Danila Medvedev on cognitive enhancement

From the Transvision Conference, Danila Medvedev made in my opinion very good presentation about cognitive enhancement and especially what we can do at the moment. Danila appears to me an extremely sharp guy, the presentation speaks very little about actual nootropics but they are covered shortly too (see below)

http://www.transhuma...rs.php#medvedev

Danila's slides
http://www.transhuma...Enhancement.ppt

The webcasts can be found through here, including Danila's, although I am not exactly sure how:
http://www.transhuma...tv06/stream.php

Extremly interestingly, during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it, mostly based on its extreme safety, that in fact he said jokingly "If you don't take Piracetam, you are not a Transhumanist.". However, in the closing remarks, Anders Sandberg, Nick Bostrom's research assistant and a neuroscience Ph.D. by training and IMO the go-to guy in Transhuman cognitive enhancement, said that he does not take Piracetam and after meticuously reviewing its literature it appears that the effects are not consistent in any way. As a response, Danila admitted that he is not an expert on that area and in fact he has not done a meticulous review of the Piracetam literature (again, it must be noted that nootropics were only briefly covered in Danila's presentation).

Danila promised all this stuff and some (like links to relevant information) would be added to his website once he gets home after the conference:
http://danila.spb.ru/

However, in the closing remarks, Anders Sandberg, Nick Bostrom's research assistant and a neuroscience Ph.D. by training and IMO the go-to guy in Transhuman cognitive enhancement, said that he does not take Piracetam and after meticuously reviewing its literature it appears that the effects are not consistent in any way.

This is consistent with nootropikamil's statement that he didnt consider it a cognitive enhancer. I hope I am not misinterpreting him, but what I took from it was that Piracetam is much better at bringing a deficiency closer to norm than enhancing the norm to above norm levels. This could explain the non-consistent results.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

"during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it, mostly based on its extreme safety"

Exactly what I've been saying. It helps most people and hurts no one. Why on earth would you avoid it?

during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it

He didn't sound like he was joking to me. His general point is that if you aren't serious about taking advantage of intelligence-enhancing technologies in the here and now, you aren't serious about transcending your boundaries and being a transhumanist. The innovative SL-IRC-RL triad of communication during the conference proved that transhumanists can take advantage of the latest technology to enhance our ability to exchange information.

Many questions from SL and IRC made their way into the real-life conference.

Exactly what I've been saying. It helps most people and hurts no one. Why on earth would you avoid it?

Because it tastes awful, and unless it provably improves your score on an IQ test, it isn't truly boosting your intelligence, which seems to be the case as recorded in the literature.

Extremly interestingly, during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it, mostly based on its extreme safety, that in fact he said jokingly "If you don't take Piracetam, you are not a Transhumanist.". However, in the closing remarks, Anders Sandberg, Nick Bostrom's research assistant and a neuroscience Ph.D. by training and IMO the go-to guy in Transhuman cognitive enhancement, said that he does not take Piracetam and after meticuously reviewing its literature it appears that the effects are not consistent in any way. As a response, Danila admitted that he is not an expert on that area and in fact he has not done a meticulous review of the Piracetam literature (again, it must be noted that nootropics were only briefly covered in Danila's presentation).

Danila promised all this stuff and some (like links to relevant information) would be added to his website once he gets home after the conference:
http://danila.spb.ru/

A reason to not take Piracetam: You are short on cash and want something that has much more significant effects: for example, modafinil and other compounds with MUCH stronger records of efficacy.

during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it

Danila admitted that he is not an expert on that area and in fact he has not done a meticulous review of the Piracetam literature.

Hmm, do I need pyracetam to understand this?

Yes, while I think Danila is extremely smart fellow (I spent several hours talking to him yesterday during and after conference dinner), Anders is a neuroscience Ph.D. and obviously his word has more weight in these issues (Danila's Ph.D. is btw in finance), especially as Danila admitted he has not really made a thorough review.

Anyway, I asked Anders for further information and he said to me he has made a similar review to other current nootropics (or cognitive enhancement in general, I am not sure) as he has made for piracetam, and he is going to publish his review in couple of papers.

He hinted that he has a preliminary review available somewhere, it was called something like "current state of cognitive enhancement". I'll try to look it up.

Regarding safety of Piracetam, we not only need to worry about it being unsafe in terms of our heath (esp. long term, in short term it indeed does appear very safe), we also have to worry that it might in fact degrade our cognitive ability as whole, even if enhancing some individual attributes. After all, as Anders pointed out, the piracetam papers are quite old (and small in sample size), so I think there is high possibility they are based on cognitive models that just would not be accepted today due to their inadequacy.

Note BTW that Danila is an ImmInst member, danila

http://www.imminst.o...014

Extremly interestingly, during presentation Danila spoke very eloquently about Piracetam saying that he saw no reason NOT to take it, mostly based on its extreme safety, that in fact he said jokingly "If you don't take Piracetam, you are not a Transhumanist.". However, in the closing remarks, Anders Sandberg, Nick Bostrom's research assistant and a neuroscience Ph.D. by training and IMO the go-to guy in Transhuman cognitive enhancement, said that he does not take Piracetam and after meticuously reviewing its literature it appears that the effects are not consistent in any way. As a response, Danila admitted that he is not an expert on that area and in fact he has not done a meticulous review of the Piracetam literature (again, it must be noted that nootropics were only briefly covered in Danila's presentation).

