Hacker News Reader

Comment by purerandomness | Hacker News Reader

Seeing a manager go this path, and seeing his productivity plummet, I'm pretty sure the productivity boost is merely perceived.

There was a story on HN with people trying to microdose on LSD, and the alleged benefits - long story short, when they asked peers about their performance, they noticed they're more distracted and not more productive, while those doing the microdosing thought they're on a super productive trip.

We notice this manager is in a constant state of "brain fog" to a point where his speech changed (like he's drunk), while I'm pretty sure he thinks he's a 10x machine and wouldn't be able to pull all of his workload off without drugs.

You get more sick days, you need more time to recharge, while thinking you're on your absolute productivity peak. And when you crash, you're basically unemployable / unproductive for 6 months to 1 year.

Not worth it IMHO.

View on HN

Microdosing LSD and taking adderall are going to have completely different effects. That’s a pretty apples to oranges comparison. I can’t imagine how any dose of LSD would ever increase productivity, but adderalls benefits as a stimulant are pretty well documented - you will be able to stay up and focused longer, although as you noted you may end up paying for it in other ways.

As someone who has both microdosed LSD and taken smal amts (<5 mg) of d-methamphetamine, LSD can certainly increase productivity. It’s a similar energy boost as any of the ‘phetamines, but without the classic linearity.

Note: to have an effective microdose you have to take a small amount. <=5ug. I tried 25ug and it was basically a super light trip (distinctive lsd body high and everything).

Anyway, for 98% of people microdosing won’t help productivity in the long run.

Edit: just to preempt the obvious questions, I’m talking about oral methamphetamine, I’ve never smoked it. Orally, d-meth is just objectively better than amphetamine (okay, that’s subjective, but the peripheral stimulation of, say, l-amphetamine is a huge negative)

I think this kind of goes with the idea that if you want to do something then you will do it. Drugs are not as simple as "If I take this pill it will make me do my homework I don't want to do.", but it makes you focus on whatever is really on your mind. I hear stories from people all the time that they will do whatever drug to help them get something done, but instead end up cleaning there house and such. If you really want to be working on what you are then the drugs will help you not to care about anything but that.

Is this manager still going this route? And do you think any of the microdosing (or other drug use) goes beyond the 10x productivity stuff? Could it be some of the tedium of programming work? Does it relieve any of that? I'm trying to determine too if all of the drug use in tech is really aimed at enhancing performance/productivity or if it's also used to stave off depression, anxiety or just that feeling so many of us have and have had that we're not doing anything particularly meaningful in our professional work. Peter was very depressed, so I understand why he did opioids, for sure. And he had an immense workload, so the amphetamines also make sense.

> I'm trying to determine too if all of the drug use in tech is really aimed at enhancing performance/productivity or if it's also used to stave off depression, anxiety or just that feeling so many of us have and have had that we're not doing anything particularly meaningful in our professional work.

This is a fascinating possibility, and apparently there's at least one researcher working on exactly that. [1][2]

On a much lesser level, I know this is a common reason for the divide between focus tips ("listen to white noise, silence, or wordless music to avoid distraction") and people's self-report techniques ("listening to intense EDM helps me code"). The goal isn't to avoid distraction, it's to break through tedium and help code longer without losing focus. I'd hardly be surprised if more intense things like LSD microdosing had similar effects.

Anecdotally, I know at least one very skilled programmer who insisted she couldn't work without marijuana. She didn't think THC did anything to raise her core abilities, but rather said that it stopped her from getting impatient or bored and let her work more methodically for longer.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-...

[2] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21507740.2014.990...

The emotional blocks to productivity are a very real phenomenon. I've only ever done this once, but I pushed through a really annoying emberjs refactor through Ballmer Peaking overnight.

I completely agree. When I'm unhappy with my productivity, part of my self-assessment involves taking a careful look at my emotional state and seeing if there's anything there that isn't compatible with the calm/attentive/enthusiastic/alert combination where I do my best work. And if I turn something up, I either switch tasks, take some time off, or try to resolve the impediment one way or another.

The referenced xkcd https://xkcd.com/323/

Ha! I was just noticing this recently, smoking a joint early in the day makes it easier for me to focus and way more productive.

Thanks for the links.

Stimulants are not free energy, that’s for sure - my impression is you get more done for 2 days, nothing done for 1 and less done for 2 days, making it a net loss of productivity. So they’re ultimately only useful in short spurts where haste is needed.

they're more like an energy loan, and you better believe there's interest.

I came to the same conclusion after taking modafinil daily for 5 months. I quit because I was getting completely drained by 7pm. I had to hit the bed as soon as I got home, and then slept for 10-12 hours straight. I did the arithmetic and it wasn't worth it. Supposedly, there isn't such thing as a "modafinil withdrawal," but I was nonfunctional for about 6 weeks after I left it cold turkey. Not only that, but because I wasn't aware there was a withdrawal phase, I thought my symptoms (not being able to wake up, narcolepsy, nausea) were an ominous sign of an underlying disease.

Taking modafinil daily, especially for that amount of time was not a wise move. It's a uniquely "safe" substance but even the most avowed users stress not to take it daily even if for nothing more to preserve perceived effectiveness.

Yikes, are the effects still lingering? Have you returned to baseline energy/focus?

That was four years ago, and I was back to my baseline self in about two months.

A month ago I was diagnosed with severe apnea, and since starting treatment I feel like a different person. I wonder whether the apnea was worsened by modafinil four years ago, and that was the reason for my constant wearing down. Maybe I'll do an experiment just to see, but I don't need stimulants anymore to be productive, not even coffee.

Isn't modafinil/stims a treatment for apnea?

