stimulants and cognitive ability

[negrogesic]

Was it in the same year? My score went up about 100pts./year when I was in junior high and high school.

Same year separated by a only a few months (never prepared for it). I was just using the example to illustrate amphetamine related cog. impairment...

Also, pemoline will never be brought back, although it may still be not entirely uncommon in canada, but simply try 4-MAR to get the idea...

I don't entirely agree that amphetamines don't increase mental abilities. They certainly increase the rate of thought and will boost IQ scores on tests like the WISC-III. I believe the average increase is something like 7 or 8 points for amphetamine or methylphenidate.

I wasn't aware of this, at least not specifically. Also, in regards to Mathematics, i would agree some stimulants can certainly increase proficiency. However on the other side of the spectrum, these same stimulants may limit creativity in regards to music (i used to compose the music first without stimulants as the depth of creativity was more profound, then I would fill out the very tedious scores on amphetamine/MPH etc).

 

[Ham-milton]

However on the other side of the spectrum, these same stimulants may limit creativity in regards to music (i used to compose the music first without stimulants as the depth of creativity was more profound, then I would fill out the very tedious scores on amphetamine/MPH etc).

Absolutely. They're not good at all for this sort of thinking.

 

[<pyridinyl_30>]

I think amphetamines are as good as gold (Au) and I made 800 on the math SAT.

 

[5-HT2]

There's this anti-amps paranoia now, with all the negativity associated with meth, but in reality amphetamine and probably even oral/insufflated methamphetamine are much safer, less addictive drugs.

While it is true that the speed at which a drug hits the brain is correlated with the euphoric effects, in my experience insufflated meth was not much less addictive than smoked meth. However, I do agree that oral administration significantly decreases the addictiveness of the drug. As for amphetamine being "much less" addictive than methamphetamine, my personal experience and observations do not support that theory. I think part of the reason for the popular false dichotomy between amphetamine and methamphetamine is the promotion of amphetamine, but not so much methamphetamine, as a treatment for ADHD by the medical-pharmaceutical establishment. After all, methamphetamine is not widely available in certain parts of Europe, but you can still find plenty of speed addicts jacked up on good old amphetamine sulfate.

They seem to increase the rate and ability to make abstract leaps correctly. Like if you're trying to understand how A interacts with B, you're more likely to see the correct answer in the data. I hope that makes sense.

In the context of mathematics this is probably true, but is there any evidence from other fields suggesting that they have the same effects? And how can we know for sure that the effects of amphetamines on mathematicians aren't simply due to an increase in perseverative behavior? (e.g. if you think about a problem more, you're more likely to find the solution)

 

[<pyridinyl_30>]

Amphetamines fuel(ed) a lot of prolific writers as well, Ayn Rand for example, so I would say that this phenomenon (that is, cognitive enhancement) is not just limited to the field of mathematics.

 

[Ham-milton]

In the context of mathematics this is probably true, but is there any evidence from other fields suggesting that they have the same effects? And how can we know for sure that the effects of amphetamines on mathematicians aren't simply due to an increase in perseverative behavior? (e.g. if you think about a problem more, you're more likely to find the solution)

I don't know as many people working in advanced sciences that involve lots of 'head work,' so I can't really say.

If it was simply due to increased perseverance, you'd expect that work would take longer. The people I know say that it enables them to make leaps over the things they've been stuck on very rapidly, not to help them sit down and concentrate (though they unanimously agree that they help for plodding through!)

 

[Ham-milton]

bullshit post with no evidence whatsoever to suggest this is true at moderate doses in humans.

Moderate doses with frequent enough use is also neurotoxic.

Here's a good overview of the actual science. It's fairly conclusive that MDMA can and probably is somewhat neurotoxic.

http://thedea.org/neurotoxicity.html

 

[mad_scientist]

Medina KL, Shear PK. Anxiety, depression, and behavioral symptoms of executive dysfunction in ecstasy users: contributions of polydrug use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 Mar 16;87(2-3):303-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17074449

Quinton MS, Yamamoto BK. Causes and consequences of methamphetamine and MDMA toxicity. AAPS J. 2006 May 12;8(2):E337-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796384

Quednow BB, Jessen F, Kuhn KU, Maier W, Daum I, Wagner M. Memory deficits in abstinent MDMA (ecstasy) users: neuropsychological evidence of frontal dysfunction. J Psychopharmacol. 2006 May;20(3):373-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574711

Zakzanis KK, Campbell Z. Memory impairment in now abstinent MDMA users and continued users: a longitudinal follow-up. Neurology. 2006 Mar 14;66(5):740-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16534114

Thomasius R, Zapletalova P, Petersen K, Buchert R, Andresen B, Wartberg L, Nebeling B, Schmoldt A. Mood, cognition and serotonin transporter availability in current and former ecstasy (MDMA) users: the longitudinal perspective. J Psychopharmacol. 2006 Mar;20(2):211-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510479

 

[Jabberwocky]

hm fair enough. I should have thought there might have been MDMA research in the last few years. My knowledge of MDMA neurotoxicity was gained a few years ago.

