12 ms·

Study drugs make people worse at problem solving, not better

43 points by shaftoe444 3y ago

wellthisisgreat 3y ago
I'd bet a 1000-piece mono-color puzzle that close to 50% of currently written software is done on those drugs.
- graybies 3y ago
  50%? from experience its closer to 80%
  - mordae 3y ago
    Whoa, it's just caffeine where I live. I don't think I've seen more than 10% of the team to use anything else. It would be an interesting study, though.
  - anyoneamous 3y ago
    I wonder what the correlation is between "ADHD over-medication" and "new JavaScript Frameworks published"
- galenko 3y ago
  We all project/assume based on the bubble we live in. In my 18 years of in-house software dev experience (several countries, companies of different sizes), not once have I even heard (in the real world, not online) of people using any sort of drugs like the ones mentioned in the article. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But based on my personal experience, I also could bet the opposite of what you're saying and feel just as confident.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    I assume, like myself, most people taking them don't talk to their coworkers about it. Doubly so if they're taking them illegally
    - GuB-42 3y ago
      I know some people who take party drugs. I know alcoholics. But coworkers who routinely take performance enhancing drugs other than caffeine at work, not one. I guess it depends on your environment. Silicon Valley seems particularly prone to it.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  The only drug I have seen people use at work is diluted favoured ethanol and coffee of course.
lacker 3y ago
I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how these drugs are used in reality. Someone takes a drug a number of times and performs a mental task that they do frequently. They can get a lot of practice using a drug. Does a new computer make you more productive on day 1, or does it take a while to get used to it, even if you know it'll help in the long run? The real problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect. Telling people "don't try study drugs, they don't even work!" backed up by questionable studies reminds me of DARE, telling people that marijuana will kill you. Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress.
- smt88 3y ago
  You're essentially proposing that people have to learn how to do tasks in a new way when using study drugs. That's a very far-fetched claim. Do you have any evidence other than personal anecdotes? It doesn't fit with anything I've ever read or experienced with these drugs.
  - moi2388 3y ago
    Sure. Tolerance builds up over extended use, so that’s one avenue. Another is knowing what causes bodily sensations. High caffeine for example can easily to nervousness if participants don’t know they got caffeine. Drugs like Ritalin can cause euphoria the first couple of times you use it. Ever drank alcohol? You have to learn to deal with that, the first time you’re drunk you are very different from the second time. And then we have the fact that they took random new puzzles; you study stuff you’ve already gone over in class, and study in a way you like. Please don’t buy into any psychological research; there is a reason more than 2/3rd of all their research cannot even be replicated.
DiscourseFan 3y ago
I think this is something well-known among high-achievers at school, but I knew some people at school who would just spend 36 hours straight doing all their assignments and still get bad marks. It was always this way for me: work for a few hours, take a break, (maybe a walk, chat with friends/roommates), make some (healthy) food, then get back to it. Staying up never helps, because you have to sleep anyway, and getting poor sleep just makes you work poorly: you can always get something done in the morning. I guess in the end whats most important is time management, making sure you have time to get exercise, socialize, eat right, and get all your assignments in on time and study enough for exams. Having a good cohort, I think, is also important. A lot of friends of mine got Summa Cum Laude, honors etc., ended up doing PhD work at top universities. We all had a very similar work ethic and we were constantly bouncing shit off each other and debating and going out and having fun. The idea that good work requires suffering is nonsense: good work is joyful and passionate. Good work is doing something you care about and find deeply compelling. Good work is always, in the end, something you think is good for yourself. I think as long as you remember that you'll be happy and satisfied with whatever you choose to do.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  What you describe is what I imagined university to be like but found that people were quite lazy and amazed that I studied during the course and not all in the last 24h. Kind of made me leave academic life too early in a way I feel.
- vjk800 3y ago