Opales, I have not yet been able to get that video to work...I've tried now at least 10 times. I thought maybe it was because of too much traffic and low bandwidth from the source site...but I am wondering if anyone else has gotten any of those videos to work.

I think Michael's reply posted below is the best review of the data I have seen to support the use of Piracetam in healthy subjects. Yes, some of the data might be a bit old...and I'd really like to see how the racetams and other so called "nootropics" match up to drugs like modafinil and/or ritalin.

In (1), "Nootropyl (Piracetam) ... was tested for its effect on man by administering it to normal  volunteers. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day, in a  double blind study. Each subject learned series of words presented as  stimuli upon a memory drum. No effects were observed after 7 days but  after 14 days verbal learning had significantly increased."

(2) was "A double-blind, intra-individual cross-over comparison of the mental performance of 18 aging, non-deteriorated individuals ... with reduced  mental performance possibly related to disturbed alertness" "during two 4-week periods of piracetam (1-acetamide-2-pyrrolidone) and placebo administration performed using conventional and computerized perceptual-motor tasks. In a majority of these tasks the subjects did
significantly better when on piracetam than on placebo, a finding consistent with ratings completed by two independent observers." How close to normal aging, and how relevant to the youthful and healthy, is open to some question.  A review (11) adds the following, not stated in the abstract: " Moderate but statistically significant improvements (up to 12% vs placebo; p < 0.05) in a range of assessments of cognition were obtained in 18 healthy individuals aged 50 years or more who received piracetam as part of an 8-week, doubleblind crossover study. However, individuals' own ratings of their mental and psychological condition did not reveal any significant differences between piracetam and placebo. "

I DO have copies of the full texts of these trials (1,2) hidden away in my files somewhere, but I'll not be able to look into them to get more details for a month or two; anyone with easy access, please do report.

(6) summarizes (4) VERY briefly thus: "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults have used tests of verbal learning and memory; in all the published studies piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function {citing my (1,2,4,5,9) -MR}." (11), likewise, includes it with (1,2) as being among "A small number of placebo-controlled studies {that} have shown that piracetam improves aspects of mental performance in healthy volunteers."  Unfortunately, (4) is in German and unavailable to me.

Further details are alleged to be provided by this article on piracetam by James South: "Giurgea and Salama {my (3) below -MR} report the confirmation of Dimond/Brouwer's work by Wedl and Suchenwirth in 1977 {my (4) below -MR}.  Wedl found significant improvement in mental performance in a group of 17 healthy young volunteers given 3.2 grams per day Piracetam for five days." Unfortunatel again, (3) is not even a MEDLINE-indexed item; moreover, Giurgea does seem to be a somewhat 'tainted' source, as the inventor of piracetam and long-term UCB employee. Further, James South is, in my opinion, a very unreliable source of information on  drugs and supplements.

If anyone has access to (4), or even (3), to help confirm any of this, it would be helpful.

(6) also includes the same statement about (5), ie, that it is one of "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function". Later, it elucidates that it was a study "involving 16 male dyslexic adolescents  and  14 normal student volunteers in a  3-week  double-blind trial of 4.8 g piracetam or placebo per  day, {which} found that dyslexics (and normals)  treated  with piracetam showed a decrease in the number  of trials required to reach criteria in a rote verbal  learning  task,  while  after placebo both groups  showed insignificant minor changes." The abstract of (5) gives no hint of this info on the healthy control group, but the review is actually by the authors of (5). According to the  JS article op cit, "Wilsher and co-workers (1979) {my (5) -MR} related their results with 4.8 grams per day Piracetam in a double blind, crossover trial to study the benefits of Piracetam for dyslexic students. Interestingly, the 14 healthy student controls, matched for IQ with the dyslexic subjects, demonstrated a significantly better result on a test measuring ability to memorize nonsense syllables while using Piracetam as compared to placebo." This is not quite the same claim as made in (6), tho' similar, and seems to be a good general confirmation.

If anyone has a convenient way to get an actual copy of (5), it would be helpful.

Another study  cited by (6) as one of teh "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function" is (9); unfortunately, (6) provides no further details, and as the citation says, it was an "Unpublished doctoral  dissertation,  University of London School of Pharmacy." I doubt this was a very useful study IAC, as the title says it was an "acute dose"; still, anyone at the U of L should be able to get a copy; if you can, please do!

(7) is on its face supportive, at least in AAMI, which is close to 'normalcy':  "A double-blind randomized trial was performed involving 162 patients with age-associated memory impairment (AAMI)  ... Two intervention methods--a drug and a cognitive therapy--were assessed in combination. Three randomized parallel groups of 54 patients each, aged 55 years and over, were followed and treated for 3 months. After a placebo wash-out period of 10 days, one group received 2.4 g of piracetam, another group, 4.8g, and the third, a placebo.  ... Combined therapy was most effective in patients whose baseline performance on memory tests was lowest. The best results were observed with 4.8 g of piracetam, especially when training sessions began after 6 weeks of drug treatment. This result was confirmed by the global impression of the principal investigator."

