8 ms·

Psychoactive substance use by professional programmers

123 points by zdw 4y ago

ftxbro 4y ago
If you read their pdf they are mainly talking about "Prescription Stimulants (e.g., Adderall, Ritalin), Cannabis (e.g., Marijuana, Weed), Alcohol (e.g., Beer, Wine), and Mood Disorder Medication (e.g., SSRIs, Wellbutrin)" and others to less degree.
stan_kirdey 4y ago
it is well known fact that most programmers are unprofessional
- luxuryballs 4y ago
  and often most professional when on psychoactive substances
- stan_kirdey 4y ago
  I am being sarcastic. Nobody even uses terms `programmer`, and I've never heard `professional programmer` in any engineering context. The title should state "Software Engineers ...`
  - hxugufjfjf 4y ago
    I actually literally just heard the host of the Rust podcast Rustacean Station refer to himself as a professional programmer, and immediately realising how off that sounded, corrected it to «got paid to write code» or something of the sort.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    I use it all the time. "Software engineer" is bullshitty industry jargon, I don't use it without people outside the industry. [EDIT] Not "professional", though, admittedly. Usually "computer programmer".
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      I like "Software Developer". What we do isn't anywhere close to engineering, but programmer feels a little constrained to just the coding aspect of the job.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Yeah, I'll use that one sometimes, including with other software folks. I think it pretty much captures the whole thing. "Software engineer" I reserve for certain contexts in which I suspect I might be penalized for using another term. I don't think it's very accurate for like 99.5% of all "software engineer" jobs. Feels like using "sandwich artist" for "dude who works at Subway".
- filoleg 4y ago
  Ah yes, as opposed to all those professional people in finance wearing suits doing cocaine on regular? Is it their choice of the drug that makes it more professional? And no, I am not speaking just based on stereotypes, I personally observed it happen with a significant frequency with friends working in the industry. And the fact that the big finance office building I've been to had a very bice lounge-like area with chairs, sofa, wardrobe+coat hangers, and a coffee table as you enter any bathroom didn't help that perception either. Side-tangent note: I want to clarify what i meant by "a pre-bathroom lounge-like area", because it indeed difficult to tell what i was talking about just based on the paragraph above. You walk through a hallway and see two bathroom doors (M and F), so far everything is very usual. You open one of the doors, and instead of a typical bathroom, you see the type of a lounge room I described above. Literally just a normal lounge relaxing room, with a coffee table, a few comfortable lounge chairs, a small sofa, etc. You also see another door inside this lounge room (in addition to the door you entered through from the hallway). And that door is where the actual regular public bathroom is, with a row of stalls, sinks, etc. So the lounge room basically acts as a buffer room between the hallway and the actual bathroom. Is it a thing at all big finance companies? I don't know, and I think probably not, so this shouldn't be treated as a concrete proof of anything. And I honestly believe that only a small minority utilizes that room for anything but its officially-intended purpose. But it is a bit telling. And no, I don't think this makes finance people as a group unprofessional (or even as individuals; that would depend on their actual behaviors and interactions at their workplace). Just like I don't think a significant number of people in tech being into various drugs makes them unprofessional as a group.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    That's how women's restrooms used to be where I worked long ago. No such lounge for the guys.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      Oh, that's interesting. For context, I am a guy and definitely went into the men's restroom in that anecdote above (so i cannot speak for the women's restroom in that same hallway). I just assumed they would make the same setups for both.
ta988 4y ago
26 participants? That sound like a really solid statistical analysis. /s
- tasty_freeze 4y ago
  It sounds like they aren't reporting on what % of programmers use what substances. They interviewed 26 people for an hour each to find what they take, why, and what for.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  statistical significance is a very subtle topic that I'm not at all equipped to explain, but we can start with, "significance comes from sample size, and is independent of population size." If you flip a coin 26 times, you will establish its bias to a high degree of certainty, results that will hold if you flip the same coin a million more times. if you are presented with a bag of a hundred coins, and another bag of a million coins, and you sample 26 of them from each bag and flip them, you will establish the same level of certainty about the bias of the coins in each bag. or something like that? I'm sure there are people here who can explain it better than I can, my point is to say "don't question a sample size of 26 unless you really know what you are doing"
