I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine.
I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag."
Compare to how these drugs are used in reality. Someone takes a drug a number of times and performs a mental task that they do frequently. They can get a lot of practice using a drug. Does a new computer make you more productive on day 1, or does it take a while to get used to it, even if you know it'll help in the long run?
The real problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect. Telling people "don't try study drugs, they don't even work!" backed up by questionable studies reminds me of DARE, telling people that marijuana will kill you.
Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress.
Sure. Tolerance builds up over extended use, so that’s one avenue. Another is knowing what causes bodily sensations. High caffeine for example can easily to nervousness if participants don’t know they got caffeine. Drugs like Ritalin can cause euphoria the first couple of times you use it. Ever drank alcohol? You have to learn to deal with that, the first time you’re drunk you are very different from the second time. And then we have the fact that they took random new puzzles; you study stuff you’ve already gone over in class, and study in a way you like.
Please don’t buy into any psychological research; there is a reason more than 2/3rd of all their research cannot even be replicated.
So I shouldn't buy into psychological research, but I should buy into a single person's theories with a sample size of zero and (I'm guessing) no pharmacological education?
I've had alcohol many times, and you know what it's nothing like? Ritalin.
It seems like a fairly reasonable study to me. I don't see how the study participants' possible lack of familiarity with the drugs diminishes the value of the data.
From the article: "Star performers during the placebo session fell to the bottom of the pack when they had taken the drugs."
That directly refutes your assertion they were doing a novel task for the first time.
Note that in addition to possibly having not experienced the drug before, they were given fairly high doses. Most therapeutic doses will start out with a small dose.
I'm not really arguing for or against drawing any particular conclusions from this paper. I just think it's an interesting study that gives further insight into a subject that could probably benefit from many more studies like it.
> The real problems with these drugs are addiction,
Not addictive.
> side effects,
Same as caffeine while active. Irritating comedown after.
> and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect.
Abstaining during weekends helps. The real problem is lack of sleep it can somewhat mask.
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides.
We already have it. It's called having good company and plenty of rest. The problem is not that we don't perform well in this environment, the problem is that we don't perform well IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.
If good company and plenty of rest solves the issue then the person doesn't really have ADHD. Even exercise itself is not enough for some poeple
Everyone responds differently to these medications. Some can become addicted or suicidal on one med while for others that same med can be a life changer
For about 30% of people these medications have no effect
I'm not saying sleep, exercise, and other psychotherapy aren't options but some people really benefit from medication
>I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag."
How do you propose then to isolate what may be the effect of the drug then vs the participant subconsciously trying to act out what they think the drug is supposed to make them do?
Don't think there's a very good way to carry out these studies, this is just a catch-22. Either the participants are aware, and their bias could affect the results, or they're unaware, and they don't use the drug as real people do.
I don't really see the point in this being a lab experiment, just test the results from actual people who use study drugs (not saying naturalistic experiments aren't biased in many ways too, but seems like a better option).
Its best to look at overall scientific consensus across multiple studies instead of a single study. Maybe there could be some causal factors that we didn't think of when looking at a specific study?
Personally I wouldn't want to isolate the effect of the drug from the effect of the participant knowing what the drug is supposed to do. If I am considering taking a study drug, I would know what it's supposed to do, right?
Compare to a less politically contentious human performance question, like, should a point guard do strength training to increase upper body strength? This is a topic where expert thinking has evolved during my lifetime. In the 80's many people thought that strength training would mess up shooting ability. Nowadays the consensus is that strength training is good, and that basically all NBA players should do it.
Nobody did studies where secretly one set of basketball players worked out and got stronger arms, and the other half did "placebo workouts" that didn't make them any stronger. It's just obviously impossible to do that sort of study. I think it's equally impossible to do a good study on Adderall with placebos. But we still learn over time, by having experts try out different things, analyze the results subjectively, and discuss and share the outcomes.
