My dalliance with smart drugs - and the lesson I learned
johannhari.com
johannhari.com
It also increases dopamine and norepinephrine activity in certain areas of the brain, similar to Adderall and Ritalin, so it will boost your concentration. It actually showed a positive effect on concentration in ADHD treatment trials, but the FDA declined to approve it for that purpose due to some concerns over a rare skin-rash disorder. Many people are under the misconception that it is not a stimulant, but it most certainly is.
As for controlled, double-blind trials, the results are not promising in non-sleep-deprived individuals. Controlled tests tend to show self-reported increases in restlessness, aggression, and anxiety, but the standardized cognitive and memory tests show very little, if any, improvement in the Modafinil groups. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672167 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738750 for more).
Finally, don't try to import Modafinil (Provigil) into the US without a prescription. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance and the legal ramifications for importing a controlled substance can be serious. If you're still eager to try it outside of a doctor's supervision, which I definitely do not recommend, then know that Adrafinil is metabolized (partly) to Modafinil within the body but is not a controlled substance. Importing it is a still a gray area, though.
Bottom line: Getting a healthy amount of sleep should be your #1 goal for cognitive improvement. If that isn't actually possible, then Modafinil could be helpful for reversing the effects of sleep deprivation. If concentration is your problem, Modafinil may help you, but you'd probably be better off pursuing proper ADHD treatment with a medication approved for ADHD.
It's amazing how many people are quick to self-diagnose ADHD, but have no problem spending hours on their hobbies or interesting projects. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the coding community who never has problems concentrating on uninteresting projects.
The term shows 0 results on PubMed, a repository for studies, journals, and other biomedical literature. (Note: If you search for 'hyperfocus' it will give you results for 'hypertonus' because the original term returned no results)
And finally, the Wikipedia article is heavily flagged with 'Original Research' and 'Unverifiable/Biased Information' tags, and is also flagged for not having any real sources or citations.
I know the term 'hyperfocus' has worked its way into pop-psychology lately, but I've never been able to find reliable research supporting the claim. I am a bit wary of how easily it stretches the definition of ADHD to encompass just about every person I've ever worked with. After all, who wouldn't identify with the idea that they can 'hyperfocus' on video games or fun projects, but have difficulty concentrating on difficult or uninteresting work? Very slippery slope here.
1. The DSM only defines mental illness so that it can be diagnosed. For instance, it doesn't say "prescribe drugs x, y, and z for ADHD". If the DSM doesn't include hyperfocus, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means it isn't a diagnostic criteria.
2. How much research can you find proving that depression makes people sad or that ADHD makes people unable to pay attention? Do chemists do research on how wet water is? Remember, ADHD is one of the most well-known mental disorders out there. Doctors have been treating it with stimulants for over 70 years. If you can't find research on the subject, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that there's not really any new ground to be broken in the area.
That said, hyperfocus is well known among Psychiatrists and Psychologists. It's just like the other symptoms: pathological versions of normal behaviors. A normal person can put down video games long enough to go to school or work. I can't without medication.
Some additional "been there, done that" comments: if you try drugs, give them time to work. If you trying different drugs, give them time to leave your system. Know that some side-effects are temporary, but each person may respond differently. You may need to try a few different drugs.
If you honestly think you have a real cognitive or neurological problem, keep pushing for help and don't give up.
Having ADHD doesn't mean you can't focus, it means you can't control what you're able to focus on. Non ADHD people can make themselves focus on boring things when they have to, ADHD people find this anywhere from extremely difficult to impossible.
Here's a much better article about actual smart drugs (http://sites.google.com/site/thinkinginanutshell/nootropics), and its HN discussion (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211959). Sorting them in terms of risk & body load is a good idea, I think. He's not kidding when he says vaso-/desmopressin messes with homeostasis.
The racetams (piracetam, aniracetam, oxiracetam, etc.) are probably the least risky, though I've had the best long-term effects from getting enough sleep and exercise, eating reasonably well, and not spiking and crashing on caffeine all the time. If you want to try nootropics, be informed and careful, and address the obvious factors that may be messing with your concentration first. (For me it was sleep debt and too much caffeine.)