  I've always been a sort of lazy high achiever and very puzzled about this. I was always a near-top (but not top) student in schools, got a PhD and am now working in a high paying job in a bank. Besides one or two years during my university years, I've always been extremely lazy. On the other hand, in all of these institutions there have been many people who have been very serious hard workers and perhaps even at the time been ahead of me in whatever metrics the institution happened to use to measure success. However, over time I've noticed that these sort of things sort of even out. People who worked very hard in the high school or during my PhD are not more successful than me anymore. I don't know if it's just that life is so random that the effect of hard work gets washed out by random life choices or what. It's also plausible that working hard just puts you in a very non-creative mindset and creativity is what gets most of the work done in a complex environment in the end. For many people, hard work often seems to be an end to itself and it matters less to those people where the work is directed at. As a result, people end up working crazy hours doing stuff that could be done in one tenth of a time by using a bit of creativity or just waiting the problem to somehow become irrelevant.
whatthesmack 3y ago
https://archive.is/wI6dQ https://archive.is/wI6dQ
pazimzadeh 3y ago
I would assume some of these drugs work best when you already have a few possible approaches in mind, but you need focused brute force to make a dent?
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  I'm curious about how that would play out, too. That's the reason this article is interesting, IMO...the questions it made me think about regarding these drugs.
bezier-curve 3y ago
Is there a link to the study? Seems weird to question the efficacy of drugs for things they're not FDA approved for. They're not nootropics.
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add4165 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add4165
junofan 3y ago
*in drug-naive participants taking high clinical doses. Study participants were high. Slanted reporting by the Economist, not even linking to the paper.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Yeah, I can't imagine being asked to take a huge dose of a new stimulant and then do anything under pressure like that. A common ADHD tip is that if your meds aren't quite doing it for you, try a lower dose before you try a higher dose. And that's among people who take these drugs regularly and are wired to respond well to them.
thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago
Whenever someone compares dextroamphetamine or methylphenidate to modafinil, I don't take them seriously. They don't begin to compare in effect.
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  "They don't begin to compare in effect." The study agrees with you =)
s_dev 3y ago
Is the lesson here is that problem solving typically requires more willpower than intellect?
lapama 3y ago
Gingko biloba supplements are great, but you can feel how they activate your psychological weaknesses.
triggercut 3y ago
The title should really read: "study drugs make some people worse at problem solving, not better" Or even "prescription medication that effects brain not always helpful for people who don't need it" Anecdotal evidence but my problem solving was good before medication and better now that I have the right medication.
marccarran 3y ago
[flagged]
marccarran 3y ago
[flagged]
bambax 3y ago
> Popping stimulants is commonplace in industries like software and finance. One survey of 6,500 American college students reported that 14% had used the drugs for non-medical reasons. I have never met anyone taking such drugs (I'm French, not American) and would put my kids through hell if I ever found out they took anything. I'd rather they drop out of school than do any of this. That said... does 14% qualify as "commonplace"?
HeartStrings 3y ago
Post content, this site literally wants me to pay for human written words on the screen in Year of Our Lord 2023
jacknews 3y ago
But do they help you learn?
seba_dos1 3y ago
Discussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335730
tranchms 3y ago
I mean, this is not a very convincing study. State dependent learning is a legitimate phenomenon. This study didn’t test those who regularly took cognitive enhancers It just looked at people who were not ADHD and then gave them a drug No time to adjust or adapt Would have liked to see four populations tested. 1. unmedicated ADHD 2. medicated ADHD 3. Unmedicated non-ADHD 4. Medicated Non-ADHD Then do the tests with placebos and cognitive enhancers If you study for a test on medication you better take the test on medication. And if you study unmedicated, you better take the test unmedicated I think they should find “non-ADHD” populations who happen to routinely take cognitive enhancers and then perform the same test. Would be willing to bet that there is an improvement over placebo group vs medicated group in this population If coffee and nicotine are effective cognitive enhancers for general populations, regardless of ADHD or not, it’s silly to think that stimulants like amphetamines are ineffective So the research conclusions are flimsy and incomplete
- lapama 3y ago
  I perceive their main point could be made with a single focus on the 3rd option you suggest. Other options might fall out of their aim?