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  26 can certainly be solid if the sample is representative, the effect size is large and the variance is tight. If you heard that 26 people randomly selected from America took a pill and died within a year, you probably wouldn't want to take that pill. None of that even matters much because there's barely any stats in the paper. I didn't even see anything besides descriptive statistics. It is, by their own description, a qualitative study.
comonoid 4y ago
It doesn't even mention the Ballmer peak.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Alcohol is about interesting as a drug as caffeine or nicotine, compared to its peers.
  - comonoid 4y ago
    It is interesting enough for the authors.
freedomben 4y ago
Relentless driving is one of the things I feel the software industry has really done themselves a disservice in the long run. I know of several engineers who went on Adderall because their performance (relative to their peers) wasn't high enough. With the help of Adderall they were able to get to a similar level. Then that raises the "average" which leads to more people having to turn to heavy stimulants just to keep their jobs. PMs and other management may feel like this is a win in the short term, but it isn't sustainable long term. The sheer number of software engineers who face burnout and/or have to take long multi-month sabbaticals to recover is shocking when compared to other industries where it's largely unheard of. Of course income is a factor (most other industries people don't make enough to allow them to take months off) but I don't think that explains all of it. I don't have any data to back this up beyond my own experience working in different industries, so take with a heap of salt. After so many years of this, it catches up to you. The difficulty performing is (sometimes, not always) a natural sign that your mind is overworked and needs a break. Regularly pushing through that and even using medication to help you is not consequence free. It's not just your mind that breaks down but also your body (especially adrenals). You can't handle unhealthy levels of drive and stress in perpetuity. Take care of your self and remember that long after the company has forgotten you, you're still tied to your mind and body. Take care of those things as IMHO they are the most valuable possessions you have.
- gtop3 4y ago
  This is largely the same argument for why performance enhancing drugs are banned in sports.
- lisasays 4y ago
  PMs and other management may feel like this is a win in the short term, but it isn't sustainable long term. You're saying they were aware of the Adderall abuse as it was happening? Or just that they saw all these stellar high performers around them and thought, "What's not to like?"
  - radlad 4y ago
    I think it's more like... employee is put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), employee goes to doctor and gets an Adderall script, employee is taken off PIP and management considers this a job well done.
siliconc0w 4y ago
I think this is looking at sentiment from interviews not objective results. It's common for these substances to make you think you're performing better but actually that may not be the case. (Though the use of caffeine is pretty ubiquitous and it's hard to deny at least short term improvements there, at least until it starts messing with sleep)
ipnon 4y ago
The software engineers who I knew were taking “Prescription Stimulants” were moody and hacked lots of code that caused more bugs than it fixed. Some people want to use it to make them better engineers but it can be a trap. The people who seem to be okay taking it everyday are those with such debilitating ADHD that they cannot get anything done in the course of a day without it. If you are a good programmer ceteris peribus then adding substituted amphetamine to the mix might backfire. Now these people I knew were also lauded for the frequency of their PRs and promoted. I suppose the crux is that if you’re going to start such a regimen make sure your company uses perverse incentives as rewards.
- freedomben 4y ago
  > The software engineers who I knew were taking “Prescription Stimulants” Most people don't advertise or even share their list of medications/prescriptions with their colleagues, so I would be careful about drawing conclusions based on your sample. There are most surely people you worked with that were taking stuff that you had no idea about.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- groby_b 4y ago
  There's a large range of people who do have ADHD in a non-debilitating way who benefit from medication. Can I function without meds? Sure. But then I have to spend every single day wrestling my brain to the ground continually. There is no room in my life for anything but "functioning at work", because it's tremendously exhausting (much more than "normal") and leads to rapid burnout. I'm a fairly decent SWE. Ceteris paribus I am - post meds - roughly at the same quality level/volume of output I was before, but I have a better life overall. So maybe don't bulldoze a whole bunch of innocent bystanders because you personally had bad experiences with a few people abusing stimulants? (Also: Not all ADHD meds are stimulants)
- ravenstine 4y ago
  There's probably some selection bias there. Many people with ADHD aren't so proud as to announce to people that they're on medication. It wouldn't surprise me if the engineers who told you they're on meds are just brogrammers who just take the stimulants for performance rather than to just feel normal. After having spent over a decade in the field, I benefit a lot from taking medication. I've been diagnosed with ADHD twice independently, and was initially opposed to medication. At this point in my life, I simply can't recapture the drive I once had that helped me overcome my dysregulated attention. My meds have helped me to not burn out.