Serious question, not trying to sound flippant.
IIRC, the exact mechanism for piracetam isn't fully understood either (something involving acetylcholine) - they decided to create the "nootropic" designation for it rather than classify it as a stimulant. The general consensus is that it's safe (no known LD-50, relatively mild side-effects) and makes orange juice taste horrible.
Its mode of action isn't identical to that of Adderall (amphetamine) and Ritalin (methylphenidate) but then again neither is that of caffeine, but it is still a stimulant. Adderall and Ritalin increase extra-cellular concentrations of dopamine and norepinephrine. Modafinil has been shown in many studies to elevate dopamine and norepinephrine concentrations in certain regions of the brain. It may not accomplish this as directly as Ritalin or Adderall, but the effect is there. There are additional glutamate-enhancing and GABA-reducing effects to Modafinil as well, which is perhaps where the "Modafinil is not a stimulant" misconception comes from. Still, administering a dopamine antagonist diminishes some of Modafinil's effects, much in the same way it diminishes the effects of Adderall or Ritalin.
But even without delving into the pharmacology of Modafinil, how you can you possibly not call Modafinil a stimulant? It promotes wakefulness, increases concentration, and substitutes for Adderall and Ritalin in narcolepsy treatment. It is also a Schedule IV controlled substance (FYI, do not attempt to import a controlled substance, but Adrafanil is a Modafinil precursor and is not scheduled.) indicating there is even a risk of abuse.
From the prescribing information:
In addition to its wake-promoting effects and ability to increase locomotor activity in animals, modafinil produces psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood, perception, thinking, and feelings typical of other CNS stimulants in humans. Modafinil has reinforcing properties, as evidenced by its self-administration in monkeys previously trained to self-administer cocaine. Modafinil was also partially discriminated as stimulant-like.
And from the safety information label:
PROVIGIL is a Schedule IV drug. PROVIGIL produces psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood, perception, thinking and feelings typical of other CNS stimulants. Physicians should follow patients closely, especially those with a history of drug and/or stimulant abuse.
Modafinil feels very different from the legal speeds, crank, coke, or other heavy stimulants... not that I know that from experience or anything. Just from reading posts on HN and Slashdot and shit. And movies. And ex-girlfriends. And doing drugs. Oh wait.
So I don't sound like I'm in love with modafinil: I have seen a person react unfavorably on it, although I can't be certain it was the modafinil that caused the unfavorable reaction. I have not had any side effects I can tell. Besides the new hairs on the tip of my nose and severe tooth vibrations. [Just kidding, obv.]
It has its place, and it just helped me on a trip to China considerably.
Modafinil is not a typical stimulant, but it provides stimulation, increases brain activity, increases self-reported measures of aggression, restlessness, and anxiety in double-blind testing, is a controlled substance with recognized abuse potential, and many of the stimulating effects are blocked by the same drugs that block the effects of stimulants.
Cephalon marketing is probably eager to get away and "stimulant" moniker, but this is an argument over semantics rather than pharmacology.
Modafinil is, by all measures and effects, a stimulant.
The Physician's Drug Reference (PDR) is the last word on this, legally. That is why I keep saying it is not a stimulant. It isn't until the PDR says it is, to any medical professional.
I have taken a lot of Provigil, and I understand why it has not been classified a stimulant. It does not have the physical effects of other stimulants.
With the education and intelligence level being so high here on HN, I'm surprised to see inaccurate information being posited so confidently. It is NOT medically correct, and I'm not sure what the value of the non-medically correct "definition" of stimulant you are giving is supposed to be.
The following is taken directly from the FDA's website for Modafinil ( http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/020... ). This information is also included in the product information sheet you receive with your prescription, and on the Provigil website. To say that Modafinil does not have the physical effects of other stimulants is not true. They are present to a lesser degree, but still exist.
