[derefr]

You tend to use the very specific phrase "nootropic drugs" to talk about drugs which help with productivity or creativity or some other aspect of working life. Asking whether there is evidence on nootropics, is just asking whether there are any heavily-tested nootropics. Asking anything else--to lex it out, whether "drugs that have no productivity-enhancing aspect, enhance productivity" is just playing the fool to incite extremely subjective flamewars.

So, let's avoid that, and just focus on nootropics. Is there evidence that they work? Depends on the drug. We have drugs (caffeine, theanine) that are in foods we've been consuming since the beginning of civilization, so we've heavily researched those and are pretty confident in what they do.

On the other hand, new, synthetic compounds, like modafinil, are only really created and pushed through FDA approval if there can be found some sort of therapeutic, non-nootropic purpose in their use: in modafinil's case, treating narcolepsy. This means that their use as nootropics is much less well-researched, and consists mainly of anecdata (however much there is) shared over the internet.

The best you'll find, I think, in terms of data for efficacy of various drugs, is people who have set out to do double-blind studies on themselves: http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics

After reading data-points like these, you might be convinced to try some of them on your own. But be aware that people's body-chemistries can vary widely--especially where things affecting neurochemical balance are concerned--so everyone's reactions to these will still be different. Not in a sense of a "bad trip", usually; just that some things which other people swear by might not have much of an effect on your particular chemistry. So, the best thing to do, as in most situations: first research, then experiment.

[klibertp]

I'm not an expert, but I'd like to comment on your statement that discussing non-nootropics in this context is pointless. I think it is not, and my argument goes like this: you code better when in mood to do so. Certain psychoactive substances make it easier to fall in certain moods, easier to change your mood or even forcibly change your mood for you (like some of benzodiazepines or MDM, MDMA). Their working is not "nootropic" (as in it does not necessarily improve any mental functions) but you're in generally better disposition to code after using them. This is true even for coffee, and even without developed dependence - if you're feeling sleepy, your code will be worse than when you're feeling wide awake, and coffee, being a stimulant that it is, can give you that feeling.

So, what I want to say is that not only measurable enchancement of "cognition, memory, intelligence, motivation, attention" (as with nootropics) can result in you doing better job. For example, while benzodiazepines generally lower cognitive ability, they enable people with depression to actually do something (to code, for example :)). Of course, when overdosed or just not fit for your particular brain, the same psychoactive substance can lower mental function so much, that no amount of optimistic thoughts is going to help you.

I just want to point out that there is more to productivity than memory, intelligence and concentration and that this means that when discussing productivity there is a place for not-strictly-nootropic drugs in the discussion. Although, I have to admit, that place is rather marginal due to very, very varied responses to such a substances among individuals.

[derefr]

Certainly, if you have a problem with your mood, whether caused by stress, chemical imbalance, etc., that is damping your productivity, then using a mood-altering drug can remove that damping effect and let your productivity return to an optimal level. This is different, though, I think, from "enhancing" productivity, which usually refers to things that can be used to move someone "beyond" the normal human optimal performance in some way.

What a part of me wants to say is, "the literature for returning humans to optimal mood is broad and well-researched, and shouldn't really be the topic of Amateur Medical-Advice Hour on a social news website; the best thing to do if you have a problem with your mood is to speak to a therapist/psychiatrist, who will recommend you a course of action based on current medical best practices." But...

I have to admit that that really isn't exactly true. Therapists and psychiatrists aren't required to have any more knowledge of neurochemistry than any other doctor; they'll be able to follow a guide and tell you that if you're depressed they should take you through cognitive behavioral therapy and prescribe you an SSRI (and then an SNRI if that doesn't work, and then a TCA if that doesn't work, &c) but they probably won't think about the serotonin production pathway and suggest that you might need more Vitamin B. This is one benefit of the internet: the people who are experts on their little staked claim of knowledge can give it to the people who seem to need it, instead of those people having to go around and talk to experts in all sorts of different fields to get the perspectives from those fields. On the other hand, it's pretty useless to give these pieces of advice to no-one in particular, without a specific problem at hand to solve. It's a bit like doing science without a hypothesis to test; everyone sees their own--more often than not false and overreaching--interpretation of the data.

