45 thoughts on “Methylphenidate and Personality Changes”

1. As someone who has been following you for more than a decade, and admittedly was quite young, and naive before, I’m now able to see things from an aerial perspective.

   I recall buying your book on meditation some years ago and wholeheartedly enjoyed it. Most apparent was the non-dogmatic approach to the subject, with the intent of clearing the mind instead of gaining some occult insight or power.

   In lieu of this, the post above takes a diagonal shift where the person who was prior interested in gaining insight into the self through the scientific inquiry is falling victim to non-evidence-based, speaking of its grandiosity and surely dabbling with high risk.

   I’m not going to school you on the medical literature but I’m pretty sure that MPH has a shattering effect on cognitive ability — several medical and cultural documentaries extrapolate the direction such drugs take on the mind, and their vernacular, “long-term” effects of sudden degradation which can either explain something completely non-local, or the drugs themselves, which are often the closer matching hypothesis. 
   Of course, if there’s a dynamic relationship, it has to have a precis that indicates something rather than something else.
   What’s surprising to me is your sentiment surrounding personality. To me it’s logical that drastic changes in your brain don’t come from nothing. It isn’t merely speculation that psychoactive substances such as the above damages your brain; it’s something that’s seen again and again empirically in medical imaging both in vivo imaging and post Morten of structural changes in the mind.
   In fact, the disclaimer should read: this is not medical advice, which I neither see in your intro post nor in the footer of your post.

   Reply

   1. Thanks for sharing your perspective, which I really appreciate. I am obviously not a medical professional, so I am not giving medical advice. Besides, you cannot get MPH without a prescription legally, so I surely hope that anybody who takes it receives proper medical attention from their psychiatrist. Regarding your perspective on me supposedly damaging my brain: I have read a lot about MPH and how it works before taking it, so I am not a naive consumer. Basically, MPH regulates dopamine. For instance, the physiological explanation for me messing with my environment in order to keep me more engaged is that I have a higher stimulation threshold, apparently due to a somewhat subdued level of dopamine in my brain. My very high IQ, which I do not state to boast but mention matter-of-factly, does not help in this regard either. I probably have a decently high baseline level of dopamine, but one that is not high enough for my level of intelligence. This is good or bad. Evolutionarily speaking, my body tells me to seek out more novel and more challenging experiences. In reality, I work in a high-IQ field, have bills to pay, and have pretty much maxed out the level of intellectual stimulation I can get, given my circumstances. I even write millions of words in my spare time in order to create mental stimulation in my life. Writing makes me feel better, i.e. it raises my dopamine.

      My impulse to create additional mental stimulation, for instance by putting someone on the spot in a meeting, just to see how he or she would react, completely goes away on MPH. Also, my impulse to yawn because I am so fucking bored half of my day goes away. I think that this is a clear benefit for myself, and my environment. Whether there is any long-term negative consequence on my very deliberate and controlled consumption of MPH has to be seen, but I can assure you that the distance between a recreational drug user and me is incredibly vast. The personality changes I mention are furthermore quite minor. The non-MPH version of myself is a bit abrasive at times and can get impatient easily. MPH basically temporarily removes some rough edges, and also helps me become a lot more productive. Alcohol has a much more deleterious effect on people. If you take MPH responsibly, I think it is quite obvious that you will be fine, even in the long run. In contrast, if you frequently drink alcohol you will end up in a worse and worse situation as time progresses.

   2. I think the working title for this series of articles has always been “MPH: experimenting on myself”. If this was a space that had a widespread access to normies, I would understand your concerns, but the assumption is that we’re all above average intelligence here.

      Besides, as I mentioned in another one of these artciles, I live in a 3rd wolrd shithole and still got told that I could only get Ritalin with a prescription, so… Recreational use for this drug is low to nonexistent, so there mustn’t be a black market for it here. In the US, sure, but it should be very small.