In addition to its wake-promoting effects and ability to
increase locomotor activity in animals, modafinil produces
psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood,
perception, thinking, and feelings typical of other CNS
stimulants in humans. Modafinil has reinforcing properties,
as evidenced by its self-administration in monkeys previously
trained to self-administer cocaine. Modafinil was also
partially discriminated as stimulant-like.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_syndrome
Modafinil has been a help to me while stimulants have NOT been. I have a lot of experience with both, as I have talked about in various posts on this thread.
The difference between "stimulant" and "stimulant-like" is both small and vast. Think Uncanny Valley. "Human" and "human-like..."
Also, I am unsure what point you are trying to argue. I will give you stimulant-like, sure, although it does not make your heart race, a MAJOR PROBLEM with stimulants.
The FDA info you quote DOES NOT CALL MODAFINIL A STIMULANT!
I'm going to step out of this debate, as arguing semantics only detracts from the topic at hand at this point.
http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/43394-nootropics-thread-i...
Also read: Ten months of research condensed - A total newbies guide to nootropics: http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/36691-ten-months-of-resea...
Choline + Piracetam + Melatonin are what I use. All are 100% legal, nonprescription, effective and safe (according to all scientific research so far).
Routine exercise has been shown repeatedly to provide tremendous gains to mental cognition. Get yourself to a baseline that includes daily cardiac exercise before jumping into the great chemical unknown.
I have tried both adrafinil (legal/unregulated in USA, metabolized in vivo to modafinil) and armodafinil. The best way I could describe them is that they provide the wakefulness provided by caffeine, without the attention deficit hyperactivity. While they are certainly both interesting and effective, cost is prohibitive.
Stay away from amphetamines. Regardless of the potential for physical dependence, you will rapidly develop a mental dependency on them. For a short while I had a prescription for ritalin and adderall (stopped taking them on my own accord)and can admit that they made me feel superhuman. However, they also provide a hellish overconfidence that can cripple you. I was not more creative and was ironically less focused upon the important aspects of my work. Information triage is far more difficult when everything in the world suddenly becomes worth of intense study.
And: Don't underestimate the short-term effects of caffeine withdrawl (and daily rituals). They're probably waking up mentally at -2 cups of coffee. Caffeine use seems to be more beneficial when used in small quantities over the day (a thermos of green tea* , slightly-caffeinated candy every hour or two, etc.) rather than spiking levels first thing in the morning.
* And there's an amino acid in green tea, l-theanine, that seems to cancel out some of the jitteriness.
> "smart drugs" is more of a catch-all
So which is it? It seems to me (and you apparently) that the term "smart drugs" is rightly a catch-all for anything that can enhance mental performance, including stimulants. So the original article used the term correctly and this part of your earlier criticism doesn't make sense.
Every couple months a post comes up on HN about nootropics, and within a few hours it typically gets derailed by comments about how taking speed is totally awesome. I try to remind people that 1) amphetamines are not "smart drugs", they have pretty nasty side effects and are generally unsustainable, 2) if taking nootropics (or any other drugs) it's a good idea to do research first, and HN doesn't count, 3) some are much less risky than others, and 4) they'll probably get more benefits from getting enough sleep and exercise, if they aren't already.
I know Ritalin is helpful for some people.
My best tips if you're going to use this drug is:
1) Take a very small dose. 50mg (taken around 8 or 9) is usually more than enough to get me through the day. Occasionally I used to take a 25mg bump in the early afternoon which carried over the hyper feeling into the early evening.
2) Try it out on a day when you're by yourself first, so you understand how it changes your perception of the world, because it does alter your perception. You might be quicker to make decisions or react to things, and you need to understand this and compensate for it before you interact with other people. If you can't be alone, at least tell your partner about it so they understand that you might behave slightly differently over that period (possibly more aggressively...).
