Comment by Nooance | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nooance | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I won't deny that being on HN gives publicity — but the request for advice is genuine. There's a lot of knowledge and experience in this community, and a much higher degree of civility and helpfulness than most places on the internet.

As for prominent people using nootropics:

Astronauts on the ISS use Modafinil and Melatonin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_medicine

There's some indication that President Obama might be using Modafinil, but the evidence is a little thin. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/03/04/the-white-h...

Dave Asprey, from the bulletproof executive uses Modafinil. https://www.bulletproofexec.com/why-you-are-suffering-from-a...

Tim Ferris from the four hour workweek uses racetams/choline. (Can dig up a source if you're interested)

Soylent's new Coffiest contains the classic Caffeine+L-Theanine combination.

Peter Thiel takes human growth hormone — although more for longevity than nootropic effect. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-18/investor-p...

As for why not more smart people tout their use: why would they tell the world? There's no value in it to them, and there's a lot of stigma around using "chemicals" when someone isn't ill.

Not to mention countless people that use Caffeine. I know of a number of smart people that use stimulants like Adderall but they probably aren't publicly open about it.

Ridiculous is the culture that advocates taking Adderall to get ahead. You should encourage these smart people to stop doing stupid things.

Hmm, it's mixed. Yes, a culture that would force people to take Adderall would be bad (what about Caffeine though?). But there's nothing inherently wrong with giving people the tools that let them choose their own mindstate. If I want to focus, but it's not working, why would it be a problem to take something that helps you focus? How is it different from practicing meditation, or wearing noise-cancelling headphones, ceteris paribus?

And yeah, it might very well be that ceteris non paribus, but that's case-specific, and doesn't mean that giving people tools and options stops being good.

Well a large number of people have ADHD or are close to having it. Certainly it benefits those people. The benefits for the average person may not outweigh the downsides, but that's up to them to determine. I've also heard lots of people use modafinil which I think is similar.

It's not stupid or ridiculous. If a drug benefits a person then what's the problem? Certainly improving focus or intelligence is a much nobler act than people who do drugs for fun. A pervasive and semi-legal part of our culture.

That's a libratarian-type POV I can respect but don't agree with (as far as using prescription drugs illegally). It would be a separate issue to discuss.

But a culture that's accepting of drug use for enhanced cognition is stupid (reckless is a better word). It'd be no different than performance enhancing drugs in sports. You've got a situation there where people feel uncompetitive without drugs. You don't want that in the workplace.

Well imagine the economy was based on sports. And people who weren't very strong were poor and had to exercise twice as much. Such a world would be terribly unfair, and then of course we should give people performance enhancing drugs. Or at least the weakest.

But it's more than that. The world isn't a zero sum game like sports. One person winning doesn't mean someone else has to lose. I think the world would be much better off if we could increase the IQ and focus of everyone. So much stuff doesn't get done, so many people don't reach their potential, and the whole worlds productivity is much lower than it could be.

If shit drugs like alcohol, which causes tons of deaths, or nicotine, which is incredibly addictive, are legal, then why shouldn't much less dangerous, actually beneficial drugs be legal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com