http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics
I am a bit torn about this subject. So, in my day job as a biomedical researcher, we would like to have a lot of evidence that something works before giving it to people.
But the FDA/research system is not set up to deal with things like this, that are not to treat a disease per se, but rather to enhance a healthy human. Many MDs would see cognitive enhancement as "cosmetic" and not worth any level of risk. You will note how almost all the evidence for putative nootropics comes from AD and similar research. Not healthy, young or middle-aged normals.
I almost wish there were some kind of network for DIY biohackers to investigate nootropics by setting up blinded studies. Because that kind of research will not otherwise be funded or performed, and despite the risks and dubiousness of data that comes outside the IRB/clinical trial system, it seems better than nothing.
So how did plastic surgery get through? Would that kind of procedure not be approved today under current standards? Would they be allowed to experiment at all, given the (in the FDA's view) limited benefits?
The big exception is Botox (aka botulinium toxin). Yes, the safety standards were a little lower in the 1960s, when it was being researched for therapeutic use. But also, botulinium toxin is very heavily researched because it is a useful molecular tool in other contexts, so we know quite well how it works, even though it is an extremely dangerous substance if used improperly. For many nootropics, we just don't know.
And if anything, the standards for something that is supposed to be operating on the brain are even higher than those applied to facial muscles, skin, etc.
The internet is chock full of anecdotes about various nootropics, but very little empirical data. Gwern (linked above) tries to blind himself in some of his experiments, which is good, but still N=1.
What needs to happen is, IMO, people interested in nootropics sign up for a "trial", pay for the drug and any minor equipment needed to test efficacy, the trial administrator gets a pure sample of the drug and sends it out blinded to the participants. Then the results could be collected and possibly even published (in a journal that doesn't have an IRB requirement).
It could go even further if people could cough up the cash for a cheap genetic variation test like 23andme, and then the efficacy could be correlated with genetic variants.
But as it is, we are in the absolute dark ages about our knowledge about nootropic efficacy in normals. It is complicated by the fact that the most likely candidates are often controlled substances.
I've definitely heard of some military folks looking into nootropics pretty heavily in the specific context of training drone pilots. Since those drones cost 1.3 million usd.
It seems strange, they wouldn't have some ivy league scientists on the experiments as well.
Brain plasticity evolves in very specific ways. Simplified you could say that a young brain learns "short-term" things. It learns things (and learns how to cause things) that last tens of microseconds at and just after birth, then over the years moves to seconds, minutes, hours and longer.
But circuits are massively redundant. Until you lose about 90% of the part of the brain that fulfils a certain function, you won't notice a thing. Go over that, and ...
Every memory, every skill, everything in your brain is built on the basic premise that the shorter term neurocircuits work a certain way, that they have solidified. Every memory made when you were 10 years old is filtered through and interpreted by circuits established when you were 9. Memories made when you were 11, get filtered through the 10 year circuits, then the 9 year circuits, then ...
So if a neurocircuit changes that was built when you were 14 years EVERYTHING after that is gone. Every memory younger than when you were 14 years old gets filtered through the now-scrambled 14 year old circuits, which will transform it into noise, which the rest of the brain will promptly ignore.
This is why you regularly have demented people thinking they are much younger than they actually are, failing to remember they have kids, and so on. They suddenly start doing what they did at that age as well, leaving for work at 6am despite being pensioned for 30 years, in many cases to companies that have long since ceased to exist. Not recognizing kids (and especially grandkids). Note that this is usually emotionally very, very hard for those kids.
So if you successfully reset your brain to the plasticity it had when you were 14, every memory, every skill, every detail after that will disappear. The next day you will wake up, likely terrified, in a room you think you've never seen before, wondering where your mother is, not knowing what the hell a cell phone is. If there is damage that did not just do a one-time scramble of the circuit, but actually keeps it from re-solidifying, you will wake up like that every day of the rest of your life, not remembering the day before.
It also works in reverse : you can teach kids about long term effects (e.g. money) for months, and it just won't stick. Don't be fooled they'll be able to repeat the lesson back to you, but they can't apply knowledge that improves their long-term situation because it gets erased.
In my experience learning instruments follows a 90/10 sort of rule, you can get the easy stuff in a matter of weeks, the harder stuff is subject to severe diminishing returns. You have to practice much more to make the relevant progress. That virtuoso is not a virtuoso because he practiced as a child when he had neuro plasticity, he's a virtuoso because he practices hours a day and then thinks about his practicing when he's not practicing. Even someone who is a moderately good professional does this.
I find that my progress on guitar is a direct function of time, which is something else that children have in abundance but adults do not.
Again, my progress is solely a function of time. If I could spend 8+ hours a day on it like a child, I suspect I would become very good.
Even the few psycho-active medicines we have, anti-depressants etc., barely work at all. They might have some positive effects in studies, but if you actually know someone who depends on such medication, you'll know that they're far from a cure; many people even refuse to take them because of the terrible side effects. And those are pills we have a few decades of experience with!
I'm not holding my breath for a wonder drug that will miraculously engance our learning ability.
I could certainly see MANY potential dangers inherent in such a thing. Sure neuroplasticity sounds like it's all sunshine and kittens... but there's a good chance that there are some reasons our brains didn't evolve to retain that sort of plasticity throughout life...
That being said, if there is an experiment which has a decent chance of accomplishing this, I will be first to volunteer. I am aware that it may destroy me entirely, but I would be willing to take the risk. If nothing else, perhaps I'd be able to make a little contribution to the collective knowledge of mankind by showing how terrible of a thing too much neuroplasticity can be.
Absolutely not saying we shouldn't play with this stuff, just that the fact that systems are full of trade-offs should be remembered.
However, our bodies and brains evolved in an environment of near constant food scarcity, where surplus glucose was the chief constraint on neural development.
Can you imagine the developmental pathways that could be opened if our bodies could leverage the massive amounts of excess energy we consume for more than stuffing it into adipose tissue?
I have a small kid and yes, their intelligence development is shocking and completely unlike any other creature on earth. But are there any proof that childrens are actually better/faster at anything than an adult?
Feral Children say otherwise. Chances are if you missed the ability topic to pick up language in your first 5-9 years, you will never learn language at all.
Er, what? Can you cite any research that an adult with no prior language can acquire language proficiency faster than a child with no prior language?
And is your "theory" informed by the research results in neuroscience, or is it just idle speculation?
Can you explain this?
Natural Selection put there a decay in brain's plasticity for a really good and time proven reason.
This is just an hypothesis: the decay in brain plasticity diminishes neophilia and raises neophobia to preserve culture's identity. The new generation attacks the current one with tides of its own new cool and the old resists with conservative trenches of realism. Over and over.
If a new, sub optimal trait does not negatively affect the specimens ability to reproduce then there is no reason to try and select against it. Such a circumstance would not imply the trait was positively selected for.
As for your hypothesis, I think acceptance of norms and political beliefs is a process independent of neuroplasticity, which usually involves acquiring specific skills and talents; I might be wrong, but I think even a very "neuroplastic" elderly person may still have great difficulty changing political or cultural views.