   3. Karl left a very relevant comment to my post on the topic of MPH being a controlled substance that is very relevant here. He is absolutely correct that I do not take the position of the average person into account, so it probably is not a bad idea to keep MPH out of reach for them as you cannot plausibly assume that they would generally be able to restrain themselves. Thus, having psychiatrists as gatekeepers is sensible. I should also add, or repeat, that I do meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis. To be more correct, I clearly fulfill five out of ten diagnostic criteria for ADHD. As a consequence, I am classified as having “mild ADHD”. I am not a subclinical case, which probably applies to a lot of people, normally women, who talk a lot about supposedly having ADHD yet somehow do not manage to muster the courage to get a proper diagnosis. There is a clear medical justification for me to take MPH. On a related note, I wonder if reports of side effects are due to people self-medicating, i.e. consuming a higher dose than recommended or procuring this medication via questionable means, even though there is no medical indication that they should take it.

      Specifically regarding your point of procurement, in the West a very common way of getting access to MPH and related medication is via family members such as a cousin or nephew who may have a prescription. Then this person just so happens to lose a bottle of MPH pills, and gets another prescription from the doctor. I also know of cases where I am quite certain that they got it via a doctor in the family. One guy I knew, who boasted about cramming all night before an exam, remarked that his father helps him getting his hands on Ritalin whenever he needs it. For him, it was some kind of status symbol that he had access to it.

2. quick comment – your writing style is totally different compared to what i remember

   i recall quitting following the blog because of “know-it-all” attitude
   but its something that is attractive at first, just too dogmatic and lacking nuance.

   “I know that I know nothing”

   Reply

   1. Hi man, I’ve had the same initial suspicion, but Aaron was very hospitable, though not always as rational as I think he predicts himself to be. I’ll leave a detailed critique of his ideas. For one, his use of psychotropics for the purpose of a dopamine hypothesis is incoherent. He’s risking gigantically by dabbling with synapsing and neuron-altering through the use of MPH — a drug that’s short-term and monitored on a New York minute, not by a GP, but by a psychiatrist. These drugs are heavily addictive and even if you know what you’re doing you’re playing with the devil (whether you believe in him/she/it or not.)

      Check my reply.

   2. You are very welcome to post a “detailed critique” of any of my ideas. Also, if you read my posts on MPH properly, you should invariably come to the conclusion that I went through a psychiatrist. This included an assessment of addictive personality traits. One reason I got a prescription for MPH was that I do not have an addictive personality. I do not experience euphoria when I am on it, nor do I suffer from any withdrawal symptoms when I take a break. Let me ask you: is your opinion based on anything else but prejudice?

3. As for you Karl, I want to solicit a response to what you’ve said and will surely notify you when I do. Well, gentleman, here are my thoughts. Again, as an academic and researcher I hope that you concur and learn something new.
   As for you Aaron, 
   I know it’s shark’s territory as you need to “win” each time for your dopamine to stay high.  By agreeing you’re sold on the dopamine hypothesis, you’re also having to agree that you need to keep fighting the lobster war of winning, as well as feeling like you’re winning an argument. So, we’re going to have a problem, as the truth is Malcolm in the middle so who gets the house, sort of thing.  

   In fact, intelligence also presupposed the ability to re-cap and readjust our worldviews based on new information. So since this is a dialogue, not a monologue, please don’t take offence as I’ve certainly not intended any.

   First things first: we’ve got (or rather epistemically bestow upon ourselves) a moral duty to preserve yourself optimally. I’d go as far as saying it’s what constitutes self-justice in the most ethical sense. Part of ethics is your condition to others but also yourself as your primary instance is of course human, which concatenates itself to a such wider span of ethics, so deifying yourself to the utmost moral proxy isn’t merely a self-serving bias but to overall crystallize a better morality. It may be also gainful — or you may divert from this — to know that as per the above masochism (such as harming yourself by experiencing the Rush of neurochemicals), has more to do with a solipsistic moral enrichment in the confines of Plato’s Nicomedian ethics and thus isn’t auspicious to morality.