The one good thing that does come out of these threads is that they tend to get more people to say "wait, that sounds like me, maybe I have [X mood disorder]," ask their doctors about it, and it turns out that they do. This is in stark contrast to usual hypochondria surrounding most diseases; where a person will be quick to diagnose themselves with [X cargo-cult symptom-matching thing-they-don't-understand] to explain why their neck always aches or they keep coughing up yellow phlegm, people are wary of assigning themselves mood disorders, since most people feel that society will still consider them "guilty" in some way for having the problem ["you're just lazy" &c], and they definitely don't want to bring it out in the open to the point where they identify with it. Discussions with a bunch of people chiming in to say "oh, yes, I thought I was [X fault-of-character], but really I just had [Y chemical imbalance] and some [drug] fixed it right up" can really push people to investigate this sort of thing where they otherwise wouldn't consider it.

I think the best compromise is that solutions should be discussed in the context of particular problems. Nootropics are an exception, because they don't solve any particular problem, other than the problem of wanting your life to be "even better-er"; but, for example, a root-level comment in this discussion about marijuana use really won't have anything good happen to it; each person will be looking at it in the context of a different problem and either implicitly accepting or rejecting the idea prima facie because of that. Better to ask a specific question, like "what drugs and/or therapies could be used to cope with stress-induced anxiety in the workplace"; then the discussion could actually go somewhere worth reading :)

[pstuart]

The whole issue of "better living through chemistry" is a big experiment and the "professionals" may have better training but they can only guess as to what may or not work for an individual. In the end it's always a try and see approach.

[Supreme]

> benzodiazepines generally lower cognitive ability

On the subject of a particular drug sometimes being useful and sometimes counter-productive, the missing link is that the brain has several points of neurochemical homeostasis - these are also known as 'moods'. Moving from a given mood to another requires some combination of influences. E.g. moving from mood X to Y may require a boost in dopamine while moving from mood Z to Y may require more GABA. This is why it's relative and different people are not affected by the same drugs in the same ways - their baseline levels of major neurotransmitters differ. So one person has a natural tendency towards mood X while another tends towards mood Y - i.e. one person has naturally high dopamine levels which another has high levels of serotonin.

I believe that these tendencies are the result of the body adapting to the conditions it grew up in. The major factors I can see are diet, the social situation (both in terms of family and culture-at-large), amount of exercise, genetics and pollutants.

I completely agree that mood and productivity are inherently inseparable. It's not a one way relationship either - they affect each other. Hell, everything in the brain seems to affect everything else in the brain. It's a giant web of dependencies and influences. It reminds me a lot of badly designed legacy software systems - everything makes sense when you dig in deep but looks like an absolute mess from afar.

[otakucode]

You made a good point that I just wanted to make explicit, because I think it is generally not something people know or at least not something they've thought much about - The FDA has a very specific mandate. They regulate any substance which "treats, prevents, or cures any disease." They specifically do not regulate, or test for, any substance which would claim to improve the functioning of a healthy person. If a drug came out tomorrow which would enable you to lift 50 kilos more tomorrow than you can life today, the FDA would have no jurisdiction over it (unless someone wanted to give it to patients suffering from muscular impairment due to a disease, of course). This is also one of the reasons why the FDA does not regulate alcohol and cigarettes. Those substances are not meant to treat, cure, or prevent anything.

I'm not clear on whether such a 'strengthening' drug would be legal to sell, just that the FDA could not authorize it for sale.

[danneu]

That's not true.

What you defined is a drug.

    Accordingly, these ·products are drugs, under 
    section 201(g)(1)(C) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(C),
    because they are not foods and they are intended to affect
    the structure or any function of the body. Moreover, these 
    products are new drugs as defined by section 201(p) of the 
    Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), because they are not generally
    recognized as safe and effective for use under the 
    conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
    their labeling.

And you bet the FDA cares.

    Under sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the Act, 
    21 U.S.C. § 331(d) and 355(a), a new drug may not
    be introduced or delivered for introduction into 
    interstate commerce unless an FDA approved application 
    is in effect for it.

[ekianjo]

Completely false. Be it for the potential side effects of such a substance, it would be considered as a drug anyway since it would require proper medical monitoring. Even cosmetics are sometimes at the borderline of drugs based on the claims they make and the effects they have.

The reason why alcohol and cigarettes are not regulated as drugs is rather based on historical, political and economical factors. They have existed for a long time and people are considered responsible enough to know how not to abuse them, they have a well known risk factor, and they bring back lots of tax money to society when authorized.

But for any new substance, you bet FDA would be involved, no matter whether you call it a drug or not.