Further details are provided in a review (8): "Memory was tested by the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test ... and a freee-recall test developed by the principal investigator. ... {B}oth piracetam groups showed significantly greater improvement relative to baseline for global recall (immediate and delayed recall average) and immediate recall. The high-dose group also showed significantly greater improvement than the control group on delayed recall. ... the high-dose piracetam group that received memory training during the last half of the protocol showed a 35.5% improvement, whereas the placebo group with last-half memory training showed a 12% improvement."

However, (8) also presents a caveat not raised in the abstract: "These effects may be more apparent than real, though, because by chance the placebo group performed somewhat better at baseline than both piracetam groups (by an average of 1-2 items). By the end of treatment, the three groups were virtually indistinguishable in {absolute} performance on the free-recall tests. It is possible thathad the placebo group's baseline been as low as the piracetam groups', the placebo group would have shown a comparable improvement ... Indeed, the most robust effects were found in the comparison of the two groups that differed the most at baseline: the placebo and the high-dose ... group. Further, there were no significant treatment effects on the Rey test, on which baseline performace was nearly identical across the groups."

(10) is the closest thing to a genuine negative report: "Fifty-six hospitalized geriatric patients between the ages of 65 and 80 were given piracetam (Nootropil) 2400 mg/day or placebo on a double blind basis over a two month period. Every patient submitted to a battery of psychological tests before and after the two month trial ... In addition, at pretreatment, 4 and 8 weeks, the patient completed a Profiles of Mood States, a Clinical Global Evaluation was done by the investigator, and laboratory determinations were performed....There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups of patients on all measures utilized except for the Clinical Global Evaluation, where 52% of the patients on piracetam showed minimal improvement versus 25% of the placebo group (P less than 0.05)."

(8) claims the following additional informatioin about (10):  the patient population had "age-related memory decline not necessarily associated with dementia or depression", making it more relevant to healthy normals. They say that piracetam "had no effect on immediate recall of stories, gemetric shapes, and designs." This may mitigate against the apparent null result on cognition, as none of these measures quite matches the variable on which positive results tend to be reported (verbal recall -- tho' stories may hve been 'verbal,' of course).

Overall, I find the results supportive of piracetam's usefulness in normal, healthy humans, esp if aged (tho' 'normal' and 'healthy' then become somewhat debatable terms). Alas, there are none of the large, long-term studies in healthy folk that I'd really like to've been performed, and none are likely to be in the future. There are several reasons for this. First, at the time when the stuff was developed, one could really get away with very little evidence before marketing a drug. Prior to the amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1962, you didn't have to prove efficacy in the USA, and it would be many years before drugs would begin to be EXCLUDED from marketing for lack of access; European countries would take considerably longer. Cognitiive enhancement in the healthy not being a disease in need of a 'cure' by FDA standards, there is no incentive for performing such trials at the time, as you couldn't get FDA approval to market it for that purpose (tho' as we've seen in so many cases of late, it's easy enough to get approval for one indication and then pull various dirty tricks to encourage off-label use); even to do that, you'd first have to prove its utility in some disease state, which as we've seen has been difficult (perhaps beacuse it really just doesn't work in AD, etc).  And of course, piracetam is now off-patent, making any such further trials all the more unlikely.

these reasons are often invoked as the reason why a supplement has never been subjected to proper trials, and then a bizarre logical mis-step is taken, in which the fact that there is a REASON why no such trials have been performed, is taken as some kind of justification for taking it, as if such trials HAD been performed, or as if some silly in vitro study were therefore sufficient evidence. This is a good way to get yourself killed, or at least ripped off. I'm constantly hammering at individuals and companies for this kind of sloppy BS. So why am I willing to let piracetam off the hook?

First, everyone agrees that the stuff is nearly free of side effects (mild and similar to placebo in incidence), and acute toxicity information suggests that it's safer than most SUPPLEMENTS (ie, LD-50 >8 g/kg iv in rats, >10 g/kg orally in rats, dogs, and mice (12)). And while I hate to repeat a half-remembered rumor, IIRC someone (Dean and Morgenthaler?) reported an (anonymous?)  FDA official saying that piracetam couldn't possibly have any beneficial effects, because its toxicity is so low!

Second, I've been using it for some years now in relative ignorance of the true state of the research, and in combination wiht a background dose of 500 mg pyroglutamate, I've been pleased with the results, which seem to include greater mental energy, the drive to remain on-task, and some enhancement of creativity consistent with the reports (in rats and schizophrenic humans) of enhanced interhemispheric communication.

And third, I'm now getting a brand that I consider to have reliable QC (Relentless Improvement) at a much cheaper price than the UCB Nootropyl.

So putting these 3 factors together: granted its low cost and safety, I'm willing to abandon my usual caution and simply say that if these are placebo effects, I'm OK with that . But I would still like more information if available, and urge others to provide any quality information to which they have access.