I believe you're thinking of narcolepsy

as somebody diagnosed with adhd at older age and that is taking ritalin (legally) i would say it helps a lot. but im taking less then prescribed because i dont want to be dependent on it. i always wondered it the effect is stronger for somebody without adhd.

> i always wondered it the effect is stronger for somebody without adhd

i've wondered this myself. i often hear people say stuff like "people with real adhd can't get high from stims", but i suspect that some of this is just that people want to distance their legitimate use from those tweakers over there.

if there's any truth to it, i'd bet it comes down to the way the drug is used. when you take an extended release formulation (or instant release every n hours) regularly, you tend to have relatively stable blood concentrations of the drug (ie, you don't get "high"). recreational users, and also probably people who self medicate, will end up with peakier blood levels, which results in the perception of being "high". the concentration level over time can be an extremely important factor in how the drug ultimately affects you.

> "people with real adhd can't get high from stims", but i suspect that some of this is just that people want to distance their legitimate use from those tweakers over there.

I don't know if "High" is the right word. I've accidentally taken too much, and it makes me super impatient, which makes me kind of an asshole. I've also taken WAY too much on accident, and it just made me paranoid and think my heart was beating out of my chest.

I will say, being on a normal amount is kind of the best kind of high. Living with ADHD is like drowning, like you have these short moments of coming up for air and being productive, but quickly become distracted for everything else.

Being on the right amount, is like someone finally shut all the extra TVs off in the back of my brain. Like there's no challenge in determining the priority of what needs to be done. I feel human, not anxious, not depressed by my inability to remember where I put my keys 30 seconds ago. and thus, more productive.

Now I don't claim that my experience with ADHD is like another's, but this is my experience.

Thanks for the explanation, really good imagery. I hope you took some acidic vitamin C when you overdosed to kill the metabolism of amps.

I was prescribed too high of a dose of Adderall for ADHD once, and I had what could be described as a manic episode, with some mild hallucinogenic effects. I was awake for 36 hours straight without any fatigue, and my resting heart-rate was elevated by almost 20bpm.

It was terrifying enough that I don't think I'll ever abuse the stuff, but I can definitely believe that some people would like the feeling.

On the other hand, correctly dosed Focalin significantly reduces my symptoms (as in I go from being unable to complete a simple 5 sentence e-mail to being able to be mostly on-task). Avoiding all simple-carbs before noon significantly improves the efficacy of it as well for me (a traditional sugar/starch american breakfast would make me hypoglycemic around the middle of the day).

I think it’s the same for any drug that has the potential for abuse but is medicinal, such as opiates or cannabis.

When you have to take it day in, day out just to feel more normal, the dosage is either too low for pleasurable effects or tolerance negates them, and the side effects start to wear on you. Since it’s something you’re legitimately doing just to feel normal, but you inadvertently suffer from some of the drawbacks of drug addiction, ultimately you'd rather not be doing it.

Every study I've seen of Adderall (and amphetamine analogues like bupropion) says that it really does improve focus and productivity, even in non-ADHD users.

There are two big hurdles, granted (apart from side effects). One is how long-term toleration works - users report continued efficacy, while objective tests seem to suggest decreased sensitivity. Two is how amphetamines mix with intelligence; normal-IQ users appear to have unchanged or worsened performance on intelligence tests despite 'feeling smarter'. (The same goes for Modafinil.)

But neither of those things really challenge the core observation: in the short term, Adderall and similar substances improve attentiveness, focus/willpower, and probably memory.

They often aren't worth it, and non-medicinal use is often unsustainable. But if someone is showing up with "brain fog" and underperforming while feeling skilled, that really sounds like something else is up. Either a paradoxical reaction to the drug, or some substance other than core focus/'smart' drugs.

edit: I just looked, and paradoxical drowsiness is a known response some people have to amphetamines. I'd bet that the person you're describing has an atypical response to amphetamines.

> But if someone is showing up with "brain fog" and underperforming while feeling skilled, that really sounds like something else is up.

One of the things that sustained stimulant abuse contributes to is sleep deprivation and the disturbance of sleep patterns. "Brain fog" - confusion, problems concentrating, memory problems, are all symptoms of sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation experiments have also consistently produced psychotic symptoms (hallucinations, paranoia, disturbed/unusual thinking - the person undergoing the psychosis of course thinks they are doing fine) - the earliest experiment I am aware of being Randy Gardner's[1] in 1964. "Stimulant psychosis" is supposed to be one of the effects of amphetamine abuse; I think the psychosis is likely due to the sleep deprivation involved in multi-day binges.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gardner_(record_holder)

Wow never made this connection, very insightful observation.

IME the paradoxical response has more to do with tolerance. I’ve never met someone who sidn’t get stimmed out from amphetamines when they didn’t have a tolerance.

But if tou take them wirh a tolerance and your underlying physical body is fatigued, it becomes very, very easy to fall asleep (or worse, to be too stimmed to sleep but too tired to be productive)

> There was a story on HN with people trying to microdose on LSD, and the alleged benefits - long story short, when they asked peers about their performance, they noticed they're more distracted and not more productive, while those doing the microdosing thought they're on a super productive trip.

This aligns with my experience. Microdosing is good when you have physical tasks to do (i.e. running around town all day, reorganizing / cleaning your house), but focusing on creative tasks is harder.

Tbh, the only thing I'd recommend it for is for people struggling with chronic depression or anxiety - for these two, it can be a life-changingly effective "aspirin" (i.e. not a cure, you still need to fix the underlying causes) without the significant side-effects of traditional medication, and any lack of focus is massively offset by relieving the brain fog of depression/anxiety.

There was a book about systematic drug use in Nazi Germany called “Blitzed” that is worth reading.

Meth was extensively used in the German military and probably contributed to the victory over France. Basically to can stay awake and endure, but cognitive ability is impaired in some ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com