gtop3 4y ago
Even though I never had any intention of taking illegal drugs while employed, I've always turned down job offers that come with a condition of drug screening. It always seemed invasive and controlling, which is an awful way to start a relationship with an employer. This is counter to interviewed individuals who, despite drug use, largely ignored company drug policies.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  They don't screen for legal drugs like Adderall anyways
  - FredPret 4y ago
    "Pee in the cup" isn't how good jobs start
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Don't they? Amphetamine is on most standard screens and it's not like the test can tell whether the amphetamine came from prescription pills or street drugs.
    - op00to 4y ago
      The test just says pass or fail. If you show the testing facility a script, they’ll pass you for the thing.
      - chaorace 4y ago
        This probably varies quite a lot, but whenever I fail such tests[1], the first person they contact has always been the employer/school/team, not me. Usually, the business is discrete enough to privately reach out and allow me to explain myself. More than once, however, I would only find out about my failure and imminent expulsion after-the-fact via letter/email -- I've always been able to fight my way out of these situations, but often without my personal reputation intact. [1]: Which I always do, as a person who has been prescribed Adderall since childhood[2] [2]: Yes, the diagnosis is legitimate. It was diagnosed by a trusted family pediatrician during a regular check-up and was not solicited by my parents[3] [3]: Yes, it is exhausting to explain myself, my parents, and my medical history like this whenever the topic comes up. Woe is me, woe is me, etc.
dws 4y ago
"Notably, although officially psychoactive, we exclude caffeine due to its near-universal prevalence in software."
- mypastself 4y ago
  Running on 3 billion devices and all that.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Caffeine, when taken regularly in high doses, can cause a burnout similar to amphetamines. I've done both in college. However, caffeine in small doses (up to ~5 cups / day) is much easier to get used to without burning out, and after a period of regular use becomes more of a tool giving you control over the time you want to be awake and alert, instead of giving you superhuman focus.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > small doses (up to ~5 cups / day) one cup has ~120mg of caffeine. This is 600 mg of caffeine. That's not a small dose. I would say it's above even a "moderate" dose. To be safe I looked it up, and I find up to 400 mg is considered safe. Above that is considered a high caffeine intake [1]. [1] "only limited evidence is currently available to ascertain the safety of high caffeine intake (greater than 400 mg/d for adults [...] Limited data suggest adverse health outcomes" from https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Scientific-Re...
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > one cup has ~120mg of caffeine. This is 600 mg of caffeine. That's not a small dose That's a fairly generous estimate, but that depends on which coffee you're drinking and how it's made. I usually make a cup of coffee by using at most a teaspoon of instant coffee powder, which contains ~50mg of caffeine. So 6 cups for me would be ~300mg of caffeine. That's a small dose when compared to my >1000mg caffeine pill habit in college, which caused the amphetamine-like burnout. Though, it's good that you've brought this up - "a cup" is not a well-defined measurement of caffeine, and this elaboration resolves the ambiguity of my original post.
swayvil 4y ago
Sometimes, when I hit a wall algorithm-design wise, I'll get high. (weed). It works quite well. Well enough to keep using it as a getting-through-the-wall technique, certainly. New ideas will present themselves. New perspectives become apparent. I recommend it. (Attention is like a flashlight in a dark room. One of those focusable flashlights. You can narrow the beam to a very bright spot. Make a very small place very clearly lit. But that also renders the rest of the room pitch black (how deep is that darkness? Do you know???). Sometimes the broader beam is called for. Sometimes it's useful to lose control of the light entirely.)
- mostin 4y ago
  Personally I get a Ballmer peak after a beer or two but I can't code at all high.
  - thomasfromcdnjs 4y ago
    Same, love drinking while coding, one puff of weed and I'm on Youtube before I exhale.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    I can't code high either. I don't code high. I take notes high. A sketchbook. Words, drawings, psuedocode.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  My simpler solution is to cut on my sleep for just one day: after only 4h or less, I'm extremely tired but I have a lot of new ideas and perspectives. I'd only suggest doing that once every 2 week, and sleeping normally at least each night for the week before for maximal results. Also, it's a bad idea to code when tired (due to risks of negative productivity): it's better to just think and take notes, draw diagrams etc BTW I've heard people who are on ADHD drugs report a similar "too focused" attention: a very narrow beam on a very bright spot.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    I think it isn't a "too focused" effect so much as an "any focus" effect. It's just a matter of degree. And that darkness, that wraparound blind spot. It doesn't exist. You know what I mean? It, in all likelihood, is not accounted for at all in your reality. I mean, you don't say to yourself, "gosh, I'm blind to all this stuff". No. the stuff just doesn't exist. And add habit to the mix, that subconscious robot. Habit that governs this universe-dividing attention. Titanic feats of reality-conditioning could be happening right under your nose, constantly. And you'd never even know it.