-Michael

1.Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1976 Sep 29;49(3):307-9.
Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of
drugs.
Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM.
    PMID: 826948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1976 Aug;54(2):150-60.
Piracetam-induced improvement of mental performance. A controlled study
on normally aging individuals.
Mindus P, Cronholm B, Levander SE, Schalling D.
    PMID: 785952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. C. Giurgea, M. Salama (1977) "Nootropic drugs" Prog. Neuro-Pharmac. 1.235-47. [Cited by James South article].

4. Nervenarzt. 1977 Jan;48(1):58-60.
[Effects of the GABA-derivative piracetam: a double-blind study in
healthy probands (author's transl)]
Wedl W, Suchenwirth RM.
PMID: 846621 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Wilsher C, Atkins G, Manfield P.
Piracetam as an aid to learning in dyslexia. Preliminary report.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1979 Sep;65(1):107-9.
PMID: 116285 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6.  Wilsher CR, Taylor EA.
Piracetam in developmental reading disorders: A review.
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1994 Apr;3(2):59-71
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01977668

7. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994 Fall;6(2):155-70.
Drug therapy and memory training programs: a double-blind randomized trial of general practice patients with age-associated memory impairment.
Israel L, Melac M, Milinkevitch D, Dubos G.
PMID: 7865703 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8. McDaniel MA, Maier SF, Einstein GO.
"Brain-specific" nutrients: a memory cure?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2002 May; 3(1):12-38.
http://www.psycholog...pdf/pspi312.pdf

9. Hyde, J.R.G.  (1980).  The Effect of an Acute Dose of  Piracetam on Human  Pe~ormance. Unpublished doctoral  dissertation,  University of London School of Pharmacy. [Cited by (6)].

10.  Abuzzahab FS Sr, Merwin GE, Zimmermann RL, Sherman MC.
A double blind investigation of piracetam (Nootropil) vs placebo in geriatric memory.
Pharmakopsychiatr Neuropsychopharmakol. 1977 Mar;10(2):49-56.
PMID: 360232 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11. Noble S, Benfield P
Piracetam: A Review of its Clinical Potential in the Management of Patients with Stroke
CNS Drugs. 1998 Jun;9(6):497-511.
http://www.ingentaco...000006/art00006

12:  Gouliaev AH, Senning A.
Piracetam and other structurally related nootropics.
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1994 May;19(2):180-222. Review.
PMID: 8061686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mic wrote:

"Because it tastes awful, and unless it provably improves your score on an IQ test, it isn't truly boosting your intelligence, which seems to be the case as recorded in the literature."

Taste is a reason not to take piracetam? Try capping it up or buy it already capped for more money. I question your faith in IQ tests. They measure only certain aspects of inteligence. And what makes you think it would not make you do better on tests anyway? I never saw a job where the main requirement was a score on an IQ test. Piracetam has been shown to improve many aspects of cognition. The type of testing you are looking for costs a lot of money and there is no incentive to do it. You can't patent the stuff and the FDA may block you from making any claims.

Opales wrote:

"we also have to worry that it might in fact degrade our cognitive ability as whole, even if enhancing some individual attributes."

We "have" to worry about that? Based on what, your knee jerk antipathy towards nootropics? Anything besides that? No, I didn't think so.

Opales wrote:

"we also have to worry that it might in fact degrade our cognitive ability as whole, even if enhancing some individual attributes."

We "have" to worry about that? Based on what, your knee jerk antipathy towards nootropics? Anything besides that? No, I didn't think so.

Sigh [mellow]

My point was not a reference to particular study, but that we should recognize the fact that older research is based on cognitive models that may or may not be accurate from the point of view of our current knowledge. Improving IQ just may not be same thing today as it was 30 years ago, and that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the importance and implications of some individual study. Note that this point was not originally mine but was forwarded in a smart drug critical article

http://www.gjpsy.uni...icle-keppel.htm

No double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy volunteers of enough power have been published assessing the safety and efficacy of these [smart] drugs using modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries. The studies referred to on the Net by the smart drug advocates are mostly published in non peer-reviewed, obscure journals and in proceedings of congresses. The facts presented in those papers are over-interpreted by the advocates of smart drugs. Furthermore facts to support their use in man have been extrapolated from animal pharmacology without too much knowledge of the problems of many of the animal models used.

Also, I do think with cognition there is high probability of depency between various functionalities and I am very confident we have NOT nearly described all the subsystems (I think the operationalization of creativity for example appears to be still somewhat incomplete) or their dependencies even with our current models. It is important that we study the effect of some substance to various subystems and I just don't know wheter we have that information for example on piracetam. As an illustration of the principle, Anders mentioned in his presentation that Ritalin for example, while improving concentration, has a negative impact on divergent thinking, which is thought to be subcomponent of creativity (in these situations you need to evaluate what the specific situation at hand requires and how does that relate to your own cognitive profile).

