81 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

snyp: for the verbal, my initial plan was to memorize word definitions in the barron's list.. i ended up not getting past the d's or e's before exam time, so i switched to a short, hit parade type of list. even though i was guessing for many of the verbal questions, i scored well (98th). i would highly recommend memorizing word definitions and then quickly going with your gut for the vocab-related questions (pacing is important). the reading comprehension can be a time vortex, and you need to be able to skim once, read the questions, and then find the relevant sections of the passage to read more closely. i do think that something like modafinil could help in this aspect. if you decide to try it, please let us know how your performance compares to baseline (and record everything!). lastly, there are some programs out there with databanks of gre vocab words, if you think that'll help you study.

Alex, I know most if not all the words on the barron's word list. I downloaded a computer program last September which helped me memorize about 4500 words, about half or so I already knew. 98th percentile is awesome. I could basically get that score if it was not for the reading comp passages which slow me down. So I think something like modafinil (from what I have heard) could help me there.

And regarding the advise about not freaking out on the exam...that's not going to be my problem otherwise I would not be looking for a stimulant, but instead something like L-Theanine!! Standardized tests are not like other tests you have had in college, they are attempting to measure something entirely different than knowledge.

[benson123]

Hey Nootropkamil,

I think that non-profit organization idea is great. If you set up the organization and had an area for donations, I am sure that you would get support. I would likely donate close to 1,000$, if the institute was doing research on cognitive enhancment. You would be filling a unique niche and would be rewarded for doing so.

[paul]

Im with you on this nootropikamil. Im still using nootropics as well as modafanil but don't really notice any difference with the nootropics and will prob quit them except piracetam (its cheap and does no harm) once they run out and just stick to modafinil. The biggest worry about the drug at the moment appears to be not side effects but its loss of effectiveness after a few years use. This aint a risk, if it happens it happens. It will of been good while it lasted and all the extra knowledge and skills I would of acquired over these years through increased learning ability will I hope make me a better, improved person. Anyway in a few years time there will be ampakines, benzothiazides and other novel anti dementia drugs to look forward. The future looks bright so why not take advantage of the best drug out there at the moment?

[doug123]

We will form a non profit. At first, we need to generate more capital and need a membership to have as beneficiaries. Working with the members of the ImmInst nootropic fora is certainly a possibility. Since the patents have expired on all of the conventional nootropics, there is no use in fighting over sales of these products. It would be our goal to support research into effectiveness of these compounds in human clinical trials. We will hope also support animal research as well.

Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 30 September 2006 - 08:47 PM.

[benson123]

Why not create a prize for increasing intelligence in mice significantly. I know there have already been the dougie mice, however, why not try to explore the different genetic root of intelligence and then search for a mean to enhance this.

[doug123]

Why not create a prize for increasing intelligence in mice significantly.  I know there have already been the dougie mice, however, why not try to explore the different genetic root of intelligence and then search for a mean to enhance this.

This is a good idea. I think it is best to donate money generated from *purported* life extension products to REAL life-extension research (such as Mprize, etc), and donate earnings from nootropic sales to REAL nootropic research -- we'll have to define this.

I want to build a real drug company when I finish college, and I already know a prestigious doctor whom is potentially interested in working with me (provided I have the cash to pay him ). But generating capital for research on real pharmaceutical (effective) drugs is predicated merely on having MDs experienced in clinical trials that have contributed to research that led to FDA approval for drugs. So all we need to do is come up with the new compounds (or perhaps mixtures of older ones). So this is one of my ambitions. Nootropic and life-extension type supplements are already considered mostly hype, so I would like to change some of that.

With the supplements and such, because they are unregulated, it is relatively easy to provide quality products and dominate the market. Plus, there are less Patents in the way to fight over. Plus, the supplement business is, at best, a drop in the bucket to the drug market.

The supplement business in the USA is currently is generating a little more that 20 or so billion a year...I do not know if an industry that is primarily built on hype and unsubstantiated science is worth that much to lose friends over...unless one uses such reasoning to conduct day to day operations...

Edited by nootropikamil, 30 September 2006 - 08:48 PM.