   Now onto the general problem of drugs…

   Given the above supposition, it’s perhaps more imminent why drug use or the misuse thereof AKA the lack of better use — is cardinally important not least that it deals with an ethical problem but also a scientific one, i.e. outcomes specifics.
   Now onto more outcome specifics…

   The perception that you, Aaron, aren’t as mentally stimulated can as well be a defect as opposed to high IQ alone as I’ve stated before how high IQ isn’t a necessary precondition to feeling mentally unstimulated. Rather, it can be, ceteris paribus, more of an indication to other deregulatory principalities or dysfunctionalities — commonly seen in BPD or borderline personality disorder. 

   As for intelligence and the measure thereof, your sentiment is quite interesting all the more macroscopic:

   I worked with people who could’ve been presumably as intelligent as you. They believed they did the right thing. I can tell you the superimpositions of their actions were a day and these people’s lives were changed for the worst. 
   Besides, you’re not the first and you certainly won’t be the last. It’s sad that I can’t chuckle at this statement as I hear it so many times. Oh, if I had a penny, I’d be wealthy, right? 
   This is because feeling good, itself a highly subjective term, is more to do with positive propagation, bosomed within an And state and less to do with the an OR state. You can do this, and this, and that, and so forth — and your feelings will amplify.

   Sure thing, it may be lesser after some nth propagation of harvesting on feel good hormones, but we don’t know yet.
   There’s a hidden excluded middle I think you miss here which I utterly detest: assuming that drugs are the only way to lift the spirits.

   For instance, your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow all possible premises of your problem. By your dopamine hypothesis, there are enough ways to increment your dopamine levels through exercise alone. By and large, I’m thinking of extreme sports as a way to maximize or climax my dopamine levels, and I’ve, firsthand experienced how there’s almost no ceiling to bliss herein.

   Evidently, your analogy of alcohol is interesting. However, we know the half-life of alcohol. It may make you slightly crazy for a while as it’s a CNS depressant, but it can also raise your dopamine levels if you’re in the green(and it doesn’t have nearly as many black box horrors as, say, for instance, MPH). Of course, as with anything, there’s a red Rubicon. The long-term effect of proper alcohol use of an acceptable dose isn’t yet determined and so the analogy I believe is best served to compare apples with apples: IE hormonal altering drugs or blockers with itself or other groups with a neural mechanism. 

   In fact, the literature contradicts itself on what makes us really feel good at any given point. It’s not that dopamine doesn’t have an effect or the only effect; it’s more that there’s a combo to the picture and lots of gray areas. All in all, monitoring your dopamine isn’t yet an exact science!
   Ergo, and so it follows, I don’t think mentally castrating the re-uptake of hormones that’s necessary for bio-functioning and biosynthesis is the way to go to compound on only dopamine. 
   If you raise the water level, there’s more pressure per square inch when you descend, and you’d need to accommodate for it when diving. Sadly, the brain doesn’t have the ability to artificially re-regulate itself based on heterogeneous changes. Neuroplasticity usually concerns itself with environmental adjustments or adjustments based on organic contraindication rather than artificially forced neural adjustments. What it appears to me as a researcher in the case of normal biorhythmic changes, for instance eating fruit as opposed to consuming a dopamine blocker, is that the confines of changes in the former state happen more locally and thus more local changes are the most natural ways the brain knows how to self-modulate. That is, there are concrete variables which are more favorable for re-adjustment or connectivity, and this mostly has to do with states the brain reached before, mainly local to prior states and also environmental. For instance, sleep deprivation can destroy the brain in minor ways, but the brain can regenerate based on adequate sleep perhaps because evolutionarily speaking, the people who were sleep deprivation and regenerated did survive, and those who couldn’t ended up dying out, and thus the gene were recessive to begin with. But even this can be to an extent as isn;’t absolute within the prior mentioned specific.
   Introducing foreign compositions especially when self-monitored, carries an indomitable risk.  Now for dose specifics…
   MPH is a Schedule B medication in Germany. It should be of no surprise why the high schedule exists. Usually, Medical councils preserve the highest schedules for its toxic or narcotic properties, which MPH certainly is, and thus addiction is a given a higher class then merely the likes of Panadol or Aspirin. Yes, the tenacious party can overdose on aforementioned compounds, but they are generally safe and certainly within the bounds of normal use, dedicated by numerous studies and Chi charts, various regression models within a reasonable span to accommodate an maximal hypothesis certainly. You can give many of these to a baby, for instance, and the expectation at the worst isn’t even death — long half life of some of these are only 1 reason why they’re deemed “safery” but this isn’t the whole picture.