What I would like to see is making study drugs like Adderall and Modafinil legal, and for people to openly share their experiences, positive and negative. I think over time our society would learn from that and grow wiser, even if formal studies never quite worked.
Could you drink a pot of coffee every few hours and still be functional? Most people would get the jitters, if not feel like their heart would explode, but that’s basically the value proposition of Adderall or Vyvanse, minus the severe side effects.
Long term coffee usage builds dependency and is linked to “chronic insomnia, constant anxiety, depression, and stomach problems.”
Meanwhile tons of people legitimately prescribed ADHD stimulant medication use it every day without developing an addiction or any of the above symptoms.
As someone who does both… why make the comparison “a pot of coffee every few hours” versus just “drinking coffee every few hours.” Personally, I can’t drink coffee after 2pm.
Long-term coffee usage is just fine. It is actually protective. Same with ADHD meds. Fewer heart problems, actually, on average.
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides.
What's the closest we have today to an effective drug with "no real downsides", assuming that nutritional supplements don't count?
If such a drug exists, I want to know why the body hasn't evolved either to produce it by itself or to obtain the same effect in another way. (Possible answers include: it's something that would be very hard to synthesise in the body; the drug is only useful to humans in recent times; it was already present in people's diet until recently - but then I'd call it a "nutritional supplement" rather than a "drug"; it's only useful to people who have passed reproductive age - though such people may still have played a useful role in ancient societies.)
Not a mental drug. but simethicone has virtually no side effects. It relieves gas by lowering the surface tension of the bubbles in your gut (so you can burp them out easier). But I don't think there's enough evolutionary pressure for Good At Burping to become a favored human trait.
> If such a drug exists, I want to know why the body hasn't evolved either to produce it by itself or to obtain the same effect in another way
You're assuming evolution is perfect and that we have reached perfection already
Your question is also assuming that each drug impacts everyone the same way
Some people who take a certain psych med won't experience side effects, while others may experience severe side effects
E.g. most people who take Straterra experience benefits but some outliers may become extremely suicidal
I would say overall human science on drugs is primitive. I think to achieve what you are really thinking about will need a different overall approach to psych med development
I wouldn't overlook the potential for naturally found compounds either. Many indigenous peoples have or had vast knowledge on their pharmaceutical effects but often these were destroyed in genocides
AFIK the "main" use of study drugs is to be able to study longer not better.
General more studying isn't better the more you do it. You need to do it right and that involves having enough brakes to let your brain digest. In turn many situations where study drugs are used are such where the user already doesn't expect high efficiency.
I would argue that any situation where it's not uncommon for pre-university students to take study drugs are a fundamental failure of the education system/society. Often by a mixture of not properly teaching how to learn and also by forcing stupid forms of "homework" or "skill evaluation" which encourage bad learning practices and kill of any efficiency.
For university students the same should hold, the problem is that we have some areas where you will have problems getting around bad learning practices due to their nature. I believe with todays technology we could solve many of such problems (not even considering the new AI stuff) but in practice we have not. Anyway non of this applies to pre-university content.
EDIT: I disagree wrt. the caffein, it does hurt and has negative side effect on learning but as long as you don't compare quite long time periods without _any_ coffeine with coffein usage it's hard to notice.
That makes sense. My main experience with "study drugs" isn't in the academic system, it's with software engineers. It seems like the main effect isn't that they make you a much better programmer, it's that they make you much more able to keep programming for longer periods of time. Someone who normally gets distracted a lot and only gets a few hours of real work done in a day, maybe they would prefer to be able to spend 12 hours consecutively programming, even if it takes them down to 80% of their intellectual horsepower.
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress.
I can understand how people come to this conclusion.
Anecdotally, I know several people who regret ever using Adderall. To be fair, I also know a number of people who regret ever using caffeine. Compare to, for example, I don't think I know anyone who regrets taking Aleve for their headaches.
