Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

In every discussion I have seen of "smart drugs" (nootropics), what is conspicuously lacking is discussion of the actual smart deeds performed by the smart drug users. Self-reported n=1 anecdotes have not established a convincing case that any kind of nootropic actually does anyone any good in the real world.

(Maybe I'll edit this comment some more below during its editing time window. Or perhaps this point is so evident that it needs no elaboration.)

View on HN

There are, however, studies that show that racetams are not harmful. If you don't believe they work, give them a try for yourself. They work for some and not for others.

Did you consult a double-blind study of caffeine before drinking your first cup of coffee? At what point does the plural anecdote at least refute the idea that racetams are just a placebo?

We can't accurately meter our performance, intelligence, and behavior. We also can't control our environment (not realistically anyways). So, it's anecdotal. I'm excited for sensor networking to get in the body, so we can actually measure the effects of our consumption. Then again... that doesn't measure behavior, or intelligence. It's a hard problem.

What we need is double-blind studies with proper control groups and behavior or problem-solving tests.

Which is what examine.com attempts to expose/deliver. It's not perfect it.

Thank You.

I look at this smart drug crap as a weird cultural thing to study.

If smart drugs made people have better performance, you'd notice your coworkers outperforming you while grimacing down their powdered piracetam. The army would be using them. Doctors would be making statements.

Not really. Performance is far too subtle, subjective, and complex to judge on a linear scale. Poor performers often do well because they are lucky or good actors.

Having used racets at times, I can say they are definitely more than a weird cultural thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com