   Onto what constitutes normal…

   Normal use isn’t in question in your case because we’re talking about using something that was otherwise intended (by you), not for a pathology, but for self-administration — against prescription guidelines. Or perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll concede defeat. 
   What do you term a small dose? It varies between body size, BMI and sorts, even pathology and chromosomally. Let’s say there’s a small dose of 5mg presumably. 5mg and 1 mg can make a gigantic difference in the absorption rate (even in hemoglobin pressure on the brain), or even the reaction of someone. It’s not just a small dose. Dosages aren’t simply an acid test that says red or blue — they’re scientifically and epistemically calculated to fit the person based on a thorough analysis based on their individual bios.
   I’m not sure about your specifics so I’m shooting from the hip here. But have you thought about the possibility of a placebo effect in your case? To me, it seems highly unlikely that you’ve tried every possible avenue at your disposal. Or perhaps part of this is just parody, or even satire, or merely philosophical, perhaps to understand a cardinal underpinning of what experimentation involves or perhaps even juggling with the underpinnings of motives — who knows.
   My problem with this drug class is how they function. They do something completely alien to your body’s neurofeedback: They block the reuptake of dopamine and norepinephrine, two hormones, given the extent much to how we know our biology’s respond, that aren’t even necessary the only responsible contributors to feeling good and may in fact hider it or even have a paradoxical effect.
   Whats worse, while these medications appeal to fine tune specific synapses and biofeedback loops in the brain, they block essential functioning which can be best thought of as a massive game of roulette with your health. 
   These changes aren’t synergistically neural reactive, as we’d hope, so they’re enforcing particulars in the brain and are strictly monitored to ensure things don’t go awry. And even then, things do go awry as seen in the varying reports of failed psychiatrically treatments which mostly comes from a patient’s own indolence than the other way around…. GPs perscription. 
   Normally, you use dose specifics to raise these to verify if a patient would be responsive; if not, there’ no harm done as the dosage itself was calculative minute, and the risk is lower, or as low as can be for such drug classes.

   That is, again, why it’s a last resort. It’s a lesser evil approach rather than a non-evil one: but the furthest evil to me is going on a long-term basis with something that should be short term.
   This outcome isn’t that uncommon even among patients who’ve been very evangelical about dose taking, and have worked with their GP or medical professional to revamp their potentiates. 
   Yet another problem is unseen sometimes undetected early neurotoxicity:
   Our bodies do not possess habituation the same way from natural or inorganic compounds, especially those that are lab-rendered rather than organically orchestrated by nature, for which our bodies do have some way of alerting us by making us feel sick or making us vomit. Most of this has to do with enzymes and so the body can play ping pong with it to let us know what’s safe and not — from a natural, organic point, or from other substances that mimick these organic tapestries. So, as for MPH, which lacks almost all of these signaling due to various factors, think about where those go and what they build to to. Most of these aren’t necessarily carbon so they’re not broken down or expelled from the body and not even the body’s abdominal acid can fully break them down. 
   Its easier for neurotoxicity to occur with the buildup of inorganic and insolvable compounds, as such proven by various psychiatrically prescribed rugs, than the former, more biologically processed means.
   Tapering, as you should know, is ABSOLUTE and utter hell Speak to people who’ve been on psychiatric substances for only 2 weeks or worse months, and they’d tell you that they’ve as much as lost their lives because not in spite of it. 
   Equally profound to me (I won’t term it interesting) is the number of people taking psychotropic substances and the sheer post hoc observation of ending up in psychiatric hospitals, and how most of these patients — most who were subclinical– end up with severe psychosis, delusions, delirium, when the only parallel you can draw is that they took some sort of psychiatric drug or self-administered their own dosage adjustments.
   if you don’t believe me take any of those drugs and head over to pubmed and notice backlash pharmaceutical companies have — hundreds of lawsuit — that never get passed simply because they’ve better lawyers than the party of the contrary position, mostly a mother of father whose son or daughter lost their lives and simply lacked the capital to continue their pursuit.