So I would categorize both Adderall and caffeine as "having some downsides". The main reason that I do support caffeine is that I know many people who happily drink coffee as part of their everyday life, and just a few who regret it, and I personally like to drink coffee. For Adderall my anecdotes are more mixed, closer to 70-30 against.
Obviously these are unscientific. I could be wrong. Perhaps in 50 years we will learn more and it will become clear that Adderall is good for the brain, or that caffeine is bad for it. But, right now, to me, the state of the science is such that I find it less convincing than anecdotes from my personal network.
Adderall also has addictive properties, so users develop tolerance and habituation, so hitting the correct dosage is quite a challenge, and a real downside in my opinion, given the consequences of over-use.
Also, 15mg of adderall XR is enough to get someone pretty high if they haven't developed a tolerance for it. 15 mg of Adderall IR is probably going to feel like doing meth for someone who's never done it
> I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine
> problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect
Caffeine is terrible on all these points. I built up such a tolerance in my late teens that I was consuming something like 1000mg/day. The withdrawals were awful when I quit.
Provided it uses all that additional brainpower effectively. Can we honestly say that currently all the smart people are realising their potential?
Also, could well be a curse instead. Imagine society only performing this well thanks to a steady supply of the stuff.
Actually, we already have that in the form of fossil fuels and while they enabled massive progress, their supply hinges on authoritarians having their way in some corners of the world.
We all project/assume based on the bubble we live in.
In my 18 years of in-house software dev experience (several countries, companies of different sizes), not once have I even heard (in the real world, not online) of people using any sort of drugs like the ones mentioned in the article.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. But based on my personal experience, I also could bet the opposite of what you're saying and feel just as confident.
I know some people who take party drugs. I know alcoholics. But coworkers who routinely take performance enhancing drugs other than caffeine at work, not one.
I guess it depends on your environment. Silicon Valley seems particularly prone to it.
I think this is something well-known among high-achievers at school, but I knew some people at school who would just spend 36 hours straight doing all their assignments and still get bad marks. It was always this way for me: work for a few hours, take a break, (maybe a walk, chat with friends/roommates), make some (healthy) food, then get back to it. Staying up never helps, because you have to sleep anyway, and getting poor sleep just makes you work poorly: you can always get something done in the morning. I guess in the end whats most important is time management, making sure you have time to get exercise, socialize, eat right, and get all your assignments in on time and study enough for exams.
Having a good cohort, I think, is also important. A lot of friends of mine got Summa Cum Laude, honors etc., ended up doing PhD work at top universities. We all had a very similar work ethic and we were constantly bouncing shit off each other and debating and going out and having fun. The idea that good work requires suffering is nonsense: good work is joyful and passionate. Good work is doing something you care about and find deeply compelling. Good work is always, in the end, something you think is good for yourself. I think as long as you remember that you'll be happy and satisfied with whatever you choose to do.
What you describe is what I imagined university to be like but found that people were quite lazy and amazed that I studied during the course and not all in the last 24h. Kind of made me leave academic life too early in a way I feel.
I've always been a sort of lazy high achiever and very puzzled about this.
I was always a near-top (but not top) student in schools, got a PhD and am now working in a high paying job in a bank. Besides one or two years during my university years, I've always been extremely lazy. On the other hand, in all of these institutions there have been many people who have been very serious hard workers and perhaps even at the time been ahead of me in whatever metrics the institution happened to use to measure success. However, over time I've noticed that these sort of things sort of even out. People who worked very hard in the high school or during my PhD are not more successful than me anymore.
I don't know if it's just that life is so random that the effect of hard work gets washed out by random life choices or what. It's also plausible that working hard just puts you in a very non-creative mindset and creativity is what gets most of the work done in a complex environment in the end.
For many people, hard work often seems to be an end to itself and it matters less to those people where the work is directed at. As a result, people end up working crazy hours doing stuff that could be done in one tenth of a time by using a bit of creativity or just waiting the problem to somehow become irrelevant.
You might just have higher IQ or whatever. Some people work hard because they can get 60% instead of 50%
and get more money than they would have got had they not worked hard. Your test score and profile is irrelevant to them.