[Shepard]

But this is something I just want to contribute to, and not own.  I want to build a real drug company when I finish college, and I already know a prestigious doctor whom is potentially interested in working with me (provided I have the cash to pay him.

I hear that Lee Crost M.D. is fabulous.

[doug123]

Im with you on this nootropikamil. Im still using nootropics as well as modafinil but don't really notice any difference with the nootropics and will prob quit them except piracetam (its cheap and does no harm) once they run out and just stick to modafinil. The biggest worry about the drug at the moment appears to be not side effects but its loss of effectiveness after a few years use. This aint a risk, if it happens it happens. It will of been good while it lasted and all the extra knowledge and skills I would of acquired over these years through increased learning ability will I hope make me a better, improved person. Anyway in a few years time there will be ampakines, benzothiazides and other novel anti dementia drugs to look forward. The future looks bright so why not take advantage of the best drug out there at the moment?

That is a good point. The real issue, for most people I have met that actually were *seeking* cognitive enhancement -- is not if they can perhaps perform "better" than others -- many seem to be dissatisfied with their current cognitive performance and are seeking a "real" improvement, as if their current state wasn't "good" enough.

I think that there is a higher rate of attention and possibly depressive related disorders in this group. Usually this group gets primarily what they are looking for in a pharmaceutical drug, not a supplement. However, in the supplement forum, this tendency might not be as evident as folks aren't seeking stuff to affect their mental capacity as much specifically, but to perhaps enhance or extend their lives. And I am sure there is some crossover from the two groups.

I am not trying to "diss" the nootropics we currently have on hand...I am just stating the obvious: drugs like Aricept, Strattera, Modafinil, Wellbutrin, Adderall, Dextroamphetamine, Ritalin, (possibly Deprenyl) and others(?) are far more effective at treating attention (and memory in many cases) related disorders -- which supposedly affect about 8-10% of the population -- than something like Aniracetam, Pyritinol, Centrophenoxine, etc. etc.

The modern "nootropics" were considered barely effective -- the FDA did not find the benefits in cognition significant enough to warrant approval for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. And when prior notice was submitted to FDA (as these compounds do not fit the classical definition of a dietary supplement per DSHEA act of 1994) for the sales of these products as dietary supplements, the FDA did not seem to be able to find any reason to disapprove, as they show a very low toxicity -- which is part of the reason that their efficacy was often questioned.

These "nootropic" drugs appear to be primarily cholinergic agonists and do show some efficacy. But it would have to depend on the individual. And we have no hard data from healthy individuals to suggest a single one of the modern nootropics would have a *significant* effect in an otherwise perfectly functioning memory. I guess it is okay to speculate, but what it comes down to is how much money are you willing to spend per month on stuff that "might" work or "barely" works? Well, there is always a chance any drug won't work for you, but in my experience, it often just depends on the side effect profile whether one likes it or not.

My old spending into these nootropic and life-extension supplements was definitely over $100 a month. It was a scary list of supplements and drugs, let me tell you...I try to keep to no more than two racetams now, one ergot, one choline source, and a couple others too. but no more "laundry list" for me.

But there are also people here who are straight "A" students already and just want to take a pill so they can learn more in less time -- or perhaps some dude sitting at his computer all day programming stuff -- who knows, a chess player curious if one might perhaps make it possible to beat his or her opponent. The nootropic research on elderly subjects that has already been performed suggest that there would be some benefit to learning details, as with Oxiracetam there seemed to be consistent benefits in "quality of life scale and confirmed by significant (defined according to the Bonferroni technique) differences in some neuropsychological tests (e.g. controlled associations, short story),"(1) better performances obtained at the reaction time test and at the Attentional Matrix test,(2) and several other tests of cognitive function or reaction acuity,(2). The results from several double blind, placebo controlled studies certainly suggest some significant benefit. I think it is a fair gamble to take the nootropics, if you can afford it, I guess -- AND given you are not walking around with an untreated disorder.