   So it’s unsurprising to me that according to internal health records, it seems that the US brushes up top with substance abuse — go figure!

   Reply

   1. Your long response does not really convince me. You are building up a strawman to knock down. To pick one example: I take a very low dose of just 10mg per pop. Tapering would not even make sense in my case. I just go to zero right away. People experience severe side effects if they take high doses or, worse, self-medicate. From discussions on my blog, though, I have learned that not even in places like South America you can get Ritalin without a prescription. Of course, if someone who does not suffer from ADHD somehow gets his hands on a big stash of Concerta or Ritalin and snorts one gram day in order to get high then all bets are off.

4. Hi Aaron, I didn’t mean to be rude. If I missed that it was from a psychiatrist, it still doesn’t negate that the use may not be remedially inclined. Obviously, I cannot read through all your posts — not least that I don’t have the time — and had to resort to evidence from the best explanation. I’m a researcher (won’t tell you straight away which field), but I’m not pandering to subjectivities. My research proved that these substances are cautious at best. I’ll get into black box warnings — surprised you didn’t find out how many of these are. Movement disorders are not fun. We’re dealing with subjects daily who’ve contracted them through such means. Don’t take offense at the postulates. =)

   Also, just because you don’t’ have an addictive personality doesn’t mean you can’t be addictive. As per this logic, you can do cocaine and won’t get addictive? Of course, there’s no such thing as absolute in-addiction or non-addiction but there are many substances where the crossing point to the addiction square is almost zero.

   And no my friend, I’m not prejudiced at all. I won’t even deem this an opinion, as an opinion can be in many forms. So perhaps it is but it’s empirical. I’m working first-hand with subjects and have done my own research into this. Should you figure out my name on your forum (I’ve given you hints), you might come across my discipline and specialty.

   Reply

   1. I am not taking MPH recreationally. Sure, you do not have the time to read my rather detailed posts, but you do have the time to come in here, making blanked accusations. Feel free to share your research. You insinuating that you are in possession of research so great it cannot be publicly mentioned is not particularly believable. I am also happy to let you know that I did indeed read the package insert, including all the warnings. I have also read plenty of studies, of course while being aware that these are not necessarily trustworthy due to the influence of Big Pharma. I am not concerned about movement disorders at all as this is not a common side effect. Besides, if this was an issue for me, I should have experienced it already, after months of living with MPH. My addition potential is apparently very low to nonexistent. I do not mind your remarks but you need to provide a bit more substance if you want me to take your objections seriously.

5. Ditto. Perhaps approve my poignant discourse that I’ve detailed? Since it’s not recreational how long is your course dated for? There’s more to come if you want research but as per your dopamine hypothesis you gave yourself away: you’re quite an egotist so presumably you don’t take losing lightly — and that you base MPH on dopamine is rather disconcerting. (My latest post) It’s a problem for me who would like to present facts but of course I’m going back into a Socratean cave surely fighting with ego rather than rationale? Houston we got a problem! Also, didn’t see any pertinent facts from you this far… By the way movement disorders aren’t uncommon at all and in a myriad of studies prove at a staggering 10 percent with irreversible traits or tics that never retracted! I must mention that just about everyone who jumps on a course of dopamine agonists or analogues experiences withdrawal symptoms of some sort, most rather shocking which is even in a controlled setting. I’m baffled you never came across such research that you could retrieve with a brute google search. PSSD is yet another. Did you actually look in the specificity and sensitivity of such problems and their correlation to the norm? You should really ask your Doctor about it — just something to think about! In addition, I’m happy to extrapolate stats but it’s going to be an issue to really amp ot up with someone so hostile and defensive…

   Reply

   1. You long response was stuck in the spam folder. I just approved it. PSSD is related to SSRIs, which is not a category MPH falls under.