To illustrate this principle anecdotally, I have been kind of curious why it appears that the most extremely antisocial behaviour I have witnessed online has come from known nootropics users (ok, some steroid users have weird shit going on too). It could be just a coincidence (sheer traffic in nootropics) or reversal of causality (antisocial people start looking for medication in form of nootropics), but I do think it is very possible that it is in fact a causal relationship. Possible out-of-hat mechanisms include excess dopamine producing mania or maybe excess acetycholine, which someone mentioned can induce antisocial behaviour. I am not sure how much use there is from productivity or quality of life POV from few additional IQ points if it concomitantly makes you act like a complete moron. Being in field of business, I have become very aware that from success point of view, the ability for social bonding is not just some consolation measure for those people who can't score high on IQ, as I think it is sometimes portrayed by people obsessed with IQ measures. Note that I don't believe IQ and social ability are inherently contradictory attributes, although I do have a lay-theory that in the very high range they actually are (i.e. there is a pareto efficient surface between social ability and IQ, I am not sure wheter this has any practical implications as most people are not on that surface).

It is amusing you call my attitude knee jerk reaction, while that seems to be THE ONLY mode of action for you on whatever the discussion at hand may be. It has been very obvious that you defend and stick to whatever a priori notion you may have on the subject at hand, completely disregarding contradictory evidence and reasoning, no matter how overwhelming. What has originally lead to your original opinions seems to be somewhat of a black box to many people. I think they are mostly result of sloppy heuristics such as relying on the assesment of individual you consider to be reliable, the problem on this strategy (everyone applies it to some extent) is that you have to be extra careful whose assement do you rely on, and I am not really confident you are very good at that at the moment. I hope you are not kidding yourself by thinking you have "done the research yourself", as even in situations where your position has been in principle defensible, such as taking piracetam, you have been completely incabable of providing any sort of logical argument based on evidence. I depart from my usual conduct with this rather ad hominem like tone, but I think you should really scrutinize and make some serious refinements to your cognitive strategies, as dismantling every single irrational argument you put forward can be rather resource consuming for the community. Not in any way referring to you, I know some of the science savvy members have become frustrated at sometimes low level of discussion and reasoning in the health forums especially, and after baging their heads to the wall for some time, they just decide not to contribute anymore.

As for me, yes, I have been skeptical about nootropics, though I would mostly consider that healthy skepticism compared to we-should-assume-stuff-works-and-is-safe-until-shown-otherwise-because-them-being-safe-and-effective-fits-my-goals attitude rampant in nootropics community. But I admit I have mellowed down somewhat lately, and do think there is potential even with some of the currently existing substances, mostly the newer ones though and even with them the effects are probably quite modest (we know modanifil does not do nearly as much if anything in the higher functioning individuals at least when it comes to concentration).

Taste is a reason not to take piracetam? Try capping it up or buy it already capped for more money. I question your faith in IQ tests. They measure only certain aspects of inteligence. And what makes you think it would not make you do better on tests anyway? I never saw a job where the main requirement was a score on an IQ test.

Actually, my grandmother fondly tells me a story of her first secretarial job at an insurance agency, where the only job requirement out of the interview was an IQ test. She received an extremely high score, was hired, and went on to buy the business.

Anyway, with regards to your comment on IQ, I have only one paper to point you to, because it's the best on the subject I've found, and outlines its arguments using loads of statistical data on employment, income, teenage pregnancy, etc:

http://www.udel.edu/...whygmatters.pdf

Not to be pedantic, but you know what I think people should spend their money on instead of piracetam? Books and the transhumanist movement. A donation to an organization researching intelligence enhancement or AGI will ultimately bring you a far higher ROI than any foul-tasting white powder.

Opales, you still haven't explained this statement of yours

"we also have to worry that it might in fact degrade our cognitive ability as whole, even if enhancing some individual attributes."

And then you go on to say that nootropics likely cause antisocial behavior. Based on what, the fact that you consider those who oppose your ingrained beliefs against noots to be antisocial by definition? You admit by default that you have no evidence to support either of those beliefs yet you go on to say about me

"It has been very obvious that you defend and stick to whatever a priori notion you may have on the subject at hand, completely disregarding contradictory evidence and reasoning, no matter how overwhelming"

You make the statements that noots cause antisocial behavior and likely lower our cognitive abilities based on no evidence at all and have the nerve to say that I disregard evidence. Ever heard of the term "projection"? That's where the person accuses others of the same faults he has. He never sees it in himself but alway in others. Can we get back to science and facts instead of personal attacks. There have been many many studies posted showing benefits of piracetam and other nootropics. Where is your evidence to support either of the statements you made?

Mike, that's a nice little story but obviously there were other requirements for the job such as being able to type, pass an interview and so on.

"Anyway, with regards to your comment on IQ, I have only one paper to point you to, because it's the best on the subject I've found, and outlines its arguments using loads of statistical data on employment, income, teenage pregnancy, etc:"

What is the point you are trying to make about IQ? I don't have the time to read a whole website to figure out what your point is. If you are trying to say something about IQ tests, make your point here and give a link to back up any facts you give. All I said was that tests do not measure all aspects of IQ. What is it you are saying?

This topic should be pinned!

All I said was that tests do not measure all aspects of IQ. What is it you are saying?

Tests are defined as measuring IQ, so they do measure it. What you're saying is that IQ tests don't measure all aspects of intelligence. I'm saying that the idea that IQ tests do not measure all aspects of intelligence is incredibly prevalent, but that if people knew how powerfully predictive IQ tests were, they would bash them less. The "emotional intelligence" thing is scientifically unsupported even if it's intuitively appealing. There are other "dimensions" to intelligence besides the central metric (called "g"), but they don't really help you solve complex problems in complex environments. These other metrics are things like rationality, emotional normalcy, and experience, and they all count for waaaay less than g when it comes to solving complex problems we've never faced before, adapting to changing circumstances, and hundreds of other tasks that are tied directly to g.