TheDudeMan 4y ago
I read the title and abstract as "psychodelic". Was really excited to read the paper, then disappointed that it was about Adderall and friends. When is the paper on psychodelic software engineering?
- DANmode 4y ago
  Use "microdose" in your search query.
- lostgame 4y ago
  Uh…I think you mean ‘psychedelic’? I’m not sure of the term ‘psychodelic’. I also thought the article would be more about the recent trend of microdosing psychedelics. I was also quite disappointed.
  - przemub 4y ago
    In many languages psychedelic is spelt with psycho-, so that's for sure what they meant :)
c54 4y ago
Interesting that coffee isn’t on there. I’d be interested in learning about drug use not during programming tasks too, especially for something like weed or psychedelics there’s going to be much more use not at work, compared to adderall and caffeine.
skmurphy 4y ago
26 interviews (small sample size with risk of selection bias); breakdown of usage from Table II page 5: 21 Prescription Stimulants (e.g., Adderall, Ritalin) 14 Cannabis (e.g., Marijuana, Weed) 13 Alcohol (e.g., Beer, Wine) 11 Mood Disorder Medication (e.g., SSRIs, Wellbutrin) 7 Psychedelics (e.g., LSD, Psilocybin) 7 Tobacco (e.g., Cigarettes, Vapes) 3 Cocaine 2 Benzodiazepines (e.g., Xanax) 2 Opiates (e.g., Codeine)
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> responsible usage of [MDMA] is actually in the best interests of the company. I have to admit, I haven't heard that one before.
jfptech 4y ago
“The high proportion of stimulant users in our population may be explained in part by our recruitment methods (e.g., recruiting from the subreddit r/adderall).” I love this
lexarflash8g 4y ago
Not sure if anyone read the article -- its referring to microdosing psychedelics to improve productivity, focus, creativity, and problem-solving Somehow stimulants became focal point of conversation because they are more commonly used -- I think the same idea tech workers are looking for a way to enhance their performance beyond taking a cup of coffee There are trade-offs to taking stimulants such as side-effects and addictiveness, so hence the appeal of certain psychedelics individuals are perhaps using to self-medicate or gain an edge in the workplace.
NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
Here's the interesting thing about the headline/title of the paper. It's intriguing to me, as I have been in the mental health system for 30 years now. The description of "drug abuse" has morphed a few times, from "addiction" to "abuse" and of course, the framing of addiction as a Medical Disease that can be Treated Medically, and finally to this non-judgemental terminology of "substance use". Apparently, the psychiatric establishment has chosen to stop passing judgement on those who abuse illegal drugs, in favor of incorporating those drugs into the tapestry of treatments available. Just a few weeks ago, I attended a brief seminar on Sleep Hygiene, which was led by a physician. One of the other participants boasted about how good his sleep was after smoking a joint, and the physician, as the Medical Authority in the room, explictly condoned this drug abuse and said that whatever this person perceives to help must be good and alright. I used to be friends with a certain person who lived in Boston but moved to San Francisco. She suffers from several poorly-specified mental conditions, such as bipolar disorder and anxiety. She is absolutely open to treating these conditions with drugs (and not any other way such as CBT or other talk-based therapies.) But she is also an inveterate abuser of illegal/quasi-legal drugs, and often discusses her experiences with marijuana, gummies, Ecstasy, LSD, etc. She has hired a psychiatrist who does not accept insurance, so she pays out of pocket for visits, and this psychiatrist basically turns a blind-eye to the illegal drug use while also prescribing psychotropic meds, including scheduled ones like Xanax. So my opinion is that the aforementioned friend is simply a recreational drug seeker and enjoys the extra boost from legal prescription drugs in the same way as she enjoys the illegal ones. But mental (sorry, behavioral) health professionals are not allowed to judge this as "abuse" but must instead refer to "substance use" and incorporate usage patterns into treatment plans, as if this self-medicating is not detrimental to someone who already has issues when they are 100% clean.
- hoseja 4y ago
  How do you define abuse? Just the legality of it? Can one abuse alcohol?
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    That's not the point. It doesn't matter how I define it.
bmacho 4y ago
We mathematicians have a joke: a mathematician is a machine that turns coffee into theorems. (sǝuᴉɯɐʇǝɥdɯɐ ʎllɐnʇɔɐ s,ʇᴉ ʇɐɥʇ sᴉ ǝʞoɾ ǝɥʇ) https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/coffee-and-theorems https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/coffee-and-theorems
catchnear4321 4y ago
26 individuals, total. table 2. many of these were pros in more way than one.