My story is fairly similar to yours. I felt that I always had limited energy to really focus on the "important" things that turned somewhat boring after a while, and my peers who were able to keep going went further in academia. I got easily distracted by more "fun" problem solving and looking around rather than going really really deep in a given topic.
If only I had had that energy to go the extra mile, I could now be in temporary academic position in some city with worse quality of life making one third of the money they pay for coding. Oh well, sometimes you just have to take what life gives you I suppose.
How was going back? I'm assuming the field must be somewhat applied? I did theory, and once you leave there's just no going back. I still try to keep up with the more fun stuff occasionally, because it is indeed much more interesting.
> I don't know if it's just that life is so random that the effect of hard work gets washed out by random life choices or what. It's also plausible that working hard just puts you in a very non-creative mindset and creativity is what gets most of the work done in a complex environment in the end.
Don't overestimate how much actual work is getting done by "hard working" people. They put in the time, but procrastination doesn't stop just because you work hard. And that certainly includes the types of "productive" procrastination that doesn't look/feel like procrastination, like making Figures/Powerpoints more pretty or doing another rewrite on a piece of text nobody is ever going to do more with than glance at.
Seriously, otherwise intelligent people can spent an hour re-writing a single email.
I was kind of lazy in my studies, and hated being teached several times the same things and most of the stuff we were doing was mostly theoric. Once I ended up in the workplace it felt to me my actual work had more value and I naturally put more energy to it and got more successes. And the same thing happen between different kind of companies. When I work for private companies whose products/services do not mean anything to me and where I feel the main goal is to satisfy shareholders, I have less motivation and energy than for instance when I was working for a public hospital. Some people don't care and their ultimate reward is the paycheck, some people want their work to have a meaning and a real value.
I want to echo this because you had other replies agreeing and I feel that my anecdotal experience of this might actually have meaning. I was extremely lazy through school and college and was usually at or near the top of every class until I hit some point where lazy could no longer cut it. But that just narrowed subjects down until I was able to be very lazy at uni and still do well. If I hadn't had a couple of incidents (bike accident and unrelated health issue) I probably would have scored a higher degree and been motivated to stay in academia. In work I feel like I've drifted into roles that are fantastic compared to my friends at school + uni who worked really hard, and I expected the opposite to happen.
The moment that comes back to me particularly is when I visited a friend who was doing an astrophysics degree at another uni in their 2nd year. I attended the lectures with her and my casual knowledge from reading on the subject had covered what they were learning. I thought it was interesting and followed along just fine. Talking with her and her group of friends afterwards, they were really struggling. Thing is, although she was a really hard worker, she didn't have much interest in the subject. She just chose it because she did well in physics at school. She only did OK, so a middling degree in astrophysics setting up well for a career in admin.
I grew up poor and didn't have access to parents, so I had to figure out things on my own, by trial and error, unfortunately. And, it took me 40 years to figure out that basic lifestyle improvements could help a lot.
I'm curious about how that would play out, too. That's the reason this article is interesting, IMO...the questions it made me think about regarding these drugs.
Yeah, I can't imagine being asked to take a huge dose of a new stimulant and then do anything under pressure like that. A common ADHD tip is that if your meds aren't quite doing it for you, try a lower dose before you try a higher dose. And that's among people who take these drugs regularly and are wired to respond well to them.
> Popping stimulants is commonplace in industries like software and finance. One survey of 6,500 American college students reported that 14% had used the drugs for non-medical reasons.
I have never met anyone taking such drugs (I'm French, not American) and would put my kids through hell if I ever found out they took anything. I'd rather they drop out of school than do any of this.
State dependent learning is a legitimate phenomenon.
This study didn’t test those who regularly took cognitive enhancers
It just looked at people who were not ADHD and then gave them a drug
No time to adjust or adapt
Would have liked to see four populations tested.
