Brain Boost
(Jason Malloy provided this interesting link in the GNXP Forum)
“Just as Ritalin can improve the academic performance of hyperactive children, it can do the same for normal children. It is commonly thought to boost SAT scores by more than 100 points, for both the hyperactive and the normal user. Many healthy young people now use it that way for that purpose, and quite frankly, there is no stopping this abuse.â€
I found this claim interesting. I don’t have the background or knowledge to evaluate it. Hopefully knowledgeable readers will comment.
Up to 5% of males are diagnosed as having ADHD. Many schools require medication for kids diagnosed as having ADHD. Wouldn’t a 100-point boost in SAT scores show up in national test scores? Is there any study that backs up the author’s claim?
Note that 100 SAT points is equivalent to about 7 IQ points. But even if the 100-point claim is valid that doesn’t mean that Ritalin is increasing IQ. E.g., vocabulary test correlate highly with IQ tests. But having access to an online dictionary that significantly improved one’s performance on a vocabulary test wouldn’t increase a person’s IQ. It would just break the connection between tested vocabulary and IQ. Likewise Ritalin might increase the ability to focus and so increase test performance but that increased performance might not reflect increased “gâ€.
(Many abilities correlate with “gâ€. As biotech improves so that specific abilities can be enhanced, it is not clear to me that “g†is being increased. The science of measuring “g†will have to adapt to advancing brain tech.)
This article says that under long-term treatment with Ritalin, ADHD children showed a 2.5 point increase in total IQ. Other articles claim there is no improvement in IQ (In fact some articles claim that if used too early, Ritalin can hinder proper brain development.)
(I would like an online resource that numerically documented the mental effects of substances such as caffeine and Ritalin.)
I actually did this in high school and college, and it definitely works. We used something more potent than ritalin, though. While under the influence, my perception was that my G went up by a lot more than 7 points. I’d think more in the 15 to 20 points range. Reading also was faster, and focus was better.
The method we had developed (this was at a prep school, and “we” were the first class), was to study the night before, but go to bed early so as to be well rested for the test. Then, immediately before the test, medicate yourself. Dosage was at lower than recreational levels.
This was only done for high stakes tests. PSAT, SAT, and finals in a subject one wasn’t strong in. If you tried to do it for every final it wouldn’t work. You were diminished for the next couple days after using the drug.
I wouldn’t think a regular joe would see any benefit from taking a therapeutic dose of concerta every day. Frankly, from the “hangovers” we suffered through, I question the wisdom of long-term medication for all but the worst cases of ADHD.
BTW – my experience with the SAT is agreeable to the 100 points. I went from 1480 without to 1540 with. I’d think those down in the 1000′s would get more than my 60 point boost.
I know something about the topic because I have ADHD and have used Ritalin.
Stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall have a different effect on ADHD sufferers than they do on the rest of the population. Rather than “speeding us up,” they tend to slow our thinking down and make us less impulsive and more deliberate in our actions and though patterns. One little known symptom of some types of ADHD is the ability to “super focus” for limited periods of time. I scored well in the top 1% of the SATs during a period of my life when I was untreated for ADHD. I may well have done worse if I was on Ritalin.
I suspect that a non-ADHD person on Ritalin might subjectively feel he or she was thinking faster when on the drug, but end up surprised later at the mistakes he or she made. I suppose it ultimately depends on the person’s baseline condition. If you are a borderline narcoleptic, a dose of Ritalin or Adderall might improve performance. I strongly doubt if such stimulants could raise mean SAT scores 100 points across the board.
Like JK I also have ADD and scored well enough on my SATs to get into a decent university despite terrible grades. My strategy before taking tests back then was to get hammered the night before–the resulting hangover made some form of ponderous concentration possible.