123 points by zdw 4y ago

If you read their pdf they are mainly talking about "Prescription Stimulants (e.g., Adderall, Ritalin), Cannabis (e.g., Marijuana, Weed), Alcohol (e.g., Beer, Wine), and Mood Disorder Medication (e.g., SSRIs, Wellbutrin)" and others to less degree.

stan_kirdey 4y ago

it is well known fact that most programmers are unprofessional

luxuryballs 4y ago
and often most professional when on psychoactive substances
stan_kirdey 4y ago
I am being sarcastic. Nobody even uses terms `programmer`, and I've never heard `professional programmer` in any engineering context. The title should state "Software Engineers ...`
- hxugufjfjf 4y ago
  I actually literally just heard the host of the Rust podcast Rustacean Station refer to himself as a professional programmer, and immediately realising how off that sounded, corrected it to «got paid to write code» or something of the sort.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  I use it all the time. "Software engineer" is bullshitty industry jargon, I don't use it without people outside the industry. [EDIT] Not "professional", though, admittedly. Usually "computer programmer".
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    I like "Software Developer". What we do isn't anywhere close to engineering, but programmer feels a little constrained to just the coding aspect of the job.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Yeah, I'll use that one sometimes, including with other software folks. I think it pretty much captures the whole thing. "Software engineer" I reserve for certain contexts in which I suspect I might be penalized for using another term. I don't think it's very accurate for like 99.5% of all "software engineer" jobs. Feels like using "sandwich artist" for "dude who works at Subway".
filoleg 4y ago
Ah yes, as opposed to all those professional people in finance wearing suits doing cocaine on regular? Is it their choice of the drug that makes it more professional? And no, I am not speaking just based on stereotypes, I personally observed it happen with a significant frequency with friends working in the industry. And the fact that the big finance office building I've been to had a very bice lounge-like area with chairs, sofa, wardrobe+coat hangers, and a coffee table as you enter any bathroom didn't help that perception either. Side-tangent note: I want to clarify what i meant by "a pre-bathroom lounge-like area", because it indeed difficult to tell what i was talking about just based on the paragraph above. You walk through a hallway and see two bathroom doors (M and F), so far everything is very usual. You open one of the doors, and instead of a typical bathroom, you see the type of a lounge room I described above. Literally just a normal lounge relaxing room, with a coffee table, a few comfortable lounge chairs, a small sofa, etc. You also see another door inside this lounge room (in addition to the door you entered through from the hallway). And that door is where the actual regular public bathroom is, with a row of stalls, sinks, etc. So the lounge room basically acts as a buffer room between the hallway and the actual bathroom. Is it a thing at all big finance companies? I don't know, and I think probably not, so this shouldn't be treated as a concrete proof of anything. And I honestly believe that only a small minority utilizes that room for anything but its officially-intended purpose. But it is a bit telling. And no, I don't think this makes finance people as a group unprofessional (or even as individuals; that would depend on their actual behaviors and interactions at their workplace). Just like I don't think a significant number of people in tech being into various drugs makes them unprofessional as a group.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  That's how women's restrooms used to be where I worked long ago. No such lounge for the guys.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    Oh, that's interesting. For context, I am a guy and definitely went into the men's restroom in that anecdote above (so i cannot speak for the women's restroom in that same hallway). I just assumed they would make the same setups for both.

ta988 4y ago

26 participants? That sound like a really solid statistical analysis. /s

tasty_freeze 4y ago
It sounds like they aren't reporting on what % of programmers use what substances. They interviewed 26 people for an hour each to find what they take, why, and what for.
fsckboy 4y ago
statistical significance is a very subtle topic that I'm not at all equipped to explain, but we can start with, "significance comes from sample size, and is independent of population size." If you flip a coin 26 times, you will establish its bias to a high degree of certainty, results that will hold if you flip the same coin a million more times. if you are presented with a bag of a hundred coins, and another bag of a million coins, and you sample 26 of them from each bag and flip them, you will establish the same level of certainty about the bias of the coins in each bag. or something like that? I'm sure there are people here who can explain it better than I can, my point is to say "don't question a sample size of 26 unless you really know what you are doing"
travisjungroth 4y ago
26 can certainly be solid if the sample is representative, the effect size is large and the variance is tight. If you heard that 26 people randomly selected from America took a pill and died within a year, you probably wouldn't want to take that pill. None of that even matters much because there's barely any stats in the paper. I didn't even see anything besides descriptive statistics. It is, by their own description, a qualitative study.

comonoid 4y ago

It doesn't even mention the Ballmer peak.