6. Chronic dopamine upregulation would make it more difficult to downregulate as the sensitivity would obviously toggle with increased dopamine in the system which would causes a host of problems. PSSD is a small side effect of it. I was being generous. You still didn’t really answer my question: how long would you be using it for? 🙂

   Reply

   1. I have no end date in mind. Apparently, there is a lack of long-term studies on MPH in the 65+ age group but you can still get it off-label if your psychiatrist recommends it. This would be a natural end date but I will cross this bridge when I get there.

7. Don’t tell me you’re almost close to 65? What’s close? One year? Two years? A decade? Why not just say it: I like living in the moment. No worries, mate. 😉

   Reply

8. “Your long response does not really convince me. You are building up a strawman to knock down. To pick one example: I take a very low dose of just 10mg per pop. Tapering would not even make sense in my case. I just go to zero right away. People experience severe side effects if they take high doses or, worse, self-medicate. From discussions on my blog, though, I have learned that not even in places like South America you can get Ritalin without a prescription. Of course, if someone who does not suffer from ADHD somehow gets his hands on a big stash of Concerta or Ritalin and snorts one gram day in order to get high then all bets are off.”

   Just a quick response: Not really. In fact, you have the burden of proof to show that your motivations are medically factual — it’s not me who should show the converse. Was just an inquiry obviously since you’re taking the drug? The supposition is on you to prove that what you’re taking actually benefit you, not on me to prove otherwise. Besides, looking at the number of posts and the absence of a disclaimer strikes me as a kind of sophistry: you’re obviously having an intention and that intention could hurt others. It’s just responsible especially since I work in a related field. Surely you agree there are blackbox warnings and didn’t post references to how many people were affected. Plausible deniability isn’t really my game — perhaps that’s what you’re getting in if you’re not really going further to a root cause analysis? But again, you could just be living in the moment.

   I just go to zero right away.

   But obviously the dose would vary long-term or you’d be an exception. So you need to think about it and that you’re now going for decreasing merit as the studies long-term also decreases; so as per your age demographic comment above, you’re still articulating a risk.

   How do you quantify this? I’m just really curious — not an arsehole.

   The black market in Latin America is huge. What are you talking about? Go to Mexico city. You can buy almost everything there. Euthanasia drugs were sold there for chips. I saw Ritalin there too!

   Reply

   1. I do not need to prove to you that MPH is beneficial for me. In my view, it does. What intention do I have? There are no commercial interests and anyone interested in MPH needs to go through a psychiatrist. I am not a medical professional and if anyone feels comfortable buying drugs on the black market, which may be counterfeited, then this really is not my problem.

9. “Apparently, MPH can make you aggressive and impulsive, irritable, or even prone to crying”

   Is referenced to what you wrote above. What’s the specifics to how bad it can get? For instance, irritable, seeing that these are the mammoth of pharmaceutical enterprises, can actually mean a total disillusionment from this world. For instance, they won’t write akathisia or dystonia as a warning per se, but they’d infer it to protect themselves. So, restlessness can be catastrophic my friend. And if you go through this list, you’d find it mimics no other “normal” lower class drug and it’s partly why they’re so highly scheduled which is obvious to a higher risk in several verticals.

   Just a quick FYI.

   Reply

   1. I do not have this issue.

10. “Of course, if someone who does not suffer from ADHD somehow gets his hands on a big stash of Concerta or Ritalin and snorts one gram day in order to get high then all bets are off.”

    Again, just a chestnut: The acceptance criteria would vary. One psychiatrist might ascribe to the treatment modality, while another might differ. This happens more often than not so that’s part of the issue I have with the potential negative side effects, some you’ve listed or hinted at, and a proxy diagnosis which might not be really inferential, seeing how often someone would put you down as “mildly ADHD” if you’re not even fulfilling a substantial checklist. So even this is extremely variable.

    Reply

    1. What’s a “proxy diagnosis” ?

       I’m only familiar with the medical use of the term in Munchausen by proxy, which doesn’t seem relevant here.

11. What’s your question? Is it first intention? You intend to mean what the word “proxy” means or should I teach you what the word “diagnosis” means? What do you want me to clarify? Which relevancy do you wish to posit heretofore? Where’s “here”?

    Reply

    1. My question is: What is a “proxy diagnosis” ? I think it’s very clear, and more or less impossible not to understand, what I’m asking.

