I claimed that nootropics are predominantly shit, as in, the brunt of substances in the elusive "nootropic" category are largely inefficient or only slightly better than placebo. Some guy misunderstood the message in my post and questioned my "mental faculties". I won't be bothered writing a coherent reply, but instead elucidate why his line of thinking is wrong:
- The fact that the term "nootropic" is used in medical litterature, does not on its' own affirm the efficiency of a substance. The substance in question has been put in a category, possibly as an extra bit of information to the reader.
- Do you honestly believe that all tests show that nootropics work? Some tests, show or suggest that some nootropics are effective at improving certain underlying parameters, which ultimately results in "enhanced cognition". Some tests, show or suggest that some nootropics are inefficient at improving certain underlying parameters, which ultimately results in "enhanced cognition".
- All tests do indeed not show that all "nootropics" are effective. There are as many shitty nootropics and nootropic blends as there are efficient ones.
- Writing all of which indicate that "nootropics" do indeed work, is strange. You must understand that such generalizations are downright stupid.
Edited by Deep Thought, 08 May 2014 - 09:59 AM.