The study was done with rapid games, against computers, where they discarded human losses on time. Not very confident in those results. But hopefully the researcher gets the chance to try and reproduce and use classical time controls, and human vs. human opponents.
I can only imagine the study went like this. They did all these tests and then found that there were no statistically significant improvements after using these drugs. So they said to themselves, how can we tweak the parameters so as to get something publishable? Sure, let's eliminate an entire class of games where our control group does better than the test subjects.
Problem is, the most likely explanation for this is that people on these drugs spend more time thinking, and longer think time naturally is correlated with better results. But that's not how chess is played, else we'd all spend five hours on each move. Chess is about bounded rationality. As a result it looks to me that that they biased the results as to naturally achieve a desired effect.
> else we'd all spend five hours on each move. Chess is about bounded rationality
Without any other tools (as in, pencil and paper to note conclusions), do you really think you could make a more effective move given five hours?
I mean - if the conclusion of the study is actually that use of drugs gave players a larger personal time bounds within which to think up a move, that's still significant.
I don't know about you, but my #1 blocker for productivity is how long I can actually concentrate on something. If a drug lets me focus for 10% longer, even if it doesn't improve my capabilities while focusing, that's still huge.
Edit: But you're not wrong, it does stink of p-value hunting. On the other hand, if your experiment is expecting one correlation, and instead you find another... then the p-value hunting was the correct move...?
There are certainly players who could make a much better move given five hours in a highly complex position (not every move--you'd be hitting sleep deprivation by move 3!). It's not unheard of for grandmasters to spend an hour of clock time on one move, and I bet you money that same player would sometimes go to 2 or 3 hours if they weren't on the clock.
As to visualization without pen and paper, the best blindfold players can keep track of a whole board in their mind, and explore variations deeply without losing track of the current state of the board or forgetting about the key variations they found along the way.
It sounds like you're into chess more than me, so I'm sure you know most of this stuff, I'm just noting it for other people in the thread.
"do you really think you could make a more effective move given five hours?"
I play on chess.com from time to time and I perform much better in games where I have a few days to make a move vs games that are played live with a timer. So for me, absolutely, if I have time to analyze I will almost always make a stronger move. I don't need to write down conclusions, I can just stare at it longer.
> On the other hand, if your experiment is expecting one correlation, and instead you find another... then the p-value hunting was the correct move...?
at best you'd have to make corrections to your p values to account for the fact you're conducting multiple tests. those corrections weaken the results. (i did not check this paper to see if they did the corrections.)
Yes I could definitely make a more effective move in five hours than in four hours.
But the study we are talking about didn't give their players anything near such time, only rapid chess was played, where each player gets 15 minutes for the entire game.
In rapid chess, time management is a crucial part of the game so it is very strange that they decided to eliminate games where a player ran out of time.
Moreover, this is a classic side effect of stimulants, at least anecdotally (not sure what the literature says). You can get hyper-focused on one task or sub-task and lose track of your overall priorities. Although I imagine regular stimulant users learn to compensate for this.
Not exactly. Being hyper-focused on one thing is actually symptomatic of ADHD, and amphetamines like Adderall and Ritalin may exacerbate or mitigate this tendency (as I understand it mainly from personal experience, but also some literature), depending on the individual and external factors.
No, I'm pretty sure being "hyper-focused" is the opposite of ADHD, considering that "focus" and "attention" are synonyms and "deficit" and "hyper" are opposites,
And the effect of amphetamines is improved focus (as well as slight euphoria and wakefulness) BUT one possible problem is that people lose control of what they focus on and tend to get lost in the details. I. e. you start out writing a letter and end up reading about 18th century calligraphy.
"It is typical for individuals with ADHD to say they 1), cannot focus on boring things and 2), can only focus on stimulating things, and that focus is often extreme. Thus it is both a concentration deficit and over-concentration, or generically: "hyperfocus." More concisely, some types of ADHD are a difficulty in directing one's attention, not a lack of attention"
True. Also, people tend to take more time when in losing positions, so it is likely that more of the discarded games than the not-discarded games would have been lost.