If one is already earning the highest grades in his or her class, I don't think he or she would feel it necessary to take a pill to boost performance; but he or she might. But as far as a pill that everyone likes, that won't exist. And some people might consider just taking a Centrum a day excessive. Oh, edit, there is a single study that suggests that "Significant improvements in CFFT and CRT were found after pyritinol (4)." That is not very much evidence (and we don't know how significant the results really are) -- and the results were only in males...and we all know women are smarter than men.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=1414239
(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=8456595
http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=1603291
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=2135070

Edited by nootropikamil, 23 May 2006 - 07:20 AM.

[benson123]

I think the M-prize is great, however, I would like to see more money being diverted towards increasing intelligence as this will have a compound and trickle down effect that will greatly accelerate the progress of mankind in all endeavors. This is what most AI enthusiasts keep purporting in their research. Human level AI is a long way off and we must consider doing this with biological intelligence. Their are biological freaks out in the world that can do amazing things with their minds. We need to have a non-profit organization to uncover these roots and find ways of enhancing these, so that people can have better quality lifes in a complicated world. Stress is probaly one of the biggest causes of aging, and if one were to increase intelligence, stress would be greatly reduced. One would be able to operate within a complex world with ease, as the task would not be mentally draining and therefore would not cause other bodily drainage. Enhancing intelligence therefore, would be a start to increasing life-span and overall quality of life lived while alive(which is the most important thing). Some people live 10 times the lifes of others in the 50 years of their lives. Nootrokamil, I would be willing to partner with you on something if you were seriously complenatating doing this. I do have some money that I would willingly use towards this, as I see it paying off in the future. Any thoughts?

[morbius]

[quote][quote]
I know I don't need dual 800's, but I want to do very well. Hoping for 800 math and 650+ verbal. I am at those now (according to old ETS GRE Big Book Exams), but I need 33 minutes for the verbal section and I still make a few stupid mistakes. I have no doubt that I could nearly kill the damn thing if I had a shot of adderall -- according to my friends experience. It's very tempting but if Moda* can get me half way there without the mental damage, then that's the ticket.[/quote]


As someone who has taken amphetamines and many nootropics, by looking at your scores, I would say you are doing pretty well without. I have run experiments in the same chemistry class, all things being equal, I got done more quickly on amphetamine but I scored exactly the same as non-amphetamine. The difference there was missing a problem I didn't really know how to do non-amp vs going so fast something I knew didn't occur to me amped, which I attribute to stress and over-excitation. The third comparison was selegeline/piracetam, which got me a perfect score but come the final it is hard to say. I went in thinking I had the overall A if I scored well but was blown away by the exam, as were most people, and I was lucky to get an A-. I am diagnosed ADHD. Whether that is real or imagined doesn't matter. Learning is like gaining muscle mass, some people have a greater tendency to do so. I don't concentrate well on sciences, which is a problem in harvard pre-med. So I turned to amps, one problem is state dependent memory. Another is error, I can look at an email I bust out in 5 minutes amped and find I made many more mistakes than I normally would. I think almost any stimulant can be good if it breaks you out of a bad pattern but ideally you will do without at some point. You will retain more and be kinder to your body. Amps helped me in this, and if you're going to use amps I recommend trying some selegeline about 6 hours later to combat the possible but slight neurotoxicity. I am leaning toward testing some of the SSRI neurogenerative hypotheses. If you have the time piracetam/choline is worth a shot. Remember that no matter how hard you prepare, unless you are a mental sponge you are likely to miss something or at least make a mistake. You are at a high level right now, I've found that the difference between A- and A is easily triple study time.

[Shepard]

Their are biological freaks out in the world that can do amazing things with their minds.  We need to have a non-profit organization to uncover these roots and find ways of enhancing these, so that people can have better quality lifes in a complicated world.  Stress is probaly one of the biggest causes of aging, and if one were to increase intelligence, stress would be greatly reduced.  One would be able to operate within a complex world with ease, as the task would not be mentally draining and therefore would not cause other bodily drainage.  Enhancing intelligence therefore, would be a start to increasing life-span and overall quality of life lived while alive(which is the most important thing).  Some people live 10 times the lifes of others in the 50 years of their lives.

