3 ms·
Okay, I have read the fine blog post (which took a while to load). The article leads off by defining nootropics as "substances which purportedly improve mental
by tokenadult 13y ago
Okay, I have read the fine blog post (which took a while to load). The article leads off by defining nootropics as "substances which purportedly improve mental functioning with relatively few side effects when used responsibility."
The blog post author mentions a few small-n, limited duration studies, and then describes his voluntary-response survey methodology:
"I asked people in the two largest online nootropics communities (that I know of), Reddit’s r/nootropics and Longecity’s Brain Health forum, to take a survey describing their use of 31 different substances. I got 162 responses."
"Respondents were asked to rate their subjective experiences of different nootropics on a scale of zero (completely useless, did nothing) to ten (life-changing). Comments on Reddit suggest several people misunderstood the scale, but not much I can do about that at this point."
So all the data here are voluntary-response data, with the known problem of response bias[1] and other defects about which I have an entire FAQ[2] I post on HN from time to time. Worse than that, all the data are self-report data,[3] which also have plenty of problems, even when gathered in a comprehensive survey with a representative sample of the general population, because of the risks of incorrect self-reports unless checked by other data sources that are objective.[4]
The blog post author then gives a lengthy description, with pretty colored charts, of his hand-waving statistical analysis of these dubious voluntary reponse, self-report data. It would not be wise (that is, it would not be a sign of improved mental functioning) to take these conclusions seriously as a description of how nootropics work, or indeed if they work at all. The author would do well to study fundamental principles of statistics by reading the online articles "Advice to Mathematics Teachers on Evaluating Introductory Statistics Textbooks"[5] and "The Introductory Statistics Course: A Ptolemaic Curriculum?"[6] to wrap his mind around how strictly necessary it is to have a valid data-gathering plan before engaging in any statistical manipulation of the data. Garbage in, garbage out. More background on experiment design to think about while evaluating the blog post kindly submitted here can be found in the essay "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[7] by Peter Norvig, LISP hacker and director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research.
What might big-time convince me to try out a nootropic substance would be an objective demonstration that someone with typical abilities (say, someone who goes into online discussion with a known propensity to believe what's on Reddit without checking it) can become a person with thoughtful insight (say, someone like Peter Norvig) at adult age simply by ingesting the nootropic. On my part, I like to improve mental functioning with relatively few side effects as much as anybody here, and one way I attempt to do that in middle age is by reading thoughtful articles by careful scholars and then discussing those among the learned participants on Hacker News. I'd appreciate comments from any of you about how one could know, objectively and verifiably, that a nootropic substance really does people good (even if they don't feel that themselves). I especially invite comments from participants here who have a professional understanding of statistical studies in clinical trials of new medicines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2322237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2322237
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15528061 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15528061
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/barker/supp/excerpt.pdf http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/barker/supp/excerpt.pdf
[5] http://statland.org/MyPapers/MAAFIXED.PDF http://statland.org/MyPapers/MAAFIXED.PDF
[6] http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hb3k0nz http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hb3k0nz
[7] http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
- bjterry 13y agoI believe the author of this piece is keenly aware of the issues inherent to study designs such as this, which is why he discusses the methodological issues in this post. He has discussed methodological issues at length in previous posts (he is a psychiatry resident, and one who frequently goes back and addresses the primary literature) and that is taken as context to his regular readers, explaining why he doesn't devote more time to disclaimers. Your exhortation that he should spend more time on basic understanding of statistics is misplaced, because he understands these issues, but he has different philosophical views than you on how information should be gathered and processed. Specifically, it seems to be your view that information received with noise and bias should be given (literally) zero weight, that information should be ignored unless it comes in the form of peer-reviewed, random controlled clinical trials. His philosophical view is that all information should be given some appropriate weight, and that the costs to acquire information are relevant. Random, controlled clinical trials are costly, and so we will never have them on a variety of topics of interest to us. To account for this finiteness of resources, and to suggest which areas could be more fruitful for future formal trials, it seems wise to acquire that information which can be cheaply had. This is an attempt to gather that information.
- matznerd 13y agoWhat would you take as objective and verifiable information?
- nitrogen 13y agoI get the impression that he's looking for information that has a well-defined objective measurement (e.g. performance at some standardized task), and is not subject to the selection and survivorship biases of voluntary response data or the biases inherent in subjective responses to questions about subjective experiences, when that experience can be influenced by the subject's expectations.
- SerenityNow2 13y agoI think you're missing some context here. The survey was only supposed to be better than the anecdotes that were accumulating previously. Solicited head to head anecdotes are better than unsolicited anecdotes without comparisons. http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/1xglcg/a_survey_for_better_anecdata/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/1xglcg/a_survey_... This wasn't meant to convince anyone to take nootropics.