       By the way, Jo, it would be easier to read and keep track of your posts if you used the “Reply” function here. It’s underneath the top comment in a thread. That way all the replies end up in the same thread. 🙂

12. “I am not a medical professional and if anyone feels comfortable buying drugs on the black market, which may be counterfeited, then this really is not my problem.”

    But then you said, “MPH is a drug you may take for years or even your entire life, so any changes to your personality are probably of a more intermittent nature. ”

    Seems contradictory sooner MPH was a drug you may take for years, in the consequent. Wait, I thought you’re not a medical professional?

    Perhaps you can see how your post was interpreted in a conflicting way to what you’ve envisioned?

    This is all you needed to write from the beginning. Thank you.

    Reply

    1. I agree that this sentence is potentially confusing if taken out of context. You seem to assume that people take MPH all day, every day. In contrast, my approach is to take it as needed. Thus, any personality changes will be intermittent, not matter for how long I will end up taking this drug. I do not insinuate that I am a medical professional and I find it really puzzling that you claim the opposite.

13. “I do not need to prove to you that MPH is beneficial for me.” I beg to differ. I’m the reader so obviously there’s a point of self-interest and solipsism on my behalf. I don’t’ want to just read about you — I actually wish to benefit in some way, shape or form albeit the manner in which I deem. And if it’s something suspicious, and since my interpretation might be in unison, then shall I not be obliged to mention it? And especially since I didn’t see an official disclaimer, I just had to point out the white elephant.

    Reply

    1. If you do not find my articles valuable then do not read them. It is as simple as that. To be perfectly blunt: I owe you absolutely nothing. I also do not see where there is a “white elephant”.

    2. I think Jo was referring to the elephant in the room, and not a white elephant.

       (Not that I think there actually is an elephant in the room.)

       For someone who likes to quibble and argue about minute linguistic details, that’s an interesting and major mistake to make.

14. “To be perfectly blunt: I owe you absolutely nothing. ”

    Sure, but by the same token I owe you what you owe me: the absence of anything, which means I’ll start with zero and point out your moral trespassing, or pretentiousness in your memoire.

    So, then we can shake hands on that one.

    Reply

15. “You seem to assume that people take MPH all day, every day. ” Where did I “assume” people take MPH all day every day? It seems like a bit of an artificial statement and one hasty generalization, Aaron.

    Reply

16. “If you do not find my articles valuable then do not read them. ” Some of your articles were commendable — at least some years ago, which is why I’ve summoned this part of the internet again.

    Reply

    1. Some thought that this space had gone downhill during the “great” Ubermensch arguments. It goes through phases, that’s how we know Aaron is genuine. 15 years ago I was a normie adolescent, 10 years ago I was a libertarian.

       BTW, I’m geographically from Central America, but culturally the Western whites lump us all together with South America (which makes sense, unlike lumping us together with non-Spanish speaking Caribbeans like Jamaica, Suriname, etc.), so I’m one of those guys Aaron references when talking about MPH and prescriptions in SA. There are black markets for everything but, as I mentioned back then, the one for MPH here has to be microscopic if it exists because: 1) we’re a small country, 2) the drug has virtually no recreational value. The best bet would be to find it among the private university crowd around the capital and in the town where an American college operates here (Keiser), but again, I’m sure there’s nowhere the amount of demand for it that you’d come to expect from a top 100 university in the US, for example.

17. You were actually the first person who has spoken about Zen in a no-bullshit fashion which appealed much to me. Your book regarding meditation was interesting and paralleled my view of the world. It was anything but fluff and cutted through fads and new-agey, orthodox crap. I never actually got the chance to thank you for that book.

    Reply

    1. You are very welcome. Keep in mind that I write from my own perspective and that I am not concerned with commercial viability. I wrote exactly what I wanted to write about picking up women, the seduction industry, meditation, the vaxx, and now methylphenidate. If any of my writing resonates with you and others, great, but if not then there is probably no point in you arguing that you wish I wrote something else. My primary motivation for writing is to help me clarify my own thoughts. Furthermore, very often there are insightful discussions in my comments section. You are free to participate, and it does not cost you anything, but complaining that my perspective is different from the perspective you would like me to take is perhaps not the most productive approach. (EDIT: I wrote this comment on MPH, which I took about 45 minutes ago, and the effect started to kick in about 30 minutes ago. Do you see how much more agreeable I am when I am on this drug?)