3) The best way to make the most of it, for me, has been to prepare a solid list of big items that I want to get through before I take it, so I don't have to think about what to do next. Modafinil allows you to focus really well on whatever it is you decide to do, but it really doesn't help your executive ability (i.e. deciding what to do). I did once find myself having a really solid, focused, deep, 6-hour session of World of Warcraft. Don't give yourself too much opportunity to wander, or you'll find yourself doing anything that comes to your mind (whether that's reading a book, cleaning the kitchen, reorganising your office, or actually doing some productive work). Best to decide ahead of time so you don't fall into that trap.
2) Totally agree. See #1, but I definitely look back at some interactions-while-on-100mg (super judgmental, aggressive) and think that I would have handled them better if not on modafinil. Interactions with my wife/kids can suffer.
3) Definitely. Taking modafinil without a plan leads to reading every article on Hacker News.
Generally, I consider modafinil to be a tool. As when using a hammer, I don't look to accomplish tasks that don't benefit from the tool.
In my second year in university one of my teachers suggested to me I might be dyslexic and later I found a professor in an university hospital who deals with ADD and dyslexia in younger patients. She suggested to me Ritalin and then concerta which I didn't want to use then, after school when I really needed the 6-7 hour coding marathons for the projects I'm working on I strated using concerta and ritalin here is my experience.
1. My concentration is longer and more productive, the urge to continuously get up and do something else is gone. 2. As far as 3 years go I had no noticeable side effects, I asked my doctor about it and he told me methylfenidaat hydroclorine which is the active ingredient in both drugs is considered to safe and no long term effect are observed to date(about 20 years or so) 3. The drugs do not cause addiction because I had periods without the drugs one 6 months one three months just to prove myself I can do without them so far both were uneventful Except I went back to my old self. 4. My IQ or creativity seems unaffected by the drug I'm always the same. 5. I was forgetting little things my keys wallet phone back then after the drugs I don't. 6. If I forget to take the drug my wife or colleagues ask me If I forgot to take my pills today, so the difference is noticeable from the outside. 7. Both drugs are strictly controlled substances in Turkey so I have to struggle with bureaucracy every month for refills, renewals.
Thanks for reading If you have any question I'll try to check the comments later.
or a 10mg ritalin which keeps the effect about 5 hours or so so I can take another if it will be a long nigth, taking concerta in the nigth is not a good idea because you will burn out and wont be able to sleep if you decide to.
Concerta is a small container with a laser drilled hole and a constant delivery mechanism for 12 hours or so and ritalin is bumpier on the dosage but concerta is more expensive about 120$ in Turkey for a month worth refill where ritalin is only 20$ for a month excluding the doctors fee which is 150$ so it costs around 200$ for a month and no insurance scheme covers it.
Always in moderation of course. I couldn't imagine speeding every work day just to finish projects
edit: Found http://www.unitedpharmacies.co.uk/product.php?productid=973&... and placed a small order with a throwaway credit card, will see if that arrives in the next 7-14 days as promised. Would still like any recomendations, though.
They have not defrauded the cards I used and the stuff they delivered was, as far as I could tell, real (both from the packaging and from the effects).
I ordered the Alertec from those guys quite a few times, and it always arrived without any issues. There's a slightly fussy initial sign-up procedure which involves sending them a fax, but beyond that I've had no problems.
(I assume I'm right in thinking there's no advantage to Provigil over Alertec?)
If you do try these, I would be interested in hearing how they compare to the Alertec.
Personally, I'm at least in one of the groups, since I can eat asparagus without any apparent misfortunes in smell.
It's worth noting that the "retail price" from the original pharmacy is stamped on the packaging. It's in Indian rupees, but it comes out to something like £1.50 per 10.. so they're still making a nice markup.
In 2007, the FDA ordered Cephalon to modify the Provigil leaflet in bold-face print of several serious and potentially fatal conditions attributed to modafinil use, including TEN, DRESS syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS). The long term safety and effectiveness of modafinil has not been determined.
Webmd:http://bit.ly/9dSAg6 Headache, nausea, nervousness, anxiety, dizziness, and difficulty sleeping may occur. If any of these effects persist or worsen, notify your doctor or pharmacist promptly.