It would be very interesting to see a computer analysis of position strength in the discarded games and seeing, where possible, if the ratios of "likely win" and "likely loss" match the games that were finished.
The title is somewhat misleading - I assumed they discovered a new type of drug that was enhancing performance. Actually, it's just the first study to actually bear out the (not particularly shocking) conclusion that drugs that enhance cognitive performance help in a game that depends on cognitive performance.
I think you're not impressed because you already assumed these drugs enhance cognitive performance. That, I think, is what the study is really about: do these particular drugs actually enhance cognitive performance? But, in order to test that, they need to pick a cognitive task, and in this case, the cognitive task happens to be chess.
No, I was just commenting that the title of the article was misleading to me. The study didn't find performance enhancing drugs, it found a link between drugs that allegedly enhance cognitive performance and an activity that requires high cognitive performance. Perhaps it's just semantics, but the findings of the study just weren't the type that I expected based on the title.
And your initial comment sounded to me like you were taking it for granted that such drugs do indeed enhance cognitive performance - which I don't think is a given.
I had the same confusion. I would have then said "New Study Finds Evidence for Cognitive Performance-Enhancing Drugs: They Help with Chess" or something. The way "for Chess" is tacked on the end makes it seem like the most important detail: I would argue just reading this title would make one go "oh, I guess we already had these for other tasks, but this is the first one for Chess". In fact, as worded, my second option was "what they really mean is that people are using them in the wild and they are what is making or breaking tournements", not "we have just discovered it is possible".
In that case, my fault for not being clear. You're right, I do lean towards the conclusion that some of those drugs enhance cognitive performance (particularly the ones that are used for treatment of ADHD), but you're also right that currently, there isn't sufficient evidence to treat that as a given.
The researchers were surprised - it's been assumed that these drugs compensated for exhaustion and illness and restored a status quo; maybe this is an example of the proven fact that experts underperform laypeople when evaluating novel situations that only border on their expertise.
Does this study actually provide strong evidence for performance enhancement?
Folks who took the drugs took longer to play their moves. They lost more games on time, but ignoring those games, their play was better and they consequently won more games.
But imagine an alternate study where players were given the instructions to take more time on their moves. In this study, they would have lost more games on time, but when they didn't lose on time, their play would have been stronger and they consequently would have won more games.
In such an alternate study, I wouldn't say their brains got better. They just made a different choice to play at a different point on their efficient time-quality frontier.
I wonder - how much did these drugs push the frontier outward, rather than just trading off to move along it?
Nonetheless, it's interesting that this study tried to answer why/how these nootropics work (maybe they make you more reflective) and also understand in what circumstances such drugs won't help (in situations where you're under time pressure).
Strong evidence? No. But the authors do not claim it as strong evidence. From near the end:
Dr. Lieb said that there are two caveats to the results. One is that they must be replicated by additional studies before it would be possible to say with some degree of certainty that the drugs enhance performance.
The second was that the study contained a flaw: the games were too quick, creating the problem of time-forfeits in some games. Additional studies would need to have the subjects play longer games.
The author's explanation is also not quite "their brains got better":
The study’s conclusion addressed the additional thinking time as a critical component of the effect of the stimulants. The authors wrote, “This suggests that neuroenhancers do not enhance the quality of thinking and decision-making per time unit but improve the players’ ability or willingness to spend more time on a decision and hence to perform more thorough calculations.”
Your explanation would, however, make an interesting control. If people can't effectively will themselves to spend more time, and further studies are able to repeat the effect when there is no time limit, then that would be stronger evidence.
That's interesting, my experience (and my friend's) with Modafinil has been that it helps you stay with a task for longer, in other words leaving things unfinished bothers you more than it usually does.