As for me, yes, I have been skeptical about nootropics, though I would mostly consider that healthy skepticism compared to we-should-assume-stuff-works-and-is-safe-until-shown-otherwise-because-them-being-safe-and-effective-fits-my-goals attitude rampant in nootropics community. But I admit I have mellowed down somewhat lately, and do think there is potential even with some of the currently existing substances, mostly the newer ones though and even with them the effects are probably quite modest (we know modanifil does not do nearly as much if anything in the higher functioning individuals at least when it comes to concentration).

You should be skeptical about the conventional nootropics. You seem like *quite* a sharp fellow (at least to me) already, opales -- at least enough so to not spend your time and $ experimenting with compounds with exceptionally weak track records in exchange for compounds with much better testing and research. All of the evidence to support the use of most nootropics suggest that they could be effective in treating elderly and/or demented subjects...and even in these cases, the body of evidence to support their use is outdated and has not managed to pass peer review from a well established researcher group of such individuals (ie once we hear Danielle Turner, Danila Medvedev, Anders Sandberg, or Nick Boström propose these as effective at *significantly* "enhancing cognition" we can start claiming that they are effective - but at this point, no well established scientist I know of would make such an assertion). That's a far cry from the data we have on compounds such as modafinil, ritalin, donezepil, and other various stimulants and drugs approved to treat ADD/ADHD and even dementia in some cases.

As you cited from the following review: http://www.gjpsy.uni...icle-keppel.htm

This is the real issue:

No double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy volunteers of enough power have been published assessing the safety and efficacy of these [smart] drugs using modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries. The studies referred to on the Net by the smart drug advocates are mostly published in non peer-reviewed, obscure journals and in proceedings of congresses. The facts presented in those papers are over-interpreted by the advocates of smart drugs. Furthermore facts to support their use in man have been extrapolated from animal pharmacology without too much knowledge of the problems of many of the animal models used.

We would need to perform testing on these compounds in a head to head comparison to the current, well established drugs used to enhance cognitive capacity (modafinil, ritalin, donezepil, dextroamphetamine, etc.)

I suggest we do just that. Perhaps we should inquire from Dr. Sandberg the possible costs of performing such research...and if he might be interested.

Mike wrote:

"Tests are defined as measuring IQ, so they do measure it."

In the theoretical world they do.

"There are other "dimensions" to intelligence besides the central metric (called "g"), but they don't really help you solve complex problems in complex environments."

Actually, the quality you call intelligence operates in a very simplified environment. In the real world the qualities you downgrade can be crucial. How many of the worlds geniuses are among the richest people? Not too many. How many of the world's rich are over IQ 140? I don't know but I know that many savvy but not high scoring individuals have amassed large fortunes while many eggheads languish in obscurity or make a decent salary as a professor or engineer but take orders from people they consider to be their inferiors. Problem solving in the real world involves many variables and factors. Being able to deal with people is a highy important skill. How does that show up on an IQ test? It doesn't. People skills alone with a modicum of smarts have propelled many to the top. The guy who is good at finding solutions to math or engineering problems may strike out as a business owner. True IQ includes the mental abilities that directly translate into success in the real world. We don't have a test yet to measure true IQ.

Xanada: all good points, and I definitely agree, except for the intelligence operating in a simplified environment thing. People skills and charisma are very important, as is good hygeine, looking people in the eyes, knowing when to interrupt, etc.

Again, IQ is defined as what is measured by the tests. You mean "we don't have a test to measure how much money you make" or "we don't have a test to measure some societally-accepted metric of achievement". However, the test with the *best* correlation we currently have to these measures is IQ as measured by the usual boring IQ tests. Nothing better has yet come along, but we are always free to use our intuitions, although those can of course be wrong too.

There is a lot of evidence that interviews are semi-useless for determining how effective someone will be within a company, and are consistently assigned too much importance, even by experiments in human resources. The best way to predict future performance is by looking at past performance coupled by your score on an IQ test.

As for me, yes, I have been skeptical about nootropics, though I would mostly consider that healthy skepticism compared to we-should-assume-stuff-works-and-is-safe-until-shown-otherwise-because-them-being-safe-and-effective-fits-my-goals attitude rampant in nootropics community. But I admit I have mellowed down somewhat lately, and do think there is potential even with some of the currently existing substances, mostly the newer ones though and even with them the effects are probably quite modest (we know modanifil does not do nearly as much if anything in the higher functioning individuals at least when it comes to concentration).

For the past several months, I have held strong to my position (and supported it with evidence) that the only well well documented cognitive enhancer for healthy subjects at this point in time is modafinil. To treat ADD/HD, we also have stimulants (I also made a case for newer drugs approved for ADD/HD such as strattera), and other drugs approved to treat Alzheimer's (with more unknowns about side effects).