Then do the tests with placebos and cognitive enhancers
If you study for a test on medication you better take the test on medication.
And if you study unmedicated, you better take the test unmedicated
I think they should find “non-ADHD” populations who happen to routinely take cognitive enhancers and then perform the same test.
Would be willing to bet that there is an improvement over placebo group vs medicated group in this population
If coffee and nicotine are effective cognitive enhancers for general populations, regardless of ADHD or not, it’s silly to think that stimulants like amphetamines are ineffective
So the research conclusions are flimsy and incomplete
82 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] threadI don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag."
Compare to how these drugs are used in reality. Someone takes a drug a number of times and performs a mental task that they do frequently. They can get a lot of practice using a drug. Does a new computer make you more productive on day 1, or does it take a while to get used to it, even if you know it'll help in the long run?
The real problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect. Telling people "don't try study drugs, they don't even work!" backed up by questionable studies reminds me of DARE, telling people that marijuana will kill you.
Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress.
That's a very far-fetched claim. Do you have any evidence other than personal anecdotes?
It doesn't fit with anything I've ever read or experienced with these drugs.
Please don’t buy into any psychological research; there is a reason more than 2/3rd of all their research cannot even be replicated.
I've had alcohol many times, and you know what it's nothing like? Ritalin.
From the article: "Star performers during the placebo session fell to the bottom of the pack when they had taken the drugs."
That directly refutes your assertion they were doing a novel task for the first time.
You’ll have plenty of words to share! Probably a TON the first day, especially.
> The real problems with these drugs are addiction,
Not addictive.
> side effects,
Same as caffeine while active. Irritating comedown after.
> and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect.
Abstaining during weekends helps. The real problem is lack of sleep it can somewhat mask.
> Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides.
We already have it. It's called having good company and plenty of rest. The problem is not that we don't perform well in this environment, the problem is that we don't perform well IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.
And then we search for hacks.
What comedown feelings did you experience?
I noticed considerable difference splitting 200mg pills in two and waiting a while before consuming the second half when I used it years back.
Everyone responds differently to these medications. Some can become addicted or suicidal on one med while for others that same med can be a life changer
For about 30% of people these medications have no effect
I'm not saying sleep, exercise, and other psychotherapy aren't options but some people really benefit from medication
How do you propose then to isolate what may be the effect of the drug then vs the participant subconsciously trying to act out what they think the drug is supposed to make them do?
I don't really see the point in this being a lab experiment, just test the results from actual people who use study drugs (not saying naturalistic experiments aren't biased in many ways too, but seems like a better option).
Compare to a less politically contentious human performance question, like, should a point guard do strength training to increase upper body strength? This is a topic where expert thinking has evolved during my lifetime. In the 80's many people thought that strength training would mess up shooting ability. Nowadays the consensus is that strength training is good, and that basically all NBA players should do it.
Nobody did studies where secretly one set of basketball players worked out and got stronger arms, and the other half did "placebo workouts" that didn't make them any stronger. It's just obviously impossible to do that sort of study. I think it's equally impossible to do a good study on Adderall with placebos. But we still learn over time, by having experts try out different things, analyze the results subjectively, and discuss and share the outcomes.
What I would like to see is making study drugs like Adderall and Modafinil legal, and for people to openly share their experiences, positive and negative. I think over time our society would learn from that and grow wiser, even if formal studies never quite worked.
Coffee.
And to your main point, if you took people who’d never drink coffee before and gave them a caffeine pill, guaranteed they’d perform worse.
Long term coffee usage builds dependency and is linked to “chronic insomnia, constant anxiety, depression, and stomach problems.”
Meanwhile tons of people legitimately prescribed ADHD stimulant medication use it every day without developing an addiction or any of the above symptoms.
Long-term coffee usage is just fine. It is actually protective. Same with ADHD meds. Fewer heart problems, actually, on average.
What's the closest we have today to an effective drug with "no real downsides", assuming that nutritional supplements don't count?