Anyway, non-ADDers taking these drugs experience something like the effects of cocaine or methamphetamine. The high of Ritalin or Adderall or Dexedrine – which people with ADD don’t experience – can make you feel quicker, more confident, even euphoric. But the drugs don’t really make you smarter, any more than MDMA makes you more of an empathetic person. Even among people with ADD, any rise in IQ scores is probably due to a new ability to focus. It’s hard to do your best on any test if your mind is wandering off on its own accord every second or third question.
Hmmm. Well, whether it causes a rise in IQ or not, if the drug makes you able to do some real-world mental tasks better than you could before, it strikes me that it’s likely to be useful. Of course, the downside is that if everyone else’s SAT or GRE tests are taken while using some performance-enhancing drug, then yours must, too, or you’ll end up at Joe’s Community College and Grill.
I read the article. It is of the worst kind of “popular science” writing. It even mentions the “genetic blueprint.” Anyway, if drugs are developed that make the general population less stupid and bone-ignorant it might make my life a bit easier. But I will not indulge in anticipatory cessation of respiratory action.
“I actually did this in high school and college”
Seems that this has been going on for a while and almost everyone knows about it.
I heard about herbal tea “Gingko” from a Chinese classmate, trick passed through their generations.
Between tea drinking China and Raw-fish-eating Japan, does this explain why the Japanese have a better civilization inspite of the “high IQ” of China?
Between tea drinking China and Raw-fish-eating Japan, does this explain why the Japanese have a better civilization inspite of the “high IQ” of China?
I know it’s off-topic but I thought I’d comment on it anyway. I am not up on my Chinese history the way I am on my Japanese history, but I think two things that do contribute to a “better” civilization in Japan: their cultural and phenotypical homogeneity.
Bencedrine were widely used in my times to study 48 – 72 hours before exams. It sure worked. The problem is how to slow down afterwards. Th long term effect is negative.
Back in the ’70s, pre-computer days, writing a paper was much, much harder than it is now. All that typing and retyping, and literal cutting and pasting, and then retyping again…
Anyway, it wasn’t uncommon for people in schools to drink tons of caffeine or take speed to barrel their way through these chores. And then you’d start thinking, Hmmm, well, if it helps me write a paper, maybe it can help me take a test.
Looking around myself on test days, I often wondered how many of the people there were on some kind of drug.
US airforce pilots are given Amphetamine like drugs for their super perfomance. In sports, illegal drugs are not ethical. In wars, winners are always right. Do not be surprised if you see more addicts out of military.
As to China vs Japan, it is about personality or motivation. Japanese are more motivated people than Chinese in general if their IQs are about the same. People in Shanghai are more motivated or ambitious than people in Xian. People in Xian openly acknowlage their lazyness. Xian people only become competitive when they are starving. Otherwise they are happy with status quo. People with high level of anxiety or restlessness are more likely to be competitive. Bill Gate is perfect restless soul with high level anxiety or insecurity.
The latter link seems to be about neurofeedback treatment for ADD
michael vassar: ?The latter link seems to be about neurofeedback treatment for ADD?
Yes, they are comparing the success of their own neurofeedback method to Ritalin. The 2.5 total IQ point increase for Ritalin is displayed near the end. The article seemed a decent neutral source for estimating the IQ effect of Ritalin. (I used Google to find recent articles. I?m sure someone familiar with the field could find far better references.)
Ag wrote: “People with high level of anxiety or restlessness are more likely to be competitive. Bill Gate is perfect restless soul with high level anxiety or insecurity.”
Where do you get this crappy logic? Anxious and insecure people are more likely to be depressed not competitive.
Bill Gates is a smart, creative person, not ridden with anxiety and insecurity. What are you, Gates’ psychiatrist?
From my interactions with Japanese and Chinese people, Japanese people are actually cool people, unlike the chinese who seems ready to snap and bicker anytime.
I want to know who among the test takers as listed in that book – Nations IQ and wealth, were drugged.
Who among those countries have the propensity of drinking IQ boosting tea or drugs. We have been talking about the high IQ of such and such, giving them every accolade and most of the time, excuses if the data goes against their “high IQ”. To be fair, I think all testers should be drugged first before taking the “IQ TEST”.