18. I think Jo was referring to the elephant in the room, and not a white elephant.

    (Not that I think there actually is an elephant in the room.)

    For someone who likes to quibble and argue about minute linguistic details, that’s an interesting and major mistake to make.”

    Since you’re so critical of semantics here, shouldn’t you at least make an attempt to not hit up Search and look at the first best definition? I can find what you should be looking for on the first page of Google. It doesn’t even take rigorous semantic or in-depth etymological gymnastics to understand what I was saying there — so at least, if you’re going to come after me, go the extra mile and actually do your research? I second the 2nd to last comment I made to you: instead of cherry picking everything I say, rather do a bit of research and you might not instantly get mistaken for a fool, and perhaps learn a thing or two? (Just an FYI.)

    Anything else?

    Reply

    1. That’s a really out-of-proportion reaction to someone pointing out that you misused a term.

       If you think that was me “com[ing] after [you],” then you have a really poor ability to understand social dynamics. Based on your other posts, that’s not really a big surprise.

       Let me guess: you don’t play well with the other children, and tend to have a hard time getting along with others in the longer term? Maybe get into a lot of conflicts?

       My advice to you would be to start talking to other people in a normal manner, rather than with arrogance. And try to see normal social exchanges as, well, normal social exchanges. Most social interactions aren’t a “battle for dominance.”

    2. Jo, you better calm down. I find your behavior rather inappropriate, waltzing in here and making unsubstantiated big claims. So far, you have impressed me neither with content nor presentation. You come across as an underachieving try-hard who thinks he can fool others by putting on a tough-guy persona. This may work in a real-world scenario where people are too polite to put you in your place or hesitant to smack you in the face. In online discourse, this approach does not nearly work as well. How about you clearly spell out what you want to say. If we are that dumb, then teach us. Summarize the revolutionary research you have been working on that shows how dangerous MPH is, and link to relevant papers. Yes, we know, you are a world-class authority in your discipline, but surely there are other people who are not affiliated with you, which work in the same field. Granted, this would not expose us to your high-caliber research but only to a simulacrum, but it would be better than what we currently have, which is absolutely nothing except evidence of your big mouth.

19. “My advice to you would be to start talking to other people in a normal manner, rather than with arrogance. And try to see normal social exchanges as, well, normal social exchanges. Most social interactions aren’t a “battle for dominance.”

    Ditto — take your own advice. What’s your definition of normal? Do you mean online or offline? Be a little more specific.

    Reply

    1. Jo, I am getting tired of you. You either do a 180 or you will be gone.

20. “I find your behavior rather inappropriate, waltzing in here and making unsubstantiated big claims. ”

    How’s the defense of a positive claim (and I have to say medically unverified claim) an unsubstantiated claim? In one sense you’re not a medical professional but then again, you resort to controversial claims about what others should do and how long they should take MPH.

    Then you play possum by presenting yourself as a victim. Then, all of a sudden, Mr. Agreeable turns into a Machiavellian devil and instead of actually looking at deductive arguments rather monetize to physical confrontation to incite his own position? Really nice move.

    Reply

21. With that erratic and boisterous behavior, you could be gone very soon mate. You’re not in a good place! =-/

    Reply

22. “You come across as an underachieving try-hard who thinks he can fool others by putting on a tough-guy persona. ”

    So my defending your pre-suppositions about me is not tolerated. Playing several versions of yourself to respond is truly comical. Shall I call you Aaron et al?

    Reply

23. “And try to see normal social exchanges as, well, normal social exchanges. Most social interactions aren’t a “battle for dominance.””

    Given your haphazard way at searching google, coupled with the inability to actually take the time to consult a dictionary (or thesaurus for that matter), self-projection on your part comes as no surprise…

    Reply

    1. Goodbye, Jo.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.