capableweb 4y ago
Alcohol is about interesting as a drug as caffeine or nicotine, compared to its peers.
- comonoid 4y ago
  It is interesting enough for the authors.

freedomben 4y ago

Relentless driving is one of the things I feel the software industry has really done themselves a disservice in the long run. I know of several engineers who went on Adderall because their performance (relative to their peers) wasn't high enough. With the help of Adderall they were able to get to a similar level. Then that raises the "average" which leads to more people having to turn to heavy stimulants just to keep their jobs. PMs and other management may feel like this is a win in the short term, but it isn't sustainable long term. The sheer number of software engineers who face burnout and/or have to take long multi-month sabbaticals to recover is shocking when compared to other industries where it's largely unheard of. Of course income is a factor (most other industries people don't make enough to allow them to take months off) but I don't think that explains all of it. I don't have any data to back this up beyond my own experience working in different industries, so take with a heap of salt. After so many years of this, it catches up to you. The difficulty performing is (sometimes, not always) a natural sign that your mind is overworked and needs a break. Regularly pushing through that and even using medication to help you is not consequence free. It's not just your mind that breaks down but also your body (especially adrenals). You can't handle unhealthy levels of drive and stress in perpetuity. Take care of your self and remember that long after the company has forgotten you, you're still tied to your mind and body. Take care of those things as IMHO they are the most valuable possessions you have.

gtop3 4y ago
This is largely the same argument for why performance enhancing drugs are banned in sports.
lisasays 4y ago
PMs and other management may feel like this is a win in the short term, but it isn't sustainable long term. You're saying they were aware of the Adderall abuse as it was happening? Or just that they saw all these stellar high performers around them and thought, "What's not to like?"
- radlad 4y ago
  I think it's more like... employee is put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), employee goes to doctor and gets an Adderall script, employee is taken off PIP and management considers this a job well done.

siliconc0w 4y ago

I think this is looking at sentiment from interviews not objective results. It's common for these substances to make you think you're performing better but actually that may not be the case. (Though the use of caffeine is pretty ubiquitous and it's hard to deny at least short term improvements there, at least until it starts messing with sleep)

ipnon 4y ago

The software engineers who I knew were taking “Prescription Stimulants” were moody and hacked lots of code that caused more bugs than it fixed. Some people want to use it to make them better engineers but it can be a trap. The people who seem to be okay taking it everyday are those with such debilitating ADHD that they cannot get anything done in the course of a day without it. If you are a good programmer ceteris peribus then adding substituted amphetamine to the mix might backfire. Now these people I knew were also lauded for the frequency of their PRs and promoted. I suppose the crux is that if you’re going to start such a regimen make sure your company uses perverse incentives as rewards.

freedomben 4y ago
> The software engineers who I knew were taking “Prescription Stimulants” Most people don't advertise or even share their list of medications/prescriptions with their colleagues, so I would be careful about drawing conclusions based on your sample. There are most surely people you worked with that were taking stuff that you had no idea about.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
groby_b 4y ago
There's a large range of people who do have ADHD in a non-debilitating way who benefit from medication. Can I function without meds? Sure. But then I have to spend every single day wrestling my brain to the ground continually. There is no room in my life for anything but "functioning at work", because it's tremendously exhausting (much more than "normal") and leads to rapid burnout. I'm a fairly decent SWE. Ceteris paribus I am - post meds - roughly at the same quality level/volume of output I was before, but I have a better life overall. So maybe don't bulldoze a whole bunch of innocent bystanders because you personally had bad experiences with a few people abusing stimulants? (Also: Not all ADHD meds are stimulants)
ravenstine 4y ago
There's probably some selection bias there. Many people with ADHD aren't so proud as to announce to people that they're on medication. It wouldn't surprise me if the engineers who told you they're on meds are just brogrammers who just take the stimulants for performance rather than to just feel normal. After having spent over a decade in the field, I benefit a lot from taking medication. I've been diagnosed with ADHD twice independently, and was initially opposed to medication. At this point in my life, I simply can't recapture the drive I once had that helped me overcome my dysregulated attention. My meds have helped me to not burn out.

gtop3 4y ago

Even though I never had any intention of taking illegal drugs while employed, I've always turned down job offers that come with a condition of drug screening. It always seemed invasive and controlling, which is an awful way to start a relationship with an employer. This is counter to interviewed individuals who, despite drug use, largely ignored company drug policies.