I highly doubt intelligence is the limiting factor in furthering knowledge or functioning for most people.

[benson123]

You are probaly right, nevertheless, we should still aim to increase it. It automatically opens doors that are not open to those of lesser intelligence. Wouldn't you agree.

[morbius]

[quote][quote]I highly doubt intelligence is the limiting factor in furthering knowledge...[/quote]


Did you really say that?

Just as an example, let me take viajaya, a guy in my chem class. He barely studies, he took twice my courseload, worked a full time job and had a two hour drive to and from class. He got all A's and this is harvard. Do I think I'm stupid? No. Do I think he's more creative than me? No. Fact remains he rarely went to class and rarely studied but still finished in the top 1% of the class. I studied a minimum of 60hrs/wk and barely made the top 20%. Take a look at china or india, they score better in mathematics etc but they "import" all of their technological ideas from this country. China is even attempting to originate more technology, and what has come of it so far is a lot of scandal for falsifying and faking research. Whether there is a tradeoff between intelligence and creativity on the whole, is beside the point. We are talking about learning, if most learners are limited by creativity, they are still limited in their learning. Intelligence can only be quantified by the accumulation of knowledge, I'm not sure why you would try to prove otherwise but if you did what would the test be like? How fast can you learn something that you didn't know before?

[benson123]

Thats exactly my point. Why should it be fair that someone is able to beat you in an academic environment becuase they are genetically more endowed in that area. The playing field should be level, so that effort is the true determinant in one's achievment. AS it is now, whether in the classroom or on in sports, genetics are the real determinant of success. There is no reason why we can't increase intelligence through genetic means. It is just simply that we are not allocating enough resources to doing so. I personally would fund an organization that was dovated to doing so. I think that most of the people on this forum would do the same. Considering many of the members are affiliated with prestigious universities, I do not think that attracting researchers would be a problem. As long as we have the funding, the researchers will come. If need be, we could take the research to another country, where we would likely face less red tape and be able to accomplish much more.

[Shepard]

I don't judge how intelligent people are based on the amount of knowledge that they have, but I spend a nice chunk of time sitting around being all masturbatory in philosophy discussions.

You're always going to be better in certain areas than others. The fact that your friend has a penchant for chemistry doesn't mean anything. Or, he studied more than you think, he studied much more effectively than you, or you really just might be ignorant. Do I need to add one of those smiley things to show I'm joking?

benson, I agree that increased intelligence would definately help some people. However, a part of me believe strongly in the ways of natural selection. So, I'm a little torn.

[benson123]

just as a side note, I think that creativity is something that we should seek to increase along side general intelligence. As this is responsible for many of the greatest breakthroughs in history. The word Genius is usually associated with people who are extremely creative and have high IQ's. At least the type of Genius's that are able to use their powers of the brain to assist society. Examples of this are obvious: Da vinci, Newton, Einstein, Nash,etc.

[benson123]

Shepard, I agree with you. Have you ever meet the type of person that seems to be naturally selected to be better in all areas. Athletics, intelligence--emotional, high IQ, creative, interpersonal,etc, musically inclined, and personality. Is that fair? Maybe perfection is not a good thing to strive for, however, society demands it. I say allow the individual to decide. If he thinks natural selection was fair, then he can stay the same; however, if he thinks that natural selection was not fair, he will have the choice to change. Natural selection also needs to change to meet societal demands which are changing faster than natural selection changes biological trait. The new natural selection will have to be performed by individuals, untill laws enforce this as well. This will likely be inevitable as well. Once genetic screening becomes available, there will likely be laws against bringing a baby into the world who has a genetic malfunction.

[morbius]

I don't judge how intelligent people are based on the amount of knowledge that they have, but I spend a nice chunk of time sitting around being all masturbatory in philosophy discussions.

You're always going to be better in certain areas than others. The fact that your friend has a penchant for chemistry doesn't mean anything. Or, he studied more than you think, he studied much more effectively than you, or you really just might be ignorant. Do I need to add one of those smiley things to show I'm joking?

benson, I agree that increased intelligence would definately help some people. However, a part of me believe strongly in the ways of natural selection. So, I'm a little torn.