Ritalin helps you concentrate. It doesn’t make you smarter, but it helps you do better in tests.
If you haven’t experienced the effect it has on concentration, then try this experiment:
Drink yourself to a point where you start to lose mental focus. About 4-6 beers, depending on your tolerance.
Then take the ritalin dosage. You’ll notice the increase in mental clarity within 5 minutes.
This is an old trick we use for all-day drinking sessions. Never needed the help for exams, but I’m sure I would have scored higher if I tok ritalin.
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_265518.html
?· A quarter of college-age students have tried stimulants such as Ritalin or Adderall without prescriptions, said Dr. Tim Wilens, a psychopharmacologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
· Four percent of college students have tried amphetamine compounds, 7 percent Ritalin and 24 percent both types in a survey of undergraduates at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine.
· A fifth of the students prescribed Adderall abused the drug, shared it with friends or sold it, according to a survey of students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
· Nearly 5 percent of college students in 2003 said they had tried Ritalin without prescriptions in the previous 12 months, according to the annual, federally financed Monitoring the Future study conducted by the University of Michigan. Abuse among college students was nearly twice that of nonstudents of the same age.?
to all the people who are saying that these drugs don’t make you smarter, they only make you focus more — isn’t it the case that working memory in the face of distraction and Attention overlap to a really high degree with g? Seems like its probably the same mechanism. Being able to focus is being smarter.
“Being able to focus is being smarter.”
Only at the moment. You cant take drugs forever.
Mccm: ?they only make you focus more — isn’t it the case that working memory in the face of distraction and Attention overlap to a really high degree with g? Seems like its probably the same mechanism. Being able to focus is being smarter.?
When a body builder uses diet, drugs, or training, the results are easily measured strength increases. (Age, gender, genetics, and initial physical state add complexity.) Mental abilities aren?t captured nearly so easily.
For each mental task there might be a different limiting factor. Focus would definitely help in some tasks. In other tasks too much focus might hinder creativity. Long-term memory, short-term memory, mental imagery, etc.
I would like to have a toolkit of brain boosting drugs with predictable affects. Some would enhance my ability to learn a foreign language. Others would keep me focused and alert for learning a subject such as mathematics. Others might temporarily boost my IQ when I?m having difficulty understanding a concept. Others would increase my creativity when finding a solution to a hard problem.
To be useful, I?d have to know that the drugs worked on me. That is on a person with my age, genetics, and physical training. I?d need to know how much benefit I could expect. How long the effect would last. What side effects the drug had.
I?ve looked on the Internet for such information. There doesn?t seem to be a good information source even for such common drugs such as caffeine. My guess is that the US armed forces have this information for many drugs.
Fly:
As far as I know, all the stimulants work in the same range of function _for people with normal brain chemistry_- some faster onset, some longer duration, some fewer side effects; but all having the same broad range of effects – an IQ boost, increased focus, and able to read and do math faster.
As far as I recall, there was no effect on memory or creativty one way or the other.
I have heard of expiremental drugs that boost memory, but IIRC they were more akin to a supplement like creatine than a psychotropic drug.
We optimised our regime strictly for test taking – not classwork, studying, or composing papers. The side effects wouldn’t be worth it. We found none of the pharma grade stuff worked – it lasted too long and didn’t kick in quickly enough at the low dose we desired.
That’s probably because of the administration method. All the pharma stuff was oral, while we inhaled.
The effect lasted 3-4 hours. The side effects followed immediately thereafter. You would feel like you had a hangover until you went to sleep, and have your sleep cycles disturbed for a couple days. Overall you lose a good bit of productivity, but for those 4 hours the wind is at your back.
And all this may have changed – this was from ’76 to ’84. There was no adderal or concerta around back then.
The Army used oral dexedrine during the Panama takedown, to overcome chronic fatigue, a least according to a couple guys I know who were involved in it.