For myself, I usually find that at some point (sometimes quite early) I find no gain in moving along the time-quality frontier.
Specifically, I find that an extra unit of time would seem to provide no change in quality. I think this might imply that I've "maxed out" and any need to move along the frontier would need to be met with a requisite increase in ability.
I was given some L Theanine by a friend of mine, because I complained about not being able to silent my thoughts when I sleep. Apparently, L Theanine is great at reducing this mental crosstalk. I tried some for a few nights, but I didn't notice an appreciable change. Did you notice the effects after taking it for a few weeks, or do you get them immediately?
The Theanine effect is quite immediate and pretty noticeable.
But, if someone weren't anxious before or noticed enough that they have unwanted thoughts, I could see how the effects may not be apparent.
Caffeine usually has my heart racing. Even breathing slowly doesn't bring my pulse down. Within 20 minutes of ingesting Theanine, my pulse feels normal. My mind is no longer panicky.
Thoughts are mainly about work and problems that I need to solve. When I am trying to sleep, I will sometimes work on a problem in my head because it's "bothering me", and this can postpone my sleep by up to an hour.
This happened to me a lot in college on homework sets. Some sets would take hours to complete, and if I could not solve a problem before sleeping, I would "give up" and go to sleep, only to continue thinking about the problem.
The best way to describe what is happening is: I'll be trying to sleep, and I will think about the problem statement. Sometimes I will find a new perspective, and follow that. If it doesn't lead anywhere, I will go back to the problem statement, and the process repeats. Sometimes I'll just repeat the problem statement in my head hundreds of times over the course of an hour, hoping I'll find a different path to the solution.
It's tempting to keep thinking and not sleep. In my experience, this is an affliction more than it is an asset. This is why I am interested in L Theanine.
And this, too. I can sleep really well if I am not working on anything that spans multiple days, or if the problem I am stuck on is succinct and self-contained. A lack of closure on whatever I was last working on is the root cause for my disturbed sleep. Do you also feel this way, or is there some other source for you?
I can't take Caffeine without L-Theanine. If I take caffeine alone I bite all of my nails and get a general sense of impending doom along with a shitty mood.
Speculation: Perhaps they use GAE, or another of Google's services as part of their stack. Or they use Google search heavily for looking up references.
Okay well that kind of makes sense thanks. I use google all the time for gmail, analytics, admob, google searches, etc, but there are alternatives to all of it.
A few years ago I discovered CogniTea[1]. It's a tea blend that puts 90mg of caffeine, 100mg of L-Theanine and some gingko and such in every tea bag. Best stimulant I've ever used.
So I guess I'm on 400mg+ of Theanine per day. Have been for 2 or 3 years. :D
I suggest giving it a shot. I got the entire office hooked.
My favorite part is that when I travel and don't drink it, there's no headache. Sure, feels like brain mush when unstimulated, but hey, no headache. :)
How many strokes have there been in your office? Ginkgo is not something I would widely suggest to people without knowing how robust their circulatory system is...
"RESULTS:
Paraxanthine, caffeine, and modafinil significantly promoted wakefulness in both WT and narcoleptic TG mice and proportionally reduced NREM and REM sleep in both genotypes. ... However, the higher doses of caffeine and modafinil, but not paraxanthine, induced hypothermia and reduced locomotor activity, thereby confirming the lower toxicity of paraxanthine."
I was wondering whether anybody here has experience with paraxanthine?
That's interesting. My mother recently started raving about Magnesium Oil and forced me to try it while I was visiting. She had bought a spray.
I thought it was all garbage but I tried it and noticed I slept much deeper than normal and through the entire night, consistently. I have no idea if this is all placebo effect, but it's interesting hearing others have similar effects.
Pretty sure that I initially heard about them through Tim Ferriss's podcast with Charles Poliquin (a world renown strength coach). He talked about them when outlining his sleep routine.