Well, I laid the numbers out pretty well, which you ignored. The man sleeps at night, works 50hrs/wk, drives 2hrs to and from class and has twice the courseload. The top 1% in a harvard science course is rarefied air. I'm not a math major but there are only so many hours in a week. Rationalize it any way you want to fit your theory, I can guarantee you this guy will do the same with every subject he studies. I will spend loads of time trying to keep up. If it was worth my while (ie you paid me), I would follow him around with a camera and give you regular updates with sealed transcripts because apparently that's what it would take. Btw, you will never find a guy like this on a nootropic board. What you will find are guys smart enough to realize they aren't very smart and hope against hope to change that fact, with of course a healthy dose of schizophrenic salesmen continually covering their tracks. How do you think they realize they aren't very smart? By comparison to others who learn things more easily or who are simply smarter, life is simpler when you call it like it is. Would adding a smiley face make those comments more or less painful?

[Shepard]

Dude, you have issues. Chill out.

Here is what I said:

"I highly doubt intelligence is the limiting factor in furthering knowledge or functioning for most people."

See that word? Yeah...most. I still don't judge intelligence based on academic performance. I know quite a few people that are 4.0 students, do quite well...and the only thing that they can do is regurgitate the text.

[Shepard]

morbius, I think I see the problem with the communication. You are saying that intelligence is limiting you from being on the same academic level as your friend, right? Which may be fully correct. My statement was that even with enhanced intelligence, your average person is so apathetic that it wouldn't make much difference. Apparently, neither you nor your friend falls into the "average" category. You study much more than normal, and he has a penchant for academia.

[doug123]

I think the M-prize is great, however, I would like to see more money being diverted towards increasing intelligence as this will have a compound and trickle down effect that will greatly accelerate the progress of mankind in all endeavors.  This is what most AI enthusiasts keep purporting in their research.  Human level AI is a long way off and we must consider doing this with biological intelligence.  Their are biological freaks out in the world that can do amazing things with their minds.  We need to have a non-profit organization to uncover these roots and find ways of enhancing these, so that people can have better quality lifes in a complicated world.  Stress is probaly one of the biggest causes of aging, and if one were to increase intelligence, stress would be greatly reduced.  One would be able to operate within a complex world with ease, as the task would not be mentally draining and therefore would not cause other bodily drainage.  Enhancing intelligence therefore, would be a start to increasing life-span and overall quality of life lived while alive(which is the most important thing).  Some people live 10 times the lifes of others in the 50 years of their lives.  Nootrokamil, I would be willing to partner with you on something if you were seriously complenatating doing this.  I do have some money that I would willingly use towards this, as I see it paying off in the future.  Any thoughts?

Start by asking someone, anyone, at your school, work, wherever, what they think of the idea of cognitive "enhancement." Or just try "life extension." You might get some strange looks. It might depend on who you ask.

At first assessment it seemed few students I met (at my school) even seem remotely interested in the possibility -- at least openly.

Classes of over 200 science and engineering majors tend to get pretty competitive though. 10% of the class will get some sort of A in the more competitive courses, most some sort of low B or C, the rest obviously don't (or barely) pass. These figures are also bound to vary largely according to certain professors' styles, TAs with "attitudes", schools, departments, etc. I just enrolled in a math course and a humanities course for next fall -- and to prepare, I'll have to spend a great amount of time reviewing because I forgot most of the stuff I will need to know off the top of my head if I plan to earn a decent grade. I still remember most of my trigonometry, some basic calculus and intro DE stuff, but the rest is mostly a blur. I used to know much more off of the top of my head before I got terribly obsessed with...supplements...

If you dare say "Ritalin" out loud before a full classroom (hopefuly the prof is not there!), everyone will turn and look at you with sincere interest. Most highly competitive students at my school seem to at least have tried Ritalin, so I find that's generally a good place to start the topic. Most folks I know want to get some sort of edge, they just won't admit it to strangers on the Internet.

I don't think it is particularly "taboo" to want to make your work easier, to be able to process and regurgitate complex raw and abstract data into new forms and ideas.