I took it as smart=g. That seems to be a safe assumption around here most of the time.
I’m a little aware of memory drugs in the works. Eric Kandel and Larry Squire are involved with a company called Memory Pharmaceuticals. The drugs are aimed at modulating the function of receptors, ion channels, and intracellular signaling pathways. Although it’s not mentioned on their website, Kandel often seems to be pointing to enhancing CREB function in order to enhance memory.
Gary Lynch and co (Cortex Pharmaceuticals) have been having some luck with Ampakines. They particularly change the ion-channel opening and shutting properties of AMPA-type glutamate receptors.
I know Joe Tsien is involved with some company too, but I can’t remember the name. I’m sure he’s probably focusing on NMDA-type glutamate receptors as a way to enhance memory.
Mike Gazzaniga points out in the memory-enhancement portion of “The Ethical Brain” that a lot of the attention drugs have the effect of enhancing memory anyway, because enhancing how well cues are attended to helps them go into the ol’ banks.
Part of the problem is that enhancing memory is pretty scary because you really have to hope after you take the drug you don’t like get raped or hit by a car or catch your girl cheating cos that stuff is gonna be burned in something awful. I’m not as clear with the long-term effects of the amphetamine type drugs whether they make you dumber in the end as someone seemed to be suggesting. I wouldn’t mind seeing a longitudinal study or two though before I go looking for a hook-up.
As far as creativity goes. There’s this exciting new drug coming out called psilocybin. You find it in piles of shit. Highly recommended. :)
Adderal is mixed salts of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine. The different salts are metabolized at different rates, which lengthens the period of action. So Adderal is essentially a less intense version of Biphetamine(Dexedrine/Benzedrine mixed capsules). Ritalin is methyphenidate, which has been around since the 1950′s. If people didn’t misuse it in the 70′s, it’s probably becuase it sucked compared to what else was available.
If Adderal supposedly boosts your SAT score by 100 points, what would methamphetamine or even stronger stimulants like phenmetrazine do? Boost your score by 200 points?
Don’t forget that some people who are introduced to stimulants as a study aid will become addicted and suffer serious negative physical and psychological consequences. One friend of mine had an amphetmaine induced nervous breakdown that caused him to miss a semester of school. Fortunatley for him, it happened over winter break, after exams and didn’t hurt his GPA.
“If Adderal supposedly boosts your SAT score by 100 points, what would methamphetamine or even stronger stimulants like phenmetrazine do? Boost your score by 200 points?”
One of the reasons adderall is more widely prescribed than dexedrine is because dexedrine tends to lead to addiction problems. More so with cocaine, meth, and stronger stimulants.
I’m skeptical the stronger stimulants would increase performance much more, but don’t really know of any research one way or the other.
one this that I have noticed is that ritalin and adderal (but adderal especially) seriously slow down my word recall. I think this is the “side effect” of increased focus. You gain an intense focus, but you tend to fixate on things and you lose a form of creativity which comes from being able to think loosely and associatively.
adderal probably helps for SATs because most people lose tons of points from being inattentive. I’ve experienced difficulty writing math proofs on adderall because I became OCD about every step in the proof.
my advice is to use stimulants to get the energy and focus for absorbing massive amounts of information. Then use your god-given brains in applying that knowledge.
What nonsense. As one who has worked with many troubled students on Ritilin I can assure you that this type of reasoning is off target. Studying and then resting is boosting the scores. Another thing, the stat results are stat significant but not material. The omega squared are very small. This is a lab effect.
Peter: ?As one who has worked with many troubled students on Ritilin I can assure you that this type of reasoning is off target. Studying and then resting is boosting the scores. Another thing, the stat results are stat significant but not material. The omega squared are very small. This is a lab effect.?
Do you have an online reference to back up your statement? My gut says that a real increase in SAT scores would show up in the national SAT averages so the numerical data should be out there. I?d like a reference to a scientific study.