(you will sleep like a rock with a large dose of Magnesium Glycinate, especially if you've been deficient for a while (most coffee/soda/alcohol drinkers are))
Even taking in excess of 1,000mg, it may be a fairly running bowel movement but it's nothing that a normal session to the toilet can't handle.
Body gets rid of the excess and I move on with my day. I could back it off, but honestly, it just isn't that burdensome and I enjoy the consistency of taking the same amount every day.
And there may be days where I'm more stressed and the body could use more magnesium, so I just stick with my dosage.
There's another way to get magnesium that doesn't involve the digestive tract, avoiding any laxative effect. Epsom salt baths. Magnesium is well absorbed through the skin this way, and the digestive tract is not involved.
Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if the glycine along with the magnesium had neuro-inhibitory effect. Supplementation with gelatin might be worth trying for you. https://www.google.com/search?q=glycine%20in%20gelatin I put collagen hydrolysate in my coffee and I think it's pretty great.
> Glycine accomplishes several functions as a transmitter in the central nervous system (CNS). As an inhibitory neurotransmitter, it participates in the processing of motor and sensory information that permits movement, vision, and audition. This action of glycine is mediated by the strychnine-sensitive glycine receptor, whose activation produces inhibitory post-synaptic potentials. In some areas of the CNS, glycine seems to be co-released with GABA, the main inhibitory amino acid neurotransmitter. In addition, glycine modulates excitatory neurotransmission by potentiating the action of glutamate at N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors.
I actually did a test myself with pot a while back, also playing against a computer, my thinking there was that it would provide the most consistent opponent skill level. I tried varying amounts. I saw a fairly significant improvement with small doses, less than what someone would use for entertainment purposes, an amount just before what could be called a high. I think it may increase concentration at the right dosage level.
I think you're probably right. I don't really have concentration problems in the first place, but in small doses, I feel like I can focus a bit better on a single thing. Too much and my brain still works but I tend to go off on a tangent, then proceed to get completely lost in thought. Also, too much means a lot of my time is consumed eating or looking for food.
Anecdotal: I used to play chess frequently against a friend, who smoked pot pretty regularly. When he was sober, I usually would win. When he was starting to get high, he would usually win. When he was fully not sober, we would usually tie.
I do not smoke, so I was always sober during these games.
Jokes aside, alcohol and, pot it seems, inhibit the brains ability to process complex things. This mean you're more likely to abandon ideas that are too complex to handle anyway, and thus cover more ideas that you can handle.
I disagree. From my own experience, my chess game (or programming or other tasks involving concentration) suffer after even a single drink. My brain abandons complex ideas that it would normally be able to handle given some time and concentration.
Interesting. I, like many stereotypical nerds have smoked weed and played Magic the Gathering.
With real cards, I kinda find the game irritating, but didn't feel a skill drop. Just would rather listen to music or just look at the pictures on the cards.
With MTGO, the official online client for Magic, I made a number of bad mistakes. No purposeful misplays, just lots of misclicks, accidentally skipping phases, etc.
I've had the same experience as op and yes, I think you're onto something. I'll generate a wider breadth of candidate moves, although I may not calculate each line to the same depth. I guess you could say it encourages lateral thinking (or creativity) over linear thinking (calculation).
This is key for me because under normal circumstances I tend to favor solid but slightly passive lines. If my opponent is playing creative, spirited chess, he can easily gain the initiative and crush me.
Hah. Oddly enough this tallies with my experience - about 5 years ago I ended up buying a box of modafinil and took them periodically before work. Someone asked me about what I thought of them and I reflected that I wasn't sure if it helped my work or not but that it meant I could beat my phone Chess app on a harder difficult setting than usual when I played on the way to work.
You may be an under-responder. With modafinil there seem to be large populations that are over/under-sensitive.
I bought a box about 4 years ago as well to see if it helped at work. I turned out to be sensitive to it and later investigated studies linking my genotype with sensitivity (specifically a pleiotropic SNP in the COMT gene rs4680/Val158Met). Most sequencing includes this well-studied SNP in the panel if you're curious.