Tell your doctor immediately if any of these rare but serious side effects occur: mental/mood changes (e.g., agitation, confusion, depression, abnormal thoughts, hallucinations). Seek immediate medical attention if any of these rare but very serious side effects occur: chest pain, fast/pounding/irregular heartbeat, signs of infection (e.g., fever, persistent sore throat).
The FDA is ridiculously risk-averse when it comes to approving drugs. For example, they recently rejected lorcaserin and qnexa, two anti-obesity drugs, over safety concerns. They also got sibutramine withdrawn from the US market. Even if these drugs have risks, the risks of obesity are likely much higher.
A lot of people are going to die from obesity that would have been saved if these drugs were approved. Of course, the media reports when approved drugs cause harm, not when rejected drugs don't save lives.
This puts certain categories of drugs (anything for pregnant women, nootropics for people without alzheimers, etc.) in the "too risky to bother" category.
(Also, your comment as posted contradicts itself, I think you meant to say "the companies wouldn't get sued into oblivion.")
On the other hand, surgery for obesity is dramatically effective and there is good evidence that it saves lives. It is strongly recommended in appropriate patients eventhough 1 - 2% of people die because of the operation.
Don't think the FDA is being risk averse, they just decided not to approve a modestly effective agent with an unclear safety profile.
I've only seen one study researching whether the FDA is too risk adverse overall. If you look at the number of drugs denied approval to, you find that the FDA saves about 2,000 lives each year, which is really awesome. On the other hand if you look at drugs that are later approved but which are delayed in testing you find that the FDA causes between 5,000 and 20,000 excess deaths each year, which sort of sucks. All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in its effect. Remember when looking at those number that there's a definite diminishing returns effect with each additional level of inspection saving less lives but costing the same amount.
Of course, this is only one study but its the only one I've seen. If anyone could point to more data I'd be quite grateful.
Let's not underestimate the magnitude of this effect... the FDA is the way it is for a reason. As incredibly and hair-pullingly frustrating as the approval process can be, it's necessary. I'd rather have an FDA that errs on the side of caution than one that relies on the good will and stringent standards of the pharma industry.
Not to disparage the drug companies too heavily- most of the people who work in the industry developing and testing drugs have their heads on straight, and would be in favor of doing things the right way even without the FDA looking over their shoulders... but companies are companies, and ensuring drug safety is not something that should be left up to profit-maximizing entities. The story about the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...
*Europe generally approved drugs much more quickly than the US (well, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany at least) and there wasn't any statistically significant difference in the number of bad drugs let through. People noticed that and hence the reforms in the early 90s. For instance, you could use propranolol to treat hypertnsion in most of Europe by '68, but not in the US until '78. That cost 10,000s of lives right there. Luckily the modern FDA is better - though it still needs improvement.
"Likely", nice weasel word there. In fact, sibutramine was pulled after the SCOUT trial showed that the risks of obesity were not higher. The cardiovascular risks of the drug more than offset the decresae in risks from lower weight.
Lorcaserin was barely efficacious, and had a cancer signal.
Qnexa was very efficacious, but had even more serious side effects. One serious one-two punch is that it makes women much more fertile because of the hormonal effects of weight loss (in the clincial trial something like 20 women got pregnant despite double birth control protection), and at the same time contains topiramate, a Pregnancy Category C drug known to cause birth defects.
You'll get no argument from me that the FDA is very risk averse (and I think there are several drugs rejected this year that should have been approved, e.g. pirfenidone for IPF), but I think you're wrong that the FDA should have approved these obesity drugs. As you say, obesity is a big problem in the US, which means lots and lots of people are going to take any drugs once they're approved. Such drugs have to be incredibly safe or there will be lots of problems.
The next obesity drug to come up for FDA approval is Orexigen's Contrave, and we'll see what happens there.
Nausea, loss of sexual function, mood swings, increased risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism, and heart attack.