In this topic:
Best Substance for Standardized Tests
http://www.imminst.o...69&t=10547&st=0

May 17 2006
At this juncture, the largest benefits in cognitive performance can be obtained from pharmaceutical drugs like modafinil, strattera, the amphetamine class (such as dextroamphetamine and Adderall), and cholinesterase inhibitors. Everything past that is simply speculation, an anecdote, or based on hype. The main issue folks have to address is how much cash they want to blow on unsubstantiated pseudoscience.
There is little -- if any -- scientific evidence that would suggest that nootropics (the Piracetam family and other misc. cholinergic agonists) in their current state of development would make a significant difference in memory performance of otherwise healthy subjects. If there is data suggesting otherwise, I have not encountered it yet in my research. I'd be pleased to see your presentation to support such an unconventional argument.

For the last several months, I've also argued that Piracetam has an extremely weak and conflicing track record. See:

Piracetam research and benefits
http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=11050&s=

Jun 17 2006-
Let me present the argument that Piracetam appears to be an ineffective cognition enhancer when compared to the acetylcholinesterase inbitor Aricept (donepezil HCL), Provigil (Modafinil), or Ritalin -- then I will support my arguement using evidence.

There is no data supporting the use of Piracetam as an effective cognitive enhancer in Alzheimer's, dyslexia, or other mixed models of memory loss. There may be a few outlying data that might suggest Piracetam could be useful, but as cognitive enhancer, Piracetam has failed to demonstrate real results compared to the aforementioned compounds; so it was quickly discarded, then Oxiracetam was developed. After Oxiracetam, Aniracetam, Pramiracetam, etc. failed to be effective, other, more potent racetams were developed, such as nefiracetam, which can exhibit catastrophic toxic effects upon the male genitalia. Leviracetam was found to be far more effective than nefiracetam, but once again, toxicity concerns and lack of relevant effect eliminated it from consideration (this might be wrong, feel free to correct any of my data).

As a scientist, when you see mixed or conflicting results, it's usually best to keep your mouth shut until there is some real evidence to support your hypothesis or theory. Otherwise, you might look pretty silly in the future. It's like saying Global Warming is a hoax. The fact there is no scientific data saying Global Warming is not happening strongly suggests that it is. Conversely, demonstrating that that there is no evidence saying Piracetam is effective, or that the results are mixed, leads us to favor compounds without "mixed", terribly weak or indistinguishable or conflicting results; especially if the compound carries a significant cost or it may be low in purity or contaminated.

The next logical step is to perform testing on these "purported" cognitive enhancers -- if possible. I'm going to try to raise the money one way or another to do this. If not, I will try to report updates on efficacy of other compounds.

Watch my forum to keep up to date:

http://nootropics.ipbhost.com

Take care.

I'd like to note that I do not claim piracetam is the ultimate wonderdrug. It's interesting for other reasons - it is cheap, it is safe and it is usually easy to get.

It's one thing to speak about the wonders of Provigil or Ritalin (which I also mentioned in my talk), which are not available without a prescription and may not even be available at all (as is the case with Russia), it's another thing to say "you can go to the drugstore today and buy monthly supply of piracetam for 5$ without a prescription".

Piracetam should be considered a gateway nootropic drug. Are you willing to take a pill, which will not cure anything, but will probably enhance you, by means of messing up your brain? A moot question to casual drug users, but an important question to the rest of the people.

Also, there are more recent, better proven and more expensive "versions of piracetam". For example, phenotropil. What is more important is the general principle.

Are you taking nootropics? Are you using GTD or PDA? Do you have a living will saying you want to be cryosuspended (I am not talking about pre-paid 200000$ contract with Alcor, just a will - at 20$ to certify it with the notary it is not that expensive step). If the answer for every question is "no", you are a conservative late adopter, not a transhumanist.

BTW, I would be curious what people think about Semax. Can it be considered an effective nootropic?

Hi, Danila, nice of you to drop by. I hope my description of you did you justice and was accurate. Still considering you Cryopereservation offer. Anyway, back to topic at hand..

Opales, you still haven't explained this statement of yours

"we also have to worry that it might in fact degrade our cognitive ability as whole, even if enhancing some individual attributes."

And then you go on to say that nootropics likely cause antisocial behavior. Based on what, the fact that you consider those who oppose your ingrained beliefs against noots to be antisocial by definition? You admit by default that you have no evidence to support either of those beliefs yet you go on to say about me

"It has been very obvious that you defend and stick to whatever a priori notion you may have on the subject at hand, completely disregarding contradictory evidence and reasoning, no matter how overwhelming"

You make the statements that noots cause antisocial behavior and likely lower our cognitive abilities based on no evidence at all and have the nerve to say that I disregard evidence. Ever heard of the term "projection"? That's where the person accuses others of the same faults he has. He never sees it in himself but alway in others. Can we get back to science and facts instead of personal attacks. There have been many many studies posted showing benefits of piracetam and other nootropics. Where is your evidence to support either of the statements you made?