Starting with a "normal" 200mg dose was a disaster. Anxiety, shaking, racing thoughts, nausea, and arrhythmia all struck on the ride to work and lasted 10 hours.
With 50mg taken right after breakfast, I was able to achieve some notable effects and feelings of extra productivity but even a small amount of caffeine or alcohol within 18 hours would make me sick. It proved to not be worthwhile and I quit after a month.
I have some similar experiences myself. I take modafinil for narcolepsy.
A 200mg dose makes me really sleepy. A 50-100mg dose makes me more alert, especially with a small amount of caffeine. A larger amount of caffeine with 50-100mg makes me sleepy again.
How did you get the sequencing done? I know I've been tested for the gene associated with cataplexy (HLA-DQB1*0602 I think), but not sure about the others you mentioned.
Would be interesting seeing the effects of microdosing psychedelics for chess. In theory, it should improve problem-solving skills. While the effects of stimulants seem rather expected in this situation, I think seeing information on microcodes of LSD or psilocybin would be very interesting because they could change performance in different ways.
To actually demonstrate this, same-individual comparisons with and without the drug (on different days) should be made using IPRs.[1] I expect enhancement may be seen in novice players but not in players with a stable Elo rating.
This is JOKES.
I have ADHD - I find that ritalin REDUCES my chess abilities!
Not by a small amount either, by loads!!! How do I know this? Because on chess.com my scores start rapidly decreasing, it takes me too long to make a move, I'm overthinking my moves too much, trying to find ONE move rather than my adhd brain letting me find 5 moves simultaneously. It took me a long time to realise this was happening!
And actually other drugs can make me better - but definitely not anything stimulant based.
My point is - this study is not scientifically rigourous and it is not enough to draw conclusions.
Why is it surprising that nootropics exist? Half the good people in tech are on them. And there's nothing fucking wrong with that. "My body, my choice", as the slogan goes.
L-theanine is popular, I take it in a pill but Soylent added it to their coffee product. (Edit: NOS energy drinks also include L-theanine.) Others I've seen around include Bacopa monnieri, choline, Rhodiola rosea. More examples here https://nootrobox.com/full-stack
Been a few years but I ran into a coder that bragged to me about working 14 hours straight - regularly - on Adderall. This was during an interview, yeah I passed on that job for some reason.
Nicotine is best administrated through gum or a transdermal patch. I haven't heard of many people using it in pill form. Nicotine alone is similar to smoking a cigarette, but not identical: cigarettes also contain MAOI inhibitors which have synergistic effects with nicotine.
ah, such a typical answer from an "up in there" person.
Been there, done that, including the 15 h days constantly, the fixing everybody's shit at 5 am, you name it. Was the period I was the most insufferable person around. Try getting off them and then we see how good you are. Your attention span will be reduced way below what you used to have before (unless you actually had ADHD before this) and your motivation will ..not exist. Because, while you are on Adderall, everything is so fucking awesome! And you start working on what nobody else wants. You are the king of the world, the saviour, and the only competent person around!
As a result, you will probably fuck up your heart.. good luck trying to get your blood pressure down after that. Did I mention addiction?
But, it's a free world and you are responding to market demands by betting your future as a normal functioning person, in order to gain now, that you are fresh and young , and all that. I can understand that. Hope it pays off.
I take it, for the healing effect. I can't say I notice any effect on my brain. But I can always double up on it! Creatine moves energy around in the body and is found in all animals, but in no vegetables. Plants don't need it. It gives your brain (etc, etc) more available energy than doesn't require oxygen to use - it's an ATP transporter. With creatine, you skin and muscles can help you think, by doing the hard work of supplying energy.
I got calcium oxalate kidney stones after taking creatine. Worst pain in my life, by far. Had to go to the emergency room. I'll spare you the details except to say it was not a fun time. After I stopped taking creatine, I stopped getting kidney stones.