Give me some Provigil any day.
These reactions are rare, which makes it difficult to precisely quantify the risk. Other drugs which are known to cause these reactions are NSAIDs like ibuprofen, which you can buy from a supermarket, and antibiotics like amoxycillin or bactrim, which doctors prescribe without being particularly concerned about the risk of potentially fatal skin reactions.
I've been taking 15mg morning and after-lunch, but not on weekends so as to reduce my dependency and tolerance to it. This has worked well so far.
I'm not sure if perhaps people who have the gene coding for reduced dopamine re-uptake (i.e. a big predictor of ADD diagnoses - like myself) are the ones who get the strongest benefits and the reports of bad reactions could possibly be from those without this genotype?
http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/36691-ten-months-of-resea...
'It doesn't cause hyperfocused procrastination, like Adderal or Dexedrine. It's 'deep concentration.' And you can go off it whenever you want! It's a temporary smart pill with no withdrawal symptoms!'
D'oh. "Get behind me, Satan!"
As for the creativity, I'm not always sure that is a boon. When I encounter a particularly inspiring idea while studying something else, I find my mind wanders off in all directions with creative ideas, where I 'should' be concentrating on task at hand.
On the down side, if I forget and drink a beer after taking Modafinil, the hangover is epic. Too, it makes my pee smell really weird. And I have a tendency towards chatterboxery, which is exacerbated beyond all reason.
Anecdotes/evidence/&c.
As people point out above, this is a good thing. Makes counterfeiting that much harder. It would be nice if all drugs came with such signatures of authenticity. ('Remember, real Viagra will cause a little shamrock tattoo to appear under your right armpit for an hour.')
After reading about this the first time I researched for about a month before purchasing any. My general experience with them is that they work, they keep you up longer than you would normally be able to, they keep you alert, you don't feel like you are hopped up either.
The effect only lasts so long though, after being up for over 24 hours, your body gets tired, and the effectiveness of the drug gets worse. I didn't really go past 36 hours, but if I wanted to I could have. Note that I didn't purposely try and stay up all those times, I work graveyard shifts and ended up having important things come up when I needed to sleep and I was forced to stay up.
Modafinil really did help me when I was tired, but as far as being a 'smart drug' it wasn't exactly mind blowing. It did make it easier to focus, but I could just as easily focus on a TV show, or a website, versus a piece of code I wanted to finish. So if you need to stay up, study, or get something done and you are determined to do it, this is great. If you want something to augment your day to day life and make you 'smarter' this really isn't for you.
Though there are more things popping up saying that it might have worse long term side effects than previously thought, I didn't really have any that I know of, but if I get brain cancer in a year I guess I know why. :)
May be I ate something special that made that day goes like that, but I felt like I fall into that deep concentration state of mind. My creative abilities weren't touched, though.
Many of the comments here have factual inaccuracies.
- Provigil is Schedule IV, which is not highly restricted, and is prescribed on regular scrip paper, not DEA paper.
- Some STATES restrict its dispersal more stringently, like New York, even with a scrip. Others do not, like California.
- Provigil has NOT been classed a stimulant. Its action is currently described as "unknown."
This information comes from my doctor and my doctor's PDR.
EDIT: for grammar error, and mistake about its schedule level.
I think you have it backwards. Schedule IV drugs are prescription-only, but don't require DEA papers like Schedule II drugs do (such as Adderall, Ritalin, etc). They aren't as highly regulated, but they do still require a prescription.
I'd recommend smart drugs for doing drudgery, but if you need to engage the right brain for inventiveness, chocolate works great :)
Here's an example of the sort of artwork that I would do on speed that I probably wouldn't have the patience for, otherwise:
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5550/penroseknotv3sm.jpg
I'm sure there are some types of creativity that are blunted, but the ability to direct extended focus and attention to any task (even creative ones) is a powerful thing that shouldn't be overlooked.
Next this guy is going to tell us that LSD bring him closer to God, and you're going to believe him?