43 points by shaftoe444 3y ago

wellthisisgreat 3y ago

I'd bet a 1000-piece mono-color puzzle that close to 50% of currently written software is done on those drugs.

graybies 3y ago
50%? from experience its closer to 80%
- mordae 3y ago
  Whoa, it's just caffeine where I live. I don't think I've seen more than 10% of the team to use anything else. It would be an interesting study, though.
- anyoneamous 3y ago
  I wonder what the correlation is between "ADHD over-medication" and "new JavaScript Frameworks published"
galenko 3y ago
We all project/assume based on the bubble we live in. In my 18 years of in-house software dev experience (several countries, companies of different sizes), not once have I even heard (in the real world, not online) of people using any sort of drugs like the ones mentioned in the article. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But based on my personal experience, I also could bet the opposite of what you're saying and feel just as confident.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  I assume, like myself, most people taking them don't talk to their coworkers about it. Doubly so if they're taking them illegally
  - GuB-42 3y ago
    I know some people who take party drugs. I know alcoholics. But coworkers who routinely take performance enhancing drugs other than caffeine at work, not one. I guess it depends on your environment. Silicon Valley seems particularly prone to it.
quickthrower2 3y ago
The only drug I have seen people use at work is diluted favoured ethanol and coffee of course.

lacker 3y ago

I want to preface this by saying that I am not a supporter of study drugs, except for caffeine. I don't find these studies to be convincing. You give people a pill, they don't know what it is. These people don't know what to expect, they've never taken study drugs before. They're solving some random logic puzzle they've never seen before. "Participants had to work out which items to put into a bag." Compare to how these drugs are used in reality. Someone takes a drug a number of times and performs a mental task that they do frequently. They can get a lot of practice using a drug. Does a new computer make you more productive on day 1, or does it take a while to get used to it, even if you know it'll help in the long run? The real problems with these drugs are addiction, side effects, and the phenomenon where you have to take higher doses over time to get the same effect. Telling people "don't try study drugs, they don't even work!" backed up by questionable studies reminds me of DARE, telling people that marijuana will kill you. Maybe one day we will get a drug that enhances mental function, that works effectively and has no real downsides. I think that could be a great boon to society. I don't think it exists yet though, or that we are even really making any progress.

smt88 3y ago
You're essentially proposing that people have to learn how to do tasks in a new way when using study drugs. That's a very far-fetched claim. Do you have any evidence other than personal anecdotes? It doesn't fit with anything I've ever read or experienced with these drugs.
- moi2388 3y ago
  Sure. Tolerance builds up over extended use, so that’s one avenue. Another is knowing what causes bodily sensations. High caffeine for example can easily to nervousness if participants don’t know they got caffeine. Drugs like Ritalin can cause euphoria the first couple of times you use it. Ever drank alcohol? You have to learn to deal with that, the first time you’re drunk you are very different from the second time. And then we have the fact that they took random new puzzles; you study stuff you’ve already gone over in class, and study in a way you like. Please don’t buy into any psychological research; there is a reason more than 2/3rd of all their research cannot even be replicated.

DiscourseFan 3y ago

I think this is something well-known among high-achievers at school, but I knew some people at school who would just spend 36 hours straight doing all their assignments and still get bad marks. It was always this way for me: work for a few hours, take a break, (maybe a walk, chat with friends/roommates), make some (healthy) food, then get back to it. Staying up never helps, because you have to sleep anyway, and getting poor sleep just makes you work poorly: you can always get something done in the morning. I guess in the end whats most important is time management, making sure you have time to get exercise, socialize, eat right, and get all your assignments in on time and study enough for exams. Having a good cohort, I think, is also important. A lot of friends of mine got Summa Cum Laude, honors etc., ended up doing PhD work at top universities. We all had a very similar work ethic and we were constantly bouncing shit off each other and debating and going out and having fun. The idea that good work requires suffering is nonsense: good work is joyful and passionate. Good work is doing something you care about and find deeply compelling. Good work is always, in the end, something you think is good for yourself. I think as long as you remember that you'll be happy and satisfied with whatever you choose to do.