Your link answers your question: "Vegetarian supplementation with creatine seems to be especially beneficial as they appear to have lower average body stores, since meat is a primary source of dietary creatine."
The mechanism doesn't really matter. Perhaps these drugs simply do make people feel good and consequently they perform better. In the end it still increases their performance on these tasks.
Does this mean Adderall/Ritalin really does make you smarter/more creative? As opposed to the folk wisdom that it increases your focus at the slight expense of creativity?
Of course, this is assuming that creativity plays a role in chess, which depends highly on whether we are studying amateurs as opposed to grandmasters.
I think the attitude toward "self-enhancement" using mind-altering substances reflects the suspicion that it really isn't, meaning that the side effects are not worth the positive effects. People have very positive attitudes towards "self-enhancement" through various life-saving surgeries as they don't doubt that being alive a few more years is better than dying from a curable disease in the next few weeks.
I'm sure that a mind-altering substance the users of which appear to experience no negative effects and major improvements in their functioning will be met with applause by most people. At the moment however there are plenty of drug users for any value of "drug" that I know who do not serve as a great advertisement for that drug.
The difference is that people have a very closely protected idea of 'normal' and seek to preserve that beyond all else. Ameliorating disease is acceptable to re-attain normal. Enhancement above 'normal' is just as aberrant, if not more so, as permitting disease to spread unchecked. This is woven into the fabric of our society and always has been. The FDA in the US, for example, is tasked with regulating things which claim to "treat, cure, or prevent disease." They do not permit anything which is intended to enhance or improve a person beyond 'normal'. Were a pill developed tomorrow which gave the taker the ability to lift 500 pounds more with no negative side effects, it would be banned by default.
A good concrete example and disproof of your expectation which starts your second paragraph is piracetam and other members of the racetam family. They're legal in the US, as well as in other parts of the world. They are well supported by research to provide cognitive enhancement. The side effects are minimal. Yet, it's not widely available in the US. It has no way in to a market which is regulated for the purpose of preventing or treating disease, with no provision for enhancement.
There are, make no mistake, substantial and very important issues surrounding the idea of human enhancement, don't misunderstand me. It's just that those serious concerns are not what concern the majority of people. The majority are concerned about preserving a fictional idea of 'normal'.
I'm reminded of the Amish. From what I've read, although many people mistakenly believe that the Amish reject all new technology, they in fact only reject technology which would "change their way of life too much".
I think that people in general have a similar reluctance, and it causes change to be slow (although not as slow as it is for the Amish, of course). People are OK with new drugs that cure diseases because that's not that different from what they already know. It's just a new disease to toss in the age-old bucket of "curing disease". But enhancement past "basically healthy" is a whole new category in people's minds. It feels like an enormous change, even though it's probably not as big (at least in the short term) as curing smallpox.
People come up with a lot of rationalizations for being opposed to artificial self-enhancement. But most don't apply the same standards to "natural" self-enhancement, even when we know that there are severe tradeoffs.
In particular, people overly discount the value of life-seconds. What is the opportunity cost of putting in however many extra hours it would take to practicing chess, in order to account for the benefit of using modafinil? Is that cost outweighed by the small risk that there's some hidden deleterious effect of modafinil which has somehow eluded scientists for thirty years? And even if so, why should we police individual choices of what risks to take in life?
After all, we know that baseball pitchers are at extremely high risk for shoulder injuries. Should we enforce rules that limit practice time, intensity, and technique, so that other pitchers don't have to risk their bodies to compete? Should we put an asterisk next to the names of pitchers who are found to violate those rules, and kick them out of the sport?
That seems, broadly speaking, not to be the kind of choice we've made as a society when it comes to "old-fashioned" self enhancement. Yet we do make that choice when it comes to "artificial" enhancement. I put it to you that the distinction is arbitrary.
