8 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] thread
Caffeine is an ubiquitous substance - so I wonder if these performance tests were done on people who had never used caffeine before, or at least use caffeine only rarely.

I'd assume the study would have told these people not to consume caffeine until they arrived at the study. If these people were regular caffeine users the positive effects could just be that the caffeine they were given alleviated the withdrawl symptoms of going without caffeine all day until the study.

I would like to believe this, but this feels like one of those conclusions that flip 180 degrees every few years, depending on who you ask. I have very little trust in nutritional science for these kinds of things.
Caffeine seems to help power through dull, repetitive tasks but also stifles creativity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20888549/

Sad that we live in a world where it seemingly needs to be so ubiquitous.

Got a source on the "stifling creativity" thing? I don't see anything about it in the abstract, and I don't particularly want to pay $36 to read the paper.
Interesting, thanks. That makes sense in retrospect and fits well with other research I'd heard of.

(tl;dr a wandering mind is good for creativity. Caffeine stimulates focus and inhibits mind wandering)

It's not quite a slam dunk though - the mind wandering is supposed to happen before the creative act. So I see no reason why going for a walk, then sitting down to write with a cup of coffee, should have any negative effects whatsoever.

>Emails suck. My newsletter doesn't

You know what sucks a million times more than any email? Big intrusive JavaScript overlays on top of content people are trying to read.

(comment deleted)