quickthrower2 3y ago
What you describe is what I imagined university to be like but found that people were quite lazy and amazed that I studied during the course and not all in the last 24h. Kind of made me leave academic life too early in a way I feel.
vjk800 3y ago
I've always been a sort of lazy high achiever and very puzzled about this. I was always a near-top (but not top) student in schools, got a PhD and am now working in a high paying job in a bank. Besides one or two years during my university years, I've always been extremely lazy. On the other hand, in all of these institutions there have been many people who have been very serious hard workers and perhaps even at the time been ahead of me in whatever metrics the institution happened to use to measure success. However, over time I've noticed that these sort of things sort of even out. People who worked very hard in the high school or during my PhD are not more successful than me anymore. I don't know if it's just that life is so random that the effect of hard work gets washed out by random life choices or what. It's also plausible that working hard just puts you in a very non-creative mindset and creativity is what gets most of the work done in a complex environment in the end. For many people, hard work often seems to be an end to itself and it matters less to those people where the work is directed at. As a result, people end up working crazy hours doing stuff that could be done in one tenth of a time by using a bit of creativity or just waiting the problem to somehow become irrelevant.

whatthesmack 3y ago

https://archive.is/wI6dQ https://archive.is/wI6dQ

pazimzadeh 3y ago

I would assume some of these drugs work best when you already have a few possible approaches in mind, but you need focused brute force to make a dent?

rootw0rm 3y ago
I'm curious about how that would play out, too. That's the reason this article is interesting, IMO...the questions it made me think about regarding these drugs.

bezier-curve 3y ago

Is there a link to the study? Seems weird to question the efficacy of drugs for things they're not FDA approved for. They're not nootropics.

rootw0rm 3y ago
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add4165 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add4165

junofan 3y ago

*in drug-naive participants taking high clinical doses. Study participants were high. Slanted reporting by the Economist, not even linking to the paper.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Yeah, I can't imagine being asked to take a huge dose of a new stimulant and then do anything under pressure like that. A common ADHD tip is that if your meds aren't quite doing it for you, try a lower dose before you try a higher dose. And that's among people who take these drugs regularly and are wired to respond well to them.

thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago

Whenever someone compares dextroamphetamine or methylphenidate to modafinil, I don't take them seriously. They don't begin to compare in effect.

rootw0rm 3y ago
"They don't begin to compare in effect." The study agrees with you =)

s_dev 3y ago

Is the lesson here is that problem solving typically requires more willpower than intellect?

lapama 3y ago

Gingko biloba supplements are great, but you can feel how they activate your psychological weaknesses.

triggercut 3y ago

The title should really read: "study drugs make some people worse at problem solving, not better" Or even "prescription medication that effects brain not always helpful for people who don't need it" Anecdotal evidence but my problem solving was good before medication and better now that I have the right medication.

marccarran 3y ago

[flagged]

marccarran 3y ago

[flagged]

bambax 3y ago

> Popping stimulants is commonplace in industries like software and finance. One survey of 6,500 American college students reported that 14% had used the drugs for non-medical reasons. I have never met anyone taking such drugs (I'm French, not American) and would put my kids through hell if I ever found out they took anything. I'd rather they drop out of school than do any of this. That said... does 14% qualify as "commonplace"?

HeartStrings 3y ago

Post content, this site literally wants me to pay for human written words on the screen in Year of Our Lord 2023

jacknews 3y ago

But do they help you learn?

seba_dos1 3y ago

Discussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335730

tranchms 3y ago

I mean, this is not a very convincing study. State dependent learning is a legitimate phenomenon. This study didn’t test those who regularly took cognitive enhancers It just looked at people who were not ADHD and then gave them a drug No time to adjust or adapt Would have liked to see four populations tested. 1. unmedicated ADHD 2. medicated ADHD 3. Unmedicated non-ADHD 4. Medicated Non-ADHD Then do the tests with placebos and cognitive enhancers If you study for a test on medication you better take the test on medication. And if you study unmedicated, you better take the test unmedicated I think they should find “non-ADHD” populations who happen to routinely take cognitive enhancers and then perform the same test. Would be willing to bet that there is an improvement over placebo group vs medicated group in this population If coffee and nicotine are effective cognitive enhancers for general populations, regardless of ADHD or not, it’s silly to think that stimulants like amphetamines are ineffective So the research conclusions are flimsy and incomplete

lapama 3y ago
I perceive their main point could be made with a single focus on the 3rd option you suggest. Other options might fall out of their aim?