If such a drug exists, I want to know why the body hasn't evolved either to produce it by itself or to obtain the same effect in another way. (Possible answers include: it's something that would be very hard to synthesise in the body; the drug is only useful to humans in recent times; it was already present in people's diet until recently - but then I'd call it a "nutritional supplement" rather than a "drug"; it's only useful to people who have passed reproductive age - though such people may still have played a useful role in ancient societies.)
You're assuming evolution is perfect and that we have reached perfection already
Your question is also assuming that each drug impacts everyone the same way
Some people who take a certain psych med won't experience side effects, while others may experience severe side effects
E.g. most people who take Straterra experience benefits but some outliers may become extremely suicidal
I would say overall human science on drugs is primitive. I think to achieve what you are really thinking about will need a different overall approach to psych med development
I wouldn't overlook the potential for naturally found compounds either. Many indigenous peoples have or had vast knowledge on their pharmaceutical effects but often these were destroyed in genocides
General more studying isn't better the more you do it. You need to do it right and that involves having enough brakes to let your brain digest. In turn many situations where study drugs are used are such where the user already doesn't expect high efficiency.
I would argue that any situation where it's not uncommon for pre-university students to take study drugs are a fundamental failure of the education system/society. Often by a mixture of not properly teaching how to learn and also by forcing stupid forms of "homework" or "skill evaluation" which encourage bad learning practices and kill of any efficiency.
For university students the same should hold, the problem is that we have some areas where you will have problems getting around bad learning practices due to their nature. I believe with todays technology we could solve many of such problems (not even considering the new AI stuff) but in practice we have not. Anyway non of this applies to pre-university content.
EDIT: I disagree wrt. the caffein, it does hurt and has negative side effect on learning but as long as you don't compare quite long time periods without _any_ coffeine with coffein usage it's hard to notice.
Adderall (correctly dosed) is precisely this.
Anecdotally, I know several people who regret ever using Adderall. To be fair, I also know a number of people who regret ever using caffeine. Compare to, for example, I don't think I know anyone who regrets taking Aleve for their headaches.
So I would categorize both Adderall and caffeine as "having some downsides". The main reason that I do support caffeine is that I know many people who happily drink coffee as part of their everyday life, and just a few who regret it, and I personally like to drink coffee. For Adderall my anecdotes are more mixed, closer to 70-30 against.
Obviously these are unscientific. I could be wrong. Perhaps in 50 years we will learn more and it will become clear that Adderall is good for the brain, or that caffeine is bad for it. But, right now, to me, the state of the science is such that I find it less convincing than anecdotes from my personal network.
> problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect
Caffeine is terrible on all these points. I built up such a tolerance in my late teens that I was consuming something like 1000mg/day. The withdrawals were awful when I quit.
Provided it uses all that additional brainpower effectively. Can we honestly say that currently all the smart people are realising their potential?
Also, could well be a curse instead. Imagine society only performing this well thanks to a steady supply of the stuff.
Actually, we already have that in the form of fossil fuels and while they enabled massive progress, their supply hinges on authoritarians having their way in some corners of the world.
It would be an interesting study, though.
In my 18 years of in-house software dev experience (several countries, companies of different sizes), not once have I even heard (in the real world, not online) of people using any sort of drugs like the ones mentioned in the article.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. But based on my personal experience, I also could bet the opposite of what you're saying and feel just as confident.
Doubly so if they're taking them illegally
I guess it depends on your environment. Silicon Valley seems particularly prone to it.
Having a good cohort, I think, is also important. A lot of friends of mine got Summa Cum Laude, honors etc., ended up doing PhD work at top universities. We all had a very similar work ethic and we were constantly bouncing shit off each other and debating and going out and having fun. The idea that good work requires suffering is nonsense: good work is joyful and passionate. Good work is doing something you care about and find deeply compelling. Good work is always, in the end, something you think is good for yourself. I think as long as you remember that you'll be happy and satisfied with whatever you choose to do.