Edit: Just one other thing: "mind-altering substance the users of which appear to experience no negative effects and major improvements in their functioning"
That very nearly describes modafinil for most people. (If you're going to say "all people", you've set the bar so high that no drug will ever reach it. Ibuprofen doesn't even meet that bar.)
I think they do, if it means they can pursue their goals without threat of having their life's work destroyed.
I, for one, find the idea of doping and how to get around anti-doping schemes to be far more interesting than the pursuit of some arbitrary standard of excellent-but-didn't-cheat. Like blood doping is so different from things that are legal, like living in Denver!
Probably, but that's not the problem we're trying to solve. I don't care about the clean division, but it's fine that some people do. If you add a "doping" allowed division, the clean division is no worse off than it is now. It might be better, or it might not. But that's a secondary goal if anything.
"We conclude that in sum, the present study shows that pharmacological modification of complex cognitive performance in a highly demanding task is possible most likely by modifying decision making processes. More reflective decision making may enhance performance when no time limit for the task at hand is present but may have (emphasis mine) disadvantageous effects under time constraints especially in individuals who tend to be rather slow thinkers."
Doesn't that mean stimulants are effectively useless for someone who tends to be a "slow thinker"? I would expect that stimulants would speed up the underlying decision making processes of a slow thinker, especially during times of stress/limited time constraints.
Anecdotally, Modafinil improved the functioning of the right hemisphere of my brain. I noticed this type of enhancement with Phenibut as well, my "emotional intelligence" was increased by one or two orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, Adderall increased my raw intelligence by several orders of magnitude. I strongly believe that amphetamines should be decriminalized and unscheduled, as they are the only class of pharmaceuticals that are proven to increase cognition with a fairly limited side effect profile.
Studies have shown that Ritalin gives some with ADHD access to their executive function [1] -- as I recall, it "lights up" the neural pathways that connect that portion of the brain and gives them access to it, and for example, they become empathetic when they normally are not (empathy/perspective is one aspect of executive function).
> I noticed this type of enhancement with Phenibut as well, my "emotional intelligence" was increased by one or two orders of magnitude.
(Jokingly) So Phenibut would be the party drug of choice for people with Aspergers? I want to know why you think that that drug increased your EQ that much. One to two orders is 10 to 100 times which is an incredibly strong effect.
Edit: I see in the sibling comment that you didn't actually mean orders of magnitudes of improvement. Still want to know how Phenibut increased your EQ.
I don't think you know what several orders of magnitude means. Did you have an IQ of 10 and then got to 100 or 1000? Anyway, this aside, the feeling that you are few times smarter is there, like I say, it's a high ( which, btw, like any dopamine pumping thing, means your next high needs Moar and moar) . The reality is that you are a bit smarter, not few times more, and you work much more.
I didn't mean orders of magnitude in the literal sense, otherwise I would have included my IQ.
Judging from the fact that you created your account recently and your first post ever is negative about Adderall suggests to me that you have an agenda.
I'm sorry Adderall fucked up your life bro, but spreading FUD about it does everyone a disservice, especially for those who want to get into cognitive enhancement.
This isn't FUD, this is presenting you with the other side of the coin, what you are losing, what you are risking, from first hand and second hand experience ( I happened to escape the treadmill, but friends of mine didn't get that lucky...). I never denied the enhancements, only their magnitude. And I think they are not worth the risks. Others think they are.
FWIW, I have no personal experience with Adderall or any amphetamines, haven't used any (but am rather curious about trying some day), but I also found your post very confusing due to the phrasing. "One or two orders of magnitude" implies some sort of quantitative assertion, even though a clearly hyperbolic one, and there's no clarification as to how significant the effect you experienced actually was. Pointing that out does not equate "spreading FUD" in any way. Furthermore, the parent's statement that you got "a bit smarter" rather than orders of magnitude smarter is comparatively correct according to any reasonable medical understanding.