Anecdotal evidence about the effects of drugs are mostly worthless.
I agree that anecdotal evidence is not worth much, however the problem with psychoactive drugs is that many of the most interesting effects are subjective (and thus the best data is always anecdotal) and that scientific studies of certain interesting drugs is illegal. Anecdotal evidence may not be worth much, but it's certainly worth more than prejudices based on zero evidence.
Also worth pointing out that not all interesting things in life can be studied with objective double-blind studies.
I cut it completely, but I'm curious to see if the author has luck oscillating on it.
Yeah, that's how cognitive dissonance works. Please articulate where the 'authenticity' line is. Plenty of people 'feel' the way you do, but I have yet to meet a single one who can rationally explain their 'feeling'.
On the other hand, anyone who feels they need to downvote me because I expressed feeling felt a bit troubled by their revelations about the way they pop pills to improve their programming skills is maybe downvoting me to feel better about themselves, don't you think? I mean if YC's majority opinion is that pill popping is OK, AND/OR that anyone disagreeing should be downvoted, I think I want nothing to do with YC. I surely hope it's not the case. Now tke shots at my karma all you want!
Anyway so those are the two views, but when you link them through 'they're both cognitive enhancers', a problem arises. Why is one bad, and the other not? So this is then 'glossed over' or 'smoothed out' by the brain by internalizing a third cognition, namely 'they're not the same'. Note that this third cognition does not have to be elaborated on very much (actually this elaboration is what I asked for, because I don't think any argument in it can hold) to put your mind at ease and 'resolve' the cognitive dissonance.
Anyway, my point still stands. I challenge you to explain what is the fundamental difference between taking a chemical in pill form versus taking it in liquid form (this is what it, in my opinion, boils down to). I guess the most obvious argument is going to be that one is man-made and the other 'natural' (which somebody arguing this then usually interprets as "the precursor is readily available in nature, and extensive treatment in the form of drying, grounding, and preparing with hot water is 'pure' enough to all be 'natural".) I won't put any words in your mouth, I'm just pre-empting the usual first response and indicating what I see as weaknesses in that argument ;)
Finally, for the record, I didn't downvote you as far as I remember, but your comment did rub me the wrong way. The reason being that it states a very strong opinion or position, but offers nothing to rationally substantiate that opinion. On the contrary, the only attempt at convincing the reader seems to be in a 'proof by assertion' strategy, repeated across multiple posts. Furthermore from your claim that people only downvoted you because you hold a different opinion it seems that you are not very willing to critically examine your own position, nor to put in the effort to really (as in, rationally and in a dialectically sound way) defend it. I hope I'm wrong on this of course, I'm just letting you know how these couple of posts came across to me, hoping that this may help you understand why people reacted to your post the way they did (well, 'people', just 3 really, but still).
I worked briefly in the pharmaceutical industry and it taught me a few things about the level of testing and knowledge labs have about the pills that you compare to coffee. There has been much more research about coffee (which I remind you I don't drink either because I know of its side-effects) than there has been about the neural enhancers you kids take. You want to believe it's OK. Go ahead but don't blame me for saying it makes no sense to me. And you are right, I am not willing to put much more time into going in details on this. Too busy and the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here.
I have heard so much of the same non-sense pseudo-chemistry from all the people advocating for one drug or another for their wellbeing. The argumentative here really sound of addiction. So I challenge you to explain in bio-chemical terms why these drugs are as harmless as coffee. Good luck!
"the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here". Seriously? Your argument is 'I have a strong opinion about it, so I'm right"? "The argumentative here really sound of addiction." And your basic retort is "what do you know, you're all junkies"? No wonder you feel you're being treated hostile here - all anti-intellectualism is, as it should.
As I said, point me to serious research that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other and and I'll side with you. I don't have to provide you research that shows they are vastly different. It's just so freaking obvious.