We just have to find a "fashionable" means of marketing this desire. If we could afford prime time advertising, and we had the right presentation, it would "catch on" pretty quick, trust me. It's no coincidence that Provigil made Cephalon $600 million in 2005. Somehow I don't think that's just narcoleptics taking this stuff.

We can try to use extrapolate data from readers of these forums to learn more about the population we are looking at. My theory about the prevalence of ADD/ADHD and other disorders in this group might be off, and I would like to know more about what we are really looking at, as we can use current data to model our predictions about the future.

Generating capital is not very difficult. It's just the method of maximum effect that is in question. We need a goal first. How much does it cost to fund a clinical trial in human subjects? Millions of dollars. Do I think all the capital can be generated from sales of supplement products? No way. But I do think we can start a trend that will generate more interest.

I don't know if it has to be a non profit. I just thought it would be best to go that way with the unregulated supplement products, as I see less benefit for what is currently a "fringe movement" if the competition is based on "sales" rather than "science."

The rest of the stuff you brought up we'll take care of in good time. I need to get dinner, and I need to wake up early to catch up in the class I am taking, and I have some other work to do. Peace.

[Ghostrider]

[quote][quote][quote]I highly doubt intelligence is the limiting factor in furthering knowledge...[/quote]


Did you really say that?

Just as an example, let me take viajaya, a guy in my chem class. He barely studies, he took twice my courseload, worked a full time job and had a two hour drive to and from class. He got all A's and this is harvard. Do I think I'm stupid? No. Do I think he's more creative than me? No. Fact remains he rarely went to class and rarely studied but still finished in the top 1% of the class. I studied a minimum of 60hrs/wk and barely made the top 20%. Take a look at china or india, they score better in mathematics etc but they "import" all of their technological ideas from this country. China is even attempting to originate more technology, and what has come of it so far is a lot of scandal for falsifying and faking research. Whether there is a tradeoff between intelligence and creativity on the whole, is beside the point. We are talking about learning, if most learners are limited by creativity, they are still limited in their learning. Intelligence can only be quantified by the accumulation of knowledge, I'm not sure why you would try to prove otherwise but if you did what would the test be like? How fast can you learn something that you didn't know before?[/quote]

I think you both are correct. Intelligence is not the limiting factor in furthering knowledge for most people "the herd". For the herd, apathy possibly combined with a lack of intelligence is possibly the limiting factor, but not necessarily intelligence alone.

For those people who reside outside "the herd", those people who really push themselves by attempting to excel in non-bullshit fields and who try to overcome the human condition through scientific accomplishment, yes, intelligence is definitely the limiting factor.

[Ghostrider]

Thats exactly my point. Why should it be fair that someone is able to beat you in an academic environment becuase they are genetically more endowed in that area. The playing field should be level, so that effort is the true determinant in one's achievment. AS it is now, whether in the classroom or on in sports, genetics are the real determinant of success. There is no reason why we can't increase intelligence through genetic means. It is just simply that we are not allocating enough resources to doing so. I personally would fund an organization that was dovated to doing so. I think that most of the people on this forum would do the same. Considering many of the members are affiliated with prestigious universities, I do not think that attracting researchers would be a problem. As long as we have the funding, the researchers will come. If need be, we could take the research to another country, where we would likely face less red tape and be able to accomplish much more.

I agree with your statements 100%. Effort and only effort is the fairest determinant of success. However, I would argue that I don't even care if intelligence is evenly distributed, I simply realize that there are many problems with this world and breakthroughs to increase intelliegence which in turn will enable us to more rapidly solve some of these problems of humanity will greatly benefit us all. In other words, if I just had a couple of giants to solve all my problems, I don't even need to be a giant myself.

[benson123]

that is true, however, if you work amongst giants you will need to competing at their level. Super intellect is not a goal shared by many, however, when the demands of society require it to suceed one must adopt this goal in order to compete. Plus the super intellect combined with effort would produce amazing results which would be awed by all. Effort with no intelligence does not usually produce the same result.