ipaddr 4y ago
They don't screen for legal drugs like Adderall anyways
- FredPret 4y ago
  "Pee in the cup" isn't how good jobs start
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Don't they? Amphetamine is on most standard screens and it's not like the test can tell whether the amphetamine came from prescription pills or street drugs.
  - op00to 4y ago
    The test just says pass or fail. If you show the testing facility a script, they’ll pass you for the thing.
    - chaorace 4y ago
      This probably varies quite a lot, but whenever I fail such tests[1], the first person they contact has always been the employer/school/team, not me. Usually, the business is discrete enough to privately reach out and allow me to explain myself. More than once, however, I would only find out about my failure and imminent expulsion after-the-fact via letter/email -- I've always been able to fight my way out of these situations, but often without my personal reputation intact. [1]: Which I always do, as a person who has been prescribed Adderall since childhood[2] [2]: Yes, the diagnosis is legitimate. It was diagnosed by a trusted family pediatrician during a regular check-up and was not solicited by my parents[3] [3]: Yes, it is exhausting to explain myself, my parents, and my medical history like this whenever the topic comes up. Woe is me, woe is me, etc.

dws 4y ago

"Notably, although officially psychoactive, we exclude caffeine due to its near-universal prevalence in software."

mypastself 4y ago
Running on 3 billion devices and all that.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Caffeine, when taken regularly in high doses, can cause a burnout similar to amphetamines. I've done both in college. However, caffeine in small doses (up to ~5 cups / day) is much easier to get used to without burning out, and after a period of regular use becomes more of a tool giving you control over the time you want to be awake and alert, instead of giving you superhuman focus.
- krageon 4y ago
  > small doses (up to ~5 cups / day) one cup has ~120mg of caffeine. This is 600 mg of caffeine. That's not a small dose. I would say it's above even a "moderate" dose. To be safe I looked it up, and I find up to 400 mg is considered safe. Above that is considered a high caffeine intake [1]. [1] "only limited evidence is currently available to ascertain the safety of high caffeine intake (greater than 400 mg/d for adults [...] Limited data suggest adverse health outcomes" from https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Scientific-Re...
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > one cup has ~120mg of caffeine. This is 600 mg of caffeine. That's not a small dose That's a fairly generous estimate, but that depends on which coffee you're drinking and how it's made. I usually make a cup of coffee by using at most a teaspoon of instant coffee powder, which contains ~50mg of caffeine. So 6 cups for me would be ~300mg of caffeine. That's a small dose when compared to my >1000mg caffeine pill habit in college, which caused the amphetamine-like burnout. Though, it's good that you've brought this up - "a cup" is not a well-defined measurement of caffeine, and this elaboration resolves the ambiguity of my original post.

swayvil 4y ago

Sometimes, when I hit a wall algorithm-design wise, I'll get high. (weed). It works quite well. Well enough to keep using it as a getting-through-the-wall technique, certainly. New ideas will present themselves. New perspectives become apparent. I recommend it. (Attention is like a flashlight in a dark room. One of those focusable flashlights. You can narrow the beam to a very bright spot. Make a very small place very clearly lit. But that also renders the rest of the room pitch black (how deep is that darkness? Do you know???). Sometimes the broader beam is called for. Sometimes it's useful to lose control of the light entirely.)

mostin 4y ago
Personally I get a Ballmer peak after a beer or two but I can't code at all high.
- thomasfromcdnjs 4y ago
  Same, love drinking while coding, one puff of weed and I'm on Youtube before I exhale.
- swayvil 4y ago
  I can't code high either. I don't code high. I take notes high. A sketchbook. Words, drawings, psuedocode.
csdvrx 4y ago
My simpler solution is to cut on my sleep for just one day: after only 4h or less, I'm extremely tired but I have a lot of new ideas and perspectives. I'd only suggest doing that once every 2 week, and sleeping normally at least each night for the week before for maximal results. Also, it's a bad idea to code when tired (due to risks of negative productivity): it's better to just think and take notes, draw diagrams etc BTW I've heard people who are on ADHD drugs report a similar "too focused" attention: a very narrow beam on a very bright spot.
- swayvil 4y ago
  I think it isn't a "too focused" effect so much as an "any focus" effect. It's just a matter of degree. And that darkness, that wraparound blind spot. It doesn't exist. You know what I mean? It, in all likelihood, is not accounted for at all in your reality. I mean, you don't say to yourself, "gosh, I'm blind to all this stuff". No. the stuff just doesn't exist. And add habit to the mix, that subconscious robot. Habit that governs this universe-dividing attention. Titanic feats of reality-conditioning could be happening right under your nose, constantly. And you'd never even know it.