I was always a near-top (but not top) student in schools, got a PhD and am now working in a high paying job in a bank. Besides one or two years during my university years, I've always been extremely lazy. On the other hand, in all of these institutions there have been many people who have been very serious hard workers and perhaps even at the time been ahead of me in whatever metrics the institution happened to use to measure success. However, over time I've noticed that these sort of things sort of even out. People who worked very hard in the high school or during my PhD are not more successful than me anymore.
I don't know if it's just that life is so random that the effect of hard work gets washed out by random life choices or what. It's also plausible that working hard just puts you in a very non-creative mindset and creativity is what gets most of the work done in a complex environment in the end.
For many people, hard work often seems to be an end to itself and it matters less to those people where the work is directed at. As a result, people end up working crazy hours doing stuff that could be done in one tenth of a time by using a bit of creativity or just waiting the problem to somehow become irrelevant.
If only I had had that energy to go the extra mile, I could now be in temporary academic position in some city with worse quality of life making one third of the money they pay for coding. Oh well, sometimes you just have to take what life gives you I suppose.
Don't overestimate how much actual work is getting done by "hard working" people. They put in the time, but procrastination doesn't stop just because you work hard. And that certainly includes the types of "productive" procrastination that doesn't look/feel like procrastination, like making Figures/Powerpoints more pretty or doing another rewrite on a piece of text nobody is ever going to do more with than glance at.
Seriously, otherwise intelligent people can spent an hour re-writing a single email.
I was kind of lazy in my studies, and hated being teached several times the same things and most of the stuff we were doing was mostly theoric. Once I ended up in the workplace it felt to me my actual work had more value and I naturally put more energy to it and got more successes. And the same thing happen between different kind of companies. When I work for private companies whose products/services do not mean anything to me and where I feel the main goal is to satisfy shareholders, I have less motivation and energy than for instance when I was working for a public hospital. Some people don't care and their ultimate reward is the paycheck, some people want their work to have a meaning and a real value.
The moment that comes back to me particularly is when I visited a friend who was doing an astrophysics degree at another uni in their 2nd year. I attended the lectures with her and my casual knowledge from reading on the subject had covered what they were learning. I thought it was interesting and followed along just fine. Talking with her and her group of friends afterwards, they were really struggling. Thing is, although she was a really hard worker, she didn't have much interest in the subject. She just chose it because she did well in physics at school. She only did OK, so a middling degree in astrophysics setting up well for a career in admin.
I grew up poor and didn't have access to parents, so I had to figure out things on my own, by trial and error, unfortunately. And, it took me 40 years to figure out that basic lifestyle improvements could help a lot.
They don't begin to compare in effect.
The study agrees with you =)
Study participants were high.
Slanted reporting by the Economist, not even linking to the paper.
Or even "prescription medication that effects brain not always helpful for people who don't need it"
Anecdotal evidence but my problem solving was good before medication and better now that I have the right medication.
I have never met anyone taking such drugs (I'm French, not American) and would put my kids through hell if I ever found out they took anything. I'd rather they drop out of school than do any of this.
That said... does 14% qualify as "commonplace"?
State dependent learning is a legitimate phenomenon.
This study didn’t test those who regularly took cognitive enhancers It just looked at people who were not ADHD and then gave them a drug No time to adjust or adapt Would have liked to see four populations tested.
1. unmedicated ADHD 2. medicated ADHD 3. Unmedicated non-ADHD 4. Medicated Non-ADHD
Then do the tests with placebos and cognitive enhancers
If you study for a test on medication you better take the test on medication.
And if you study unmedicated, you better take the test unmedicated I think they should find “non-ADHD” populations who happen to routinely take cognitive enhancers and then perform the same test.
Would be willing to bet that there is an improvement over placebo group vs medicated group in this population
If coffee and nicotine are effective cognitive enhancers for general populations, regardless of ADHD or not, it’s silly to think that stimulants like amphetamines are ineffective
So the research conclusions are flimsy and incomplete