[opales]

We will form a non profit.  At first, we need to generate more capital and need a membership to have as beneficiaries.  Working with the members of the ImmInst nootropic fora is certainly a possibility.  Since the patents have expired on all of the conventional nootropics, there is no use in fighting over sales of these products.  It would be our goal to support research into effectiveness of these compounds in human clinical trials.  We will hope also support animal research as well.

Funk Odyssey and I are going to be working together to solve the issues at hand.  Funk and I have also discussed donating a percentage of profits to Mprize, and other types of compelling scientific research to win our fight against aging.  We may allocate donations generated specifically from sales of purported life-extension supplement products (RLAMCT25, ALCAR, Olive leaf extract, benfotiamine, etc) to anti-aging research projects such as Mprize and sales from nootropics (the racetams, pyritinol, centrophenoxine, etc.) specifically to research exploring the effectiveness of these compounds in healthy subjects. 

Peace.

Dude this sounds awesome. Re: research in to noots, do you think you could do this before the next-generation noots blow by (some memory enhancers could be here in 5 years??) or do you think current ones will hold their own for quite some time?

[doug123]

Dude this sounds awesome. Re: research in to noots, do you think you could do this before the next-generation noots blow by (some memory enhancers could be here in 5 years??) or do you think current ones will hold their own for quite some time?

What "current ones" are you referring to?

As far as particularly effective nootropic drugs, we really do not have any (that are not prescription only in the USA) yet.

We should first prove that our current nootropics do not work in healthy subjects before deciding where to go next. I am confident that the current batch of nootropics that have been deregulated in the USA would not reach statistical significance in many healthy subjects with average IQ if we were double blinded and placebo controlled. However, the benefits might be marginally positive, so we better first figure out where we want to place our bets as the *most likely* nootropic (or nootropic combination) to reach statistical significance.

I would like to work with others dedicated to the same goals -- this field is far too small at this point to try to fight over sales of what is considered snake oil to 90% of medical professionals. If we want to advance a science, we need real evidence, not chatter in Internet forums.

Edited by nootropikamil, 30 September 2006 - 08:48 PM.

[opales]

Dude this sounds awesome. Re: research in to noots, do you think you could do this before the next-generation noots blow by (some memory enhancers could be here in 5 years??) or do you think current ones will hold their own for quite some time?

What "current ones" are you referring to?

As far as particularly effective nootropic drugs, we really do not have any (that are not prescription only in the USA) yet.

We should first prove that our current nootropics do not work in healthy subjects before deciding where to go next. I am confident that the current batch of nootropics that have been deregulated in the USA would not reach statistical significance in many healthy subjects with average IQ if we were double blinded and placebo controlled. However, the benefits might be marginally positive, so we better first figure out where we want to place our bets as the *most likely* nootropic (or nootropic combination) to reach statistical significance.

I would like to work with others dedicated to the same goals -- this field is far too small at this point to try to fight over sales of what is considered snake oil to 90% of medical professionals. If we want to advance a science, we need real evidence, not chatter in Internet forums.

I mentioned Funk because I am currently working with him on some of the structure of this company. We will ask for everyone's feedback at several steps along the way. Registering a company as a non profit isn't as easy as it sounds. We still to evaluate several fine details.

By current ones I of course meant most promising ones, I am sure not even nearly all would be helpful for heathy people, but a few might. My post was based on the assumption that you would be focusing on current noots as next-generation noots would be more directed at healthy people anyway, and thus funded by large pharma companies, but I am not actually sure if this is the case.

However, I have to disagree with you on your "proving current (non-prescribed) nootropics don't work"-approach. First, the larger scientific (and political) community already assumes current nootropics don't work, thus your only contribution (if indeed it was found they don't work) would be to shake some sense to a small community of nootropic enthusiasts. So if you want to do something useful, I think it would done best through showing something actually is effective.

Which brings me to my second point. If you think some current perscription drugs would be most effective in cognitive enhancement for healthy people, then I suggest the research be conducted with them instead of some less-likely-to-provide-effects substances. This approach has the advantage of greatly increasing pharma sales, thus the patent holding company might be interested in co-sponsoring such study, which not only assists in giving possible additional funding, but also their knowledge and networks of conducting such studies. The problem of this approach would of course be that you could not sell that substance, which could compromise the finacial future of the organization.

