a performance ehnancing drug, you have to realise that you won't be able to do without it, or at least not as well. So, you are most likely setting yourself up for a life long dependency. I wouldn't. is all I'm saying - just compare with coffee: a very mild drug, with next to no withdrawal symptoms, and yet most people don't feel able to get through a demanding day without it. A drug with a stronger effect will make you a lot more dependent.
Our brain is the way it is, because it has evolved that way; its properties have been tested over millions of years. If it was an advantage for us to be able to sustain a narrower focus for a long time, we would already be that way - just like with mutations, most of the things we can do to change the way our brain works will be disadvantageous. So why do it? Our health is the only thing we really have.
The Singularity sounds boring.
Seriously, when steroids were discovered, people were saying that in the future athletes and others who needed a boost to physical prowess would take steroids. It turns out that the side effects of steroids are serious enough that in the long term the boost to downside is greater than the temporary boost unless one has a diagnosed physical ailment (even with the improvements to reduce side effects).
As to drugs which improve mental performance, people have been trying from time immemorial to find such, look up Freud and cocaine.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I meant a drug that would make the taker of the drug more attractive, though dumb as a post.
Roids? Pretty close... although roid users aren't by definition stupid, with these two exceptions:
1) If one dose is good, a thousand doses at the same time absolutely must be a thousand times better, after all that works brilliantly with sleep, salt intake, and alcohol drinking... Really I don't know what some of those clowns were thinking.
2) Crazy emotional response is not tightly coupled with intelligence. So when not roid raging, its possible to do calculus. But if an attempt at integration by parts doesn't work, that HP48 calculator has graphed its last equation...
I used to lift weights. I never used roids, but distantly knew some folks whom did. Its hard to lift at a club and not "know" somebody whom does. Other than above two notes, they were pretty average intelligence. So roids are pretty close to what you're discussing.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
So? When we get lifesaving medical treatment, we're cheating evolution too - eventually, natural selection could fix these problems in our descendants. Of course, eventually, we're all dead.
We don't owe evolution anything. If we can solve problems now, I'm in favor of solving them now, rather than waiting a million years for them to be solved by the trial and error of genetics.
I'm not convinced, though, that lack of total concentration is a problem that actually needs to be solved, at least for most people.
Getting there might be, though.
The candle that burns twice as bright burns only half as long.
you can't ack before you balls.. you just
And who says "accountants" aren't creative???? Remember Enron, Tyco and a list of others to numerous to mention. How do you think we got into this worldwide economic mess? By adding two plus two and getting five.
I used to take Aderall and ritalin before that. I was diagnosed with ADD early on in grade school, so I took medication for a decade or so. I found that although I could concentrate for the first 3-6 months (i would go off of it periodically) the effects would begin to wane. I would take the drug but it wouldn't bring a benefit after a certain amount of time. I also had bad changes (i felt) in personality. I may be a jerk, but I can turn into a type-A monster on aderall. I was very organized and focused, but everything else in my life went away to make room for that. I was the perfect cubicle drone, so I stopped taking the meds.
Nowadays it's sometimes hard to get work done. I sometimes come in at 10am to work but stay quite late when necessary, so it's ok. Work can go slowly and I get distracted (slashdot), but I have an awesome relationship with a girl who really values my attitudes, hobbies I enjoy and am quite good at, and while I may never rise to be the "perfect worker" ideal that many seem to aspire to in the U.S. I can say that I'm fairly happy overall.
Not everyone's brain works the same. To try and pump ourselves full of drugs because our culture and society are too broken to recognize that it takes "every type of people to make the world go 'round" (as Robert Palmer once said) is at best short-sighted and at worst dangerous.
-
...better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions AND BE MORE creative.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/armsexplode.html
Maybe not that close?
There are no standard dosing regimens for LSD. In the US it is a S1 controlled substance with no recognised medical benefit. There is no way YttriumOxide could substantiate this claim and it is obviously a personal opinion that cannot be verified by any objective measure. LSD, Still With Us After All These Years is an old (mid-1990s) but quite well researched book that examines in some depth, using primary sources and research, the consequences of varying amounts of LSD ingestion and the symptoms of LSD intoxication in terms of dose-response, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.
By contrast, soundguy made a very specific claim about the etiology of the mental illness of a large portion of the in patient mental health population. That is a claim that can and should either be backed up by objective data, or admitted as also personal opinion or speculation.
Da Blog
It sounds like you've done the best you can, without waiting twenty years for some large studies to be done.
I do brain research, but not directly in the pharmaceutical enhancement field. My non-expert observations have been that in general, the more effective a drug is, the more likely it is to have stronger side effects. If the good outweighs the bad in a particular case, then the drug is being used correctly. If you'll die without it, then you can tolerate pretty much any side effects. If it allows you to lead an independent life, you can tolerate some pretty serious side effects.
Some drugs, like alcohol, marijuana, etc. have fairly minor side effects (or low probability of major side effects) for most people if used responsibly. So we use them recreationally, because the fun we have with them is worth the risk.
My brain doesn't need to be enhanced, so I wouldn't take any drugs aside from the occasional cup of coffee. Non-drug enhancement is a lot more effective anyway. It's called learning.
Think about it this way. Your body is capable of making pretty much any drug you can imagine. If it doesn't make a particular drug, or makes it in limited quantities, and you don't have some disorder, that means that the absence or scarcity of that compound in your body has proven advantageous for your ancestors' survival.