I suggest you read this about Ritalin and you tell me if it reads like the description of coffee: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000606 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate
Finally, I am very familiar with these medications since I took several neural agents as a younger guy when experiencing epilepsy. I am not against them, I am just surprised about so much talk of self-medication and I think it's plain wrong for people to think this harmless. But this is free world, so why don't you just ignore me and keep popping instead of getting all flustered about my comments, if you are sure of yourself that is.
Anyway please stop the straw man 'that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other'. That was never even a point of discussion, please pay attention. This started off with you stating "I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen" and some other comments that basically declared some ethical difference between using coffee over chemical substances. Caffeine and other chemicals are not the same, they have different effect on the brain and different effects on the body, each chemical has. You claimed there was a moral chasm between caffeine and synthetic drug use, and afterward you refuse to either back down or defend the point, instead weaseling out with (by my count) 5 fallacies by now.
Finally I did not mention once taking any chemicals myself, on purpose since it's immaterial to the question at hand and discussions about me (or you, for that matter) are completely uninteresting. It seems like you find it hard to comprehend that people would take an abstract interest in something that is not immediately applicable in their world, or to hold opinions that are not directly relevant in that. But since you seem to think it's important, let me state for the record that I don't use any non-medical chemicals myself (save for the occasional caffeine).
We humans simply don't understand much of what goes on in the brain - I wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.
Modafinil has been around since the 70's. So far, no studies have found issues with long-term use. Actually, some studies found it to have a neuroprotective effect.
I wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.
The environment we evolved in is quite different from the environment we now live in. Humans used to have much more limited supplies of food and nutrients. Our bodies are built for famine resistance instead of maximum performance. There's probably a similar trade-off in our brain functions, since the brain is a pretty big energy hog (responsible for around 25% of calories burned).
We can use drugs to tweak the trade-offs made by evolution. We don't have to worry about food and nutrients today. Stimulants can decrease appetite and need for sleep, both of which would be disastrous in a food-limited environment. Even the effect of stimulants we find beneficial (spending hours in concentrated thought) would likely be harmful on the African savannah.
The precautionary principle is too often applied in the case of enhancement. We don't completely understand the brain yet, but we do have some idea of how it works, and today there are safe effective drugs that improve cognitive abilities.
Most likely translation: there have been no long-term studies of modafinil. A quick search doesn't turn any up.
Although there are many illegal drugs that have negative consequences, the practice of applying this as a naive general law of medicine is largely a result of many years of this idea, or ideas similar to it, being drilled into us by the war on drugs propaganda machine. Each substance must be evaluated on a case by case basis and if people have been taking certain drugs for 30 years with no deleterious effect, the evidence is certainly in favor of long term safety, or even * gasp * benefit.
There are other beliefs similar to this, such as any radio signal emitting device causes cancer, that have silently entered the culture as fact without much science to support them.
It's also quite different from meditation, which fosters creativity.
When you are on these sorts of drugs think of it as opening the tap. You execute with the full force of your creative reserves that you've built up. The more pent up you are - the more the ideas just pour through you as you write/code/compose - whatever.
And because the tap is open, eventually the waters on one side of the dam level out with those on the other. The rate of creative execution slows down because it's not pent up.
But I think it's a mistake to say one is LESS creative. You remain as creative as you ever were. The same amount of water flows through your stream as it ever did. One just doesn't have the same pent up backlog of ideas to execute anymore - just that steady stream.
I'd try it myself if I weren't dubious of the "no side-effects" thing. I don't think it's very likely that a drug makes you supersmart without having ill effects...
As for side effects - they are there - but they are mild. If I stop taking them then the worst that happens is that I want to spend a day napping. But then I'm back to normal. Seriously - withdrawing for caffeine is much worse.
Having said that. I don't actually advise that people take them without a prescription. Besides the obvious legal issues - there are people who genuinely need them just to have a reasonably normal life. Black market demand could make them more difficult to obtain for these people (especially me!).
Yes, they are equivalent, and both should be legal.
I've taken more than my share of modafinil and I've never experienced this.
(Note to downvoter: I say this because he's notorious for peppering his feel-good rants with factual inaccuracies)