How Many Silicon Valley Startup Executives Are Hopped Up On Provigil?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I still use it occasionally, to boost a specific day’s productivity. I think taking it as described (and as I did while launching my first start-up) is abusing it and asking for trouble later, but using it to get an odd boost of concentration (which suddenly allows me to work like a beast for about 12 hours and get huge amounts of technical work done in that time, particularly in combination with a little caffeine) is ok and doesn’t have any side-effects - just make sure you drink plenty of water (sometimes on Modafinil thirst can also seem like a bit of a distraction, but you will get a mild headache if you don’t drink anything). Also, I only take half-pills now, so the max I ever do is 50mg in one day.
I’m in London, though, not Silicon Valley.
How do you know? Did you try?
Perhaps better phrased: I wouldn't have been able to pull those hours without Modafinil. That, I have tried, and failed.
Of course I tried coffee. It really doesn't help me that much, though. I end up feeling very awake, sure, but very jittery (not good when projecting an air of confidence to your clients at the bank) and even more distractable (considering how distractable I am to begin with, that's something!). Modafinil, on the other hand, focuses me like a laser.
He must not pay much attention at his own TechCrunch events, as they are fueled by booze and weed with some coke thrown in for the bizdev types' girlfriends.
Drink a LOT of water. I bet that half of these guys taking Provigil because they need the 'edge' have never forced themselves to drink a gallon of regular old water in a day. Soda, coffee, and tea don't count. You'd be amazed how many people spend years in a state of mild dehydration.
Drinking water has given the biggest improvement to me mentally, far and away. In second place is not eating meat during the workday; but that pales in comparison to just drinking enough water.
I have commented before on how offensive posts like this are for so many reasons. It ususally turns out to be me against the world. So I don't even bother anymore.
But now that I saw your question, I decided to throw my 2 cents in (again).
AFAIC, with few exceptions, everything we do is a marathon, not a sprint. So using crutches for sprints is, at best, myoptic. Any stimulant, I don't care which (food, drugs, etc.) has another side, i.e., what goes up must go down. One of the commenters on OP's site talks about this much better than I can.
I really don't care what anyone does in private. But setting aside all the ethical, medical, and legal considerations, here is my biggest concern: Lots of people come to this site to learn and exchange; I'd hate to have them walk away with the idea than drugs are a good idea for their startup, just from the feedback of their peers. That's irresponsible.
What broad claims?
I think I can see why it turns into "you vs the world".
Sounds pretty much like you're making a "claim" yourself. Care to back up what you "see" with a little data?
>Any stimulant, I don't care which (food, drugs, etc.) has another side, i.e., what goes up must go down.
and maybe even learn something else in the process.
I'm not wasting any more time debating non-hacker issues here at hacker news. There are several other excellent threads directly related to hacker news. Let's talk about those over there. This is my last comment in this thread.
Many common stimulants (e.g., amphetamines) have such an effect. To extend the claim to "any stimulant, I don't care which" is a broad claim. There is no fundamental reason why every stimulant should have a down side (no "conservation of energy" law for human wakefulness). At this point, I'd say the jury is still out on the side effects of provigil.
By the way, I do consider this to be hacker news. Startup founders hacking their own bodies? I think that's interesting to hackers.
Heh, interesting way to put it - kudos.
So with that in mind - I will buy a beer for the first person who successfully manages to integrate their bodily functions with Twitter :)
If you fart (for example, disgusting thought, but just putting the idea out there for kicks) how intriguing would it be for hundreds or thousands of people around the world to know about it instantly?
You could be in an office in New York, let one rip and people in Madrid, Melbourne, Mumbai (or some other city starting with M) would know about it.
I don't know why some people have such an aversion to tweaking the biochemical machine whichh they inhabit, except of course with caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, all of which are harmful and less effective for their intended purpose than manufactured drugs.
I don't think any drug has done as much damage to my body as the intense stress that I suffer from being unable to focus on a project unless against a deadline and the attempts to complete massive amounts of work overnight wit a fuzzy-headed caffeine-fueled incompetence.
I know I sounds dangerous and iconoclastic here, but I think many people would share my point of view if they weren't conditioned since they were 5-years-old with "drugs are bad" propaganda in their schools.
I have commented before on how offensive posts like this are for so many reasons
Plenty of people don't drink alcohol, or coffee, because they believe (with plenty of reason) that its not good for them overall. That's a choice they're empowered to make. But to be offended by people who do drink coffee, or do drink alcohol, is silly. If you let the personal decisions of the rest of the world offend you so easily, you'll never get anything done with your own life.
The same logic applies here. Nobody is, for example, advocating that you must take drugs to succeed in your startup. It's certainly interesting to me (and probably others) to know to what extent other people go to try and get an edge.
Rather, it is that he finds it offensive that posts that seem to glorify or encourage such behavior (the OP certainly hints at that with the closing bit) end up so high on the main page and, in his mind, take away from more valuable discourse.
Personally I agree that this particular post is more news than not, though the recent post about the Liberal Arts PhD who was advocating marijuana use was borderline at best.
Funny, it turns out the same way when I am advocating the other way. :) Generally when either of us disagrees with the board about this issue, the advocates for the other side come out in mass because they feel strongly one way or the other.
Drugs are indeed bad in the average case, but some people don't have the mental willpower or brain chemistry to get by in an unenhanced state. The medical diagnosis for this would be ADHD. The problem and controversy is that the treatment for ADHD is drugs that enhance the performance of absolutely everyone which is why ADHD is so overdiagnosed.
I've worked as an ER/Critical care nurse for 15 years, and I can say that categorically that all the stimulant using patients I've cared for tend to make bad choices. Perhaps it's a selection bias and only the people on stimulants that make crap decisions come and pay me a visit in the ER.
Do you really want a substance clouding your judgment when you're working on your startup? When you're chemically altered, how do you know that your business decisions aren't crap?
And did you know one antonym for "I'm clueless, hold my hand" is "Google"?
It would be interesting to compare each method's suitability for getting more out of each day.
Being categorically against performance enhancing drugs is unwise because it would slow the development of new drugs that can improve people's lives. Also, it would deny helpful drugs to those individuals who wouldn't experience negative side effects(since everyone reacts differently to the same drugs).
I am against using performance enhancing drugs under-the-table, in an uncontrolled manner, because not only is that risky, but it doesn't contribute at all to our understanding of the pros and cons of a drug. But if you are up for experimenting and record your results, I think people should be able to try nearly anything they want to.
I'm lucky (depending on how you look at it) in that I seem to be able to work long hours fairly reguarly without drugs.
It is safer but less effective than good old fashioned amphetamine for actually getting stuff done.
If you're just a regular person trying to live a semblance of a balanced lifestyle (for this purpose I will include working a regular 8-to-6 job) the biggest effect of provigil is likely to be to make you say 'so what?'
If you are used to the caffeine-shakes and twitches that come at the rough end of an all-nighter, Provigil can take that away to some extent. The psychological price you pay for doing this too often is unknown, though.
Having said that, it is useful to get you out of a jam if you stay up partying all night and need to drag yourself to work the next morning.
And best of all, if you are in the UK, the NHS pays for it all. In other countries you often have to pay up to several USD per pill and it can take up to 4 pills to be effective.
Edit: Based on my experience, I would consider use of Provigil during a true work crunch or crisis that can only be solved by a burst of long work hours. However, if your masters get used to your performance at that level under those conditions, you might learn more about the expression 'burning the candle at both ends' than you want to know.