TheDudeMan 4y ago

I read the title and abstract as "psychodelic". Was really excited to read the paper, then disappointed that it was about Adderall and friends. When is the paper on psychodelic software engineering?

DANmode 4y ago
Use "microdose" in your search query.
lostgame 4y ago
Uh…I think you mean ‘psychedelic’? I’m not sure of the term ‘psychodelic’. I also thought the article would be more about the recent trend of microdosing psychedelics. I was also quite disappointed.
- przemub 4y ago
  In many languages psychedelic is spelt with psycho-, so that's for sure what they meant :)

c54 4y ago

Interesting that coffee isn’t on there. I’d be interested in learning about drug use not during programming tasks too, especially for something like weed or psychedelics there’s going to be much more use not at work, compared to adderall and caffeine.

skmurphy 4y ago

26 interviews (small sample size with risk of selection bias); breakdown of usage from Table II page 5: 21 Prescription Stimulants (e.g., Adderall, Ritalin) 14 Cannabis (e.g., Marijuana, Weed) 13 Alcohol (e.g., Beer, Wine) 11 Mood Disorder Medication (e.g., SSRIs, Wellbutrin) 7 Psychedelics (e.g., LSD, Psilocybin) 7 Tobacco (e.g., Cigarettes, Vapes) 3 Cocaine 2 Benzodiazepines (e.g., Xanax) 2 Opiates (e.g., Codeine)

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> responsible usage of [MDMA] is actually in the best interests of the company. I have to admit, I haven't heard that one before.

jfptech 4y ago

“The high proportion of stimulant users in our population may be explained in part by our recruitment methods (e.g., recruiting from the subreddit r/adderall).” I love this

lexarflash8g 4y ago

Not sure if anyone read the article -- its referring to microdosing psychedelics to improve productivity, focus, creativity, and problem-solving Somehow stimulants became focal point of conversation because they are more commonly used -- I think the same idea tech workers are looking for a way to enhance their performance beyond taking a cup of coffee There are trade-offs to taking stimulants such as side-effects and addictiveness, so hence the appeal of certain psychedelics individuals are perhaps using to self-medicate or gain an edge in the workplace.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago

Here's the interesting thing about the headline/title of the paper. It's intriguing to me, as I have been in the mental health system for 30 years now. The description of "drug abuse" has morphed a few times, from "addiction" to "abuse" and of course, the framing of addiction as a Medical Disease that can be Treated Medically, and finally to this non-judgemental terminology of "substance use". Apparently, the psychiatric establishment has chosen to stop passing judgement on those who abuse illegal drugs, in favor of incorporating those drugs into the tapestry of treatments available. Just a few weeks ago, I attended a brief seminar on Sleep Hygiene, which was led by a physician. One of the other participants boasted about how good his sleep was after smoking a joint, and the physician, as the Medical Authority in the room, explictly condoned this drug abuse and said that whatever this person perceives to help must be good and alright. I used to be friends with a certain person who lived in Boston but moved to San Francisco. She suffers from several poorly-specified mental conditions, such as bipolar disorder and anxiety. She is absolutely open to treating these conditions with drugs (and not any other way such as CBT or other talk-based therapies.) But she is also an inveterate abuser of illegal/quasi-legal drugs, and often discusses her experiences with marijuana, gummies, Ecstasy, LSD, etc. She has hired a psychiatrist who does not accept insurance, so she pays out of pocket for visits, and this psychiatrist basically turns a blind-eye to the illegal drug use while also prescribing psychotropic meds, including scheduled ones like Xanax. So my opinion is that the aforementioned friend is simply a recreational drug seeker and enjoys the extra boost from legal prescription drugs in the same way as she enjoys the illegal ones. But mental (sorry, behavioral) health professionals are not allowed to judge this as "abuse" but must instead refer to "substance use" and incorporate usage patterns into treatment plans, as if this self-medicating is not detrimental to someone who already has issues when they are 100% clean.

hoseja 4y ago
How do you define abuse? Just the legality of it? Can one abuse alcohol?
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  That's not the point. It doesn't matter how I define it.

bmacho 4y ago

We mathematicians have a joke: a mathematician is a machine that turns coffee into theorems. (sǝuᴉɯɐʇǝɥdɯɐ ʎllɐnʇɔɐ s,ʇᴉ ʇɐɥʇ sᴉ ǝʞoɾ ǝɥʇ) https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/coffee-and-theorems https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/coffee-and-theorems

catchnear4321 4y ago

26 individuals, total. table 2. many of these were pros in more way than one.