Thoughts?

[doug123]

No, the modern nootropics just have not been tested in otherwise healthy individuals. That's what I am suggesting we do. I am off to the gym right now and will try to address the other issues when I return...

Peace. [thumb]

[doug123]

Which brings me to my second point. If you think some current perscription drugs would be most effective in cognitive enhancement for healthy people, then I suggest the research be conducted with them instead of some less-likely-to-provide-effects substances. This approach has the advantage of greatly increasing pharma sales, thus the patent holding company might be interested in co-sponsoring such study, which not only assists in giving possible additional funding, but also their knowledge and networks of conducting such studies. The problem of this approach would of course be that you could not sell that substance, which could compromise the finacial future of the organization.

Thoughts?

Your thoughts are very advanced. I am pleased to comment, although I am too tired to make much sense right now.

One of the most important parts of science is disproving; so I think our best bet will be to continue disproving what seems to be myth. That is what science is perhaps best at.

Tonight when returning home, I was trying to be of assistance to a lost guy driving around my campus. He was all: "where's Marshall College" at like 10:15pm. I'm all: "I don't know...let me ask these two individuals walking by." So they came by and gave him the directions, then this young flirtateous woman invited me to an art show (with a keg of cheap beer) on campus where there happened to be another dude I had a Spanish class with. I bitched about the TA for a while because she was lame, but then joined the rest of this group of kids at this art show assembled in the art department. I drank a few glasses of their beer, some cheap crap, and began an alcohol induced pitch that began with me asking the ladies I am most interested in at the gathering what they thought of Terrence Mckenna's observations about the effects of alcohol. There was music and casual socializing.

1. Alcohol decreases sensitivity to social cueing.

2. Alcohol increases verbal facility.

Then I tried to test interest in "cognitive enhancers." This one dude there I met already had a script for the 'Vig. The ladies I met quickly lost interest in smart drugs so I went home alone at about 12 pm (I tried the pitch on three DIFFERENT girls, no luck).

...It's not a very popular topic for ladies at my school at least for those drinking, or I failed miserably at the approach.

It will be a fringe movement as long as folks are afraid to admit (in public) they want to be smarter. I am testing new pitches every day that might work to make cognitive enhancers more mainstream. Right now it just sounds like a bad strategy for picking up young women at my school. The dudes seem somewhat interested, but not the ladies -- at least openly. And that's a big problem.

Peace.

Edited by nootropikamil, 27 May 2006 - 08:32 AM.

[Ghostrider]

It will be a fringe movement as long as folks are afraid to admit (in public) they want feel smarter than they do normally to. I am testing new pitches every day that might work to make cognitive enhancers more mainstream. Right now it just sounds like a bad strategy for picking up young women at my school. The dudes seem somewhat interested, but not the ladies -- at least openly. And that's a big problem.

What's more important is why your attempt to start conversation about smart drugs did not work. The reason is quite simiple, I think. You might as well have asked those girls what they thought about creatine in use for body building. The simple fact is most people don't seek to optimize their intelligence. If they did, they would not spend so much time watching TV and participating in other activities which degrades intelligence. The second reason is that by bringing up the subject of smart drugs, you are referring to self-improvement with a competative aim. Self improvement with the aim of making oneself more competative in regards to intelligence can be seen as competative behavior by some people (certainly not all). Discussing ways to improve your abilities at a college party might actually have a similar effect as challenging someone to a fist fight. I think a large part of social drinking is tied into temporarily lowering one's abilities to become more approachable. Who would you feel more comfortable talking to, a genius or a drunk genius? Talking about smart drugs or self improvement is not something that anti-competative people want to discuss. Some people are simply anti-competative and anti-competativeness is a value that is displayed frequently in sitcoms. Ever watch a prime-time sitcom? Aggressive or competative characters are never protrayed in a positive light. Why? Because the entertainment must appeal to the audience -- including the character traits of the audience.