Apologies for calling you out when you're not wrong.

However, I still do not think a bit of MDMA use is going to hurt anything. I think the emotional payoffs from selective use is beneficial.

 

[mad_scientist]

Yeah its pretty well accepted now that even moderate MDMA use does cause some degree of damage which is semi-permanent at least, although there are a lot of ecstasy users who still like to refer to all the old studies from 2001 etc that say that the evidence for harm still hasn't been proven!

However there is a lot of debate over what level of use will produce no significant damage, and no one can really agree on that. The consensus used to be that an average of less than one pill a month would cause a small enough amount of damage that it would be less than your brain's natural ability to repair it, but some of the newer studies have suggested cumulative damage even at that level. It is generally agreed though that at some point the amount of damage will be so minor as to be insignificant, which is why I suggested a maximum of half a pill every few months should be alright...

 

[roche moloch]

thanks mad scientist, thats exactly what I was looking for.

Now if someone can provide me with a reasonably conclusive evaluation of sporadic cocaine use I''ll be very happy indeed.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

MDMA and methamphetamine are more neurotoxic (that is, they manifest neurotoxic properties at lower doses) than regular (naked) amphetamine. I would say that MDMA is actually more neurotoxic than methamphetamine.

 

[marklar_the_23rd]

if you're a theoretical physicist, i would skip both those drugs and have a dose of LSD

 

[fastandbulbous]

^ Yep, that's the stuff of Nobel lauriates!

 

[rnd.id.]

Ham-milton: Intriguing. Though "mandatory" sounds pretty extreme; personally I don't know anyone at the math dpt. using non-caffeine stimulants (then again I think they're far less widely prescribed here in Europe than in the US).

To the people asking whether stims are also effective for more creative tasks - you do realize that advanced math is nothing at all like the subject with the same name at school? That's why I found Ham-milton's statement odd, since to my knowledge stims help more with repetitive tasks, not with abstract and non-straightforward thought. (Erdős might be a non-typical case here.)

 

[foundationx4]

Im thoretical universitys presurving nurotoic infrequantly
takeing im

All the world is thankful that you are preserving your great brain (and that you chose Physics over Spelling for your Major).

Willie

complaining about spelling on a message board is absolutely crazy.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think stimulants have definitely been used at the very highest levels of mathematics to inspire amazing and brilliant proofs. I'm not sure of its overall efficacy, but I think it is definitely done.

 

[slopoke]

There is the theory that MDMA neurotoxicity is due to alpha-methydopamine (a small metabolite of MDMA and MDA) being taken up into the serotonin vesicles (IIRC), and that post dosing with a SSRI may lessen these effects. This wouldn't help you with dirty heavy-metal containing syntheses though.

I doubt occasional dosing with cocaine (within reasonable levels) will do you any harm, but what about the cuts it contains? In the UK a large proportion of cocaine is cut with phenacetin, which is carcinogenic, for example.

 

[roche moloch]

^^^^ thats so true markler
LSD was the first drug that I fell in love with but I abused the fuck out of it and ended up giving myself HPPD. Come to think of it my brains reaction to pschedelics probably plays a part in my aprehention about taking potentilly damaging drugs.

 

[Ham-milton]

Ham-milton: Intriguing. Though "mandatory" sounds pretty extreme; personally I don't know anyone at the math dpt. using non-caffeine stimulants (then again I think they're far less widely prescribed here in Europe than in the US).

To the people asking whether stims are also effective for more creative tasks - you do realize that advanced math is nothing at all like the subject with the same name at school? That's why I found Ham-milton's statement odd, since to my knowledge stims help more with repetitive tasks, not with abstract and non-straightforward thought. (Erdős might be a non-typical case here.)

Yeah, I'm familiar.

I don't really mean "mandatory"- just that they seem to agree that after a certain age they're really needed. If that's true or not, I dunno.

I actually wasn't familiar with Erdős' personal consumption. I'm certainly not interested in math at all.

I think the availability of prescriptions is probably a strong reason.