Ok, I'll explain it to you ONE more time. As a primer to my thinking I think you should view this passage from cognitive enhancement panel at Tomorrow's People conference (starting at 1:05:50), that has a great question IMO illustrating the often times simplistic models driving cognitive enhancement and even greater reply by Nick Bostrom.

http://streaming.oii...6/16032006-1.rm

With any substance you take in long term you have to basically assume, in addition that it is safe, that a) it either raises the cognitive function accross board without any tradeoffs or b) the diminishing function happens in some "less valuable" areas of cognition or is not substantial enough to offset the positive effect in other sites.

Obviously these would depend on the situation and individual alike, b) probably much more than a).

I was not claiming (I am not sure though) that there are studies showing that Piracetam reduces some cognitive abilities, that does not however yet mean that it does not do that. There are variety of reasons for me to think that this is a reasonable fear, and to completely reject this possiblity reveals IMO disturbing intellectual neglect, especially as purpoted positive effects are inconsistent and subtle. Your position (illustrated by your demand for scientific studies showing these effects and ignoring my other points) essentially was that until a drug has been shown do something negative, we can pretty much assume it does not. If I take a random new substance and ingest it, I'd say it is pretty fair to assume it does more harm than good if even I don't have scientific studies showing negative effects.

A recap of my skepticism towards piracetam

a)While piracetam is reasonably researched I'd estimate it still dwarfs in face of most approved drugs that have gone through enormous clinical trials involding tens or hundreds of thousands of people and that are constantly being followed up for negative effects (with ever more sophisticated models, see next part).

I have been repeating this principe ad neaseum but the fact that we know for example about the negative effects of Ritalin does not necessarily reflect any unusual and exceptional nature of that particular drug compared to other purported nootropics but rather that we have done way more research on it than other substances out there, which we in turn have no idea how they would affect similar qualities.

b)The cognitive models used twenty thirty years ago may or may not be adequate in describing the effect on a given cognitive aspect even it was explicitly studied, let alone to describe the effects to whole scope of cognition. This depends on what was studied, our models of creativity have almost certainly devloped quite a lot during this time, on the other hand, I think IQ tests were pretty farily developed even back then. This point is especially important when speculating about any purported mechanism of action, as our knowledge of brain function was at a completely different level from today. I don't know if the scientist describing some mechanisms of piracetam were actually describing what they thought they were or something altogther different thing.

Relatedly, using self reports is probably not the optimal way to proceed in measuring effect on cognition in many cases, I'd say alcohol makes me feel like I am more intelligent than usual but I am not sure if I actually am.

c) Even today, I believe to cognitive models are still in their preteens (if they were in infancy in the seventies). As you have yourself pointed out, we can't really explain why someone is a great writer etc., because our models are not yet sophistcated enough to amount to the complexity of human cognition. That's why I think I would be extra cautious messing up with my brain function, for example opposed to better characterized arterial functions, the targets of cholesterol and blood pressure drugs. The human brain and cognition are more complex than our circulatory system.

See BTW how Danielle Turner well illustrates the complex nature of these processes and our still relative lack of understading of them (begninning at 1:18:25)
http://streaming.oii...6/16032006-1.rm

...there are enormous interactions I don't think we really understand

The suggested strategy to deal with above mentioned uncertainties has been to rely subjective assesment of the overall impact, but it has inherent downsides. First the placebo effect is incredibly strong and very much underappreciated by individuals making assesments. This becomes especially problematic in cases like piracetam where the positive effects are purportedly rather subtle and exert their effects over a long period of time. Secondly, the oftentimes vague cognitive model that the individual posesses is likely to be even much more restricted than the current scientific consensus, thus the individual would perhaps not even know to look for effects in areas not traditionally covered in cognitive models, such as social behaviour where a decreased performance might have much more detrimental effect to completely offset slight increase in some "intellectual" aspects of cognition. Still, I know subjective assesments by the patients are used as guidance in clinical treatments and tailoring of depression treatment, so it's not always completely useless strategy.

Note that I did not say nootropics *likely* cause antisocial behaviour, it was just *illustration of a principle* based on admittely limited online observation, and it has BTW nothing to do with "opposing my beliefs about noots" but that those who have acted like biggest jerks online have mostly been nootropic users.

As for your providing "evidence", the few links you provided as "convincing evidence" in the piracetam thread were complete jokes, it really illustrates my point that your heuristics lead you to rely on completely questionable sources of information to enforce your a priori notion. How these usually poor a priori notions have originally developed is somewhat of an mystery, but it likely involves another set of poor heuristics and disttorted belief system, that build on each other over time. I know I am being crude here, but you are really wasting a lot of people's time providing claims that are poor synthesis of existing evidence, making nonsensical remarks and not bothering to read arguments carefully but keep repeating your original nonsensical remarks ignoring careful criticism of them. Ad hominem may not be valid form of argumentation, but it is a damn effective heuristic filtering out irrelevant noise and poor quality information in this era of total information overload. You have been on my ignore list for some time and will remain there until you show improved reasoning, argumentation and better sense of reliable information sources, but occasionally I have to attack your most ourrageous claims if they happen to catch my eye as some other people might be lured to think they are actually based on evidence and meticulous reflections.

Although, to my suprise, I actually agreed with most of your criticism of IQ.

what is GTD or PDA?

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

what is GTD or PDA?

http://en.wikipedia....ing_Things_Done
http://en.wikipedia....gital_assistant