Thanks... if you don't mind, let me ask one more thing. Do you know anything about the dual n-back test for increasing working memory capacity and fluid intelligence? I've heard about this only recently, and I'm curious about its effectiveness and the amount of time required to achieve measurable improvements.
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
I don't know how well it works to improve memory. It was featured in some of the brain training games, but I've heard some controversy about how much effect those actually have. A 4-back is fiendishly difficult though. One of the fMRI grad students needed victims and asked me to volunteer. 1-back, easy. 2-back, no problem. 4-back, yikes.
Most studies show that any sort of exercise you give your brain is good for it though. If you want better memory, play a variety of memory games/exercises. Just like exercising muscles.
PS: after my last reply I was thinking about the parallels between muscles and the brain. Appropriate exercise helps out both, and some people try to take drugs to cheat building up both. Cognition enhancing drugs probably don't give you breasts and small testicles, but they might well have unintended effects we haven't identified yet.
What drug(s) did you take before you wrote that?
The posting was meant as a lighthearted response, with the same level of seriousness, concern, scientific basis and level of proof, as those, hinting at anecdotal associations between some nootropics and reduced creativity, positing the existence of a nootropic that creates such an effect being chosen by 'everyone' (i.e. you can kiss creativity goodbye).
The hyperbole of "everyone" choosing being a 'whole bunch smarter' at the expense of being a 'whole bunch less creative', is as sound a proposition as the proposed (and sometimes believed) thought that legalizing Cannabis would have "everyone" sitting around stoned all day.
Furthermore, the suggested association of nootropics, as a class, with lowering [all forms of] creativity has equal scientific standing with the claim that Cannabis, in general, raises all types of creativity.
Different drugs/nootropics will have different effects on different people depending on their mental state and balance before taking such drugs. What drug(s) might have some net, beneficial effects for one person, might have net, negative effects for another. Also the effects of 'small doses', compared to 'over-usage', are *quite* different for nearly all substances, including water.
What type of creativity might be useful in math or physics, might have very different components of of the creativity useful in writing, creating music, dancing, -- etc.
The correlations between some nootropics possibly having a decreased effect on creativity has less scientific support that the correlation between Cannabis and increased creativity. I am only aware of anecdotal stories of feelings of reduced creativity, and logical theorizing about effects on 'creativity' based on preliminary and incomplete understandings of creativity. Most specifically, 'creativity' seems to flourish in a mind rich with source information and material, combined with some level of non-linear, discursive thought that allows connecting previously disparate elements in new ways. However, disruptions of this process can easily be brought about by unbalancing the input parameters -- i.e. if one has insufficient or inaccurate base and source information (i.e. if someone has no education in the area that they want to be theorizing in), they aren't likely to form new insights that will be useful (as based on a knowledge of current state of the art in a field).
Equally disruptive can be excessively 'wide' discourse, where one posits over too broad an area to come up with (or create) "useful" connections sufficiently within the topic (or topics) where one has sufficient base information to work with.
So -- a balance is needed. Different individuals start out with different proclivities in mental ability. Some may be "over focused", and have negative effects of appearing overly rigid or even Obsessive-Compulsive. Others may be too scattered or too defocused, to the point of appearing (or feeling) spaced out). Depending on where individuals are *starting from*, and depending on what 'effect' they are striving for "at the moment" (i.e. the effect one strive for when taking a test, or working to beat some types of deadlines, might be different than the effect one wants in the evening or on weekends to 'calm down', and let the brain relax.
Shifts in desired effect are also variable based on 'life situation'. If you are injured, or laid up, you may not want to fee "driven to work", and thus end up frustrated when your injuries prevent you from working. However, if someone is feeling physically energized and not injured -- possibly based on a release from a winter 'S.A.D.D.'-period that left you feeling low, then many might feel a stronger desire to have mental clarity and focus to aid in some type of periodic and more intensive life-organization.
What *has* been shown, scientifically, about Cannabis -- is that when the user wants an effect of increased creativity -- if they are otherwise mentally clear, but their brain is overly in the 'busy'-b
A case study tells you nothing about prevalence in the community.
Your "1/4000" prevalence estimate dates back to 1960. You're going to have to do better than that. Especially because the prevalence of schizophrenia and schizophreniform disease in the community is around 1/100.
Vardy et al say The findings supported a model of LSD psychosis as a drug-induced schizophreniform reaction in persons vulnerable to both substance abuse and psychosis.. That is to say, among a vulnerable segment of the population, with disorders of GABA metabolism, many drugs can induce an above-average pseudo-delerium, and that these delerious states are indistinguishable from each other, and from schizophreniform disorders.
Soyka et al illustrate a high concordance between high dosages of alcohol and schizophrenia. Do we then assume, naively, that alcohol induces schizophrenia?
Soyka et plus al further indicate that schizophrenia and schizphreniform disease is associated with multifactorial drug use. LSD is not a primary or singular etiological agent here.
Goswami et al present a large body of evidence that people with schizophrenia or even family members with latent schizphreniform tendencies self medicate" in a manner usually considered polydrug abuse. Again, do you really think that the polydrugs are causing the GABA disarray in their cortexes?
To date, the only drugs that have been proven to induce schizophrenia in humans, and schizphrenia-like symptoms in lab animals, and to increase the symptoms of schizophrenia in people already afflicted with it are the NMDA receptor antagonists such as ketamine or PCP. These probably induce their chronic effects through an oxidative cascade. No similar mechanism has been presented, much less demonstrated, for any specific, putative effects of LSD on neural development.
Da Blog