Did amphetamines help Erdős? – Andart II
Skip to content
Close Menu
Search for:
Recent Posts
First Light
A somewhat delayed annual review
Digital Scar Tissue
Don’t Worry – It Can’t Happen
Consonance, dissonance, eigenvalue spectra and other universes
Recent Comments<br>Aleph Zero on The cursed d65536<br>admin on What is the smallest positive integer that will never be used?<br>Tyler t. on What is the smallest positive integer that will never be used?<br>Anton Sherwood on A sustainable orbital death ray<br>admin on When the inverse square stops working<br>Archives
March 2026
January 2026
November 2025
July 2025
January 2025
December 2024
October 2024
April 2024
May 2023
April 2023
October 2022
June 2022
October 2021
January 2021
June 2020
March 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
December 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
March 2018
October 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
Categories
Academia
Artificial Intelligence
Biotechnology
Cognition
Computer science
coordination
Cryonics
Economics
Effective altruism
Enhancement
Epidemiology
ethics
Existential risk
existential risk
Fiction
Future Studies
Geography
governance
Heavy tails
Human development
Humor
Life Extension
Love
Math
Megascale
Music
Nanotechnology
Neuroscience
Personal
Philosophy
Physics
Politics
problems
Reviews
Risk
Robotics
RPG
Security
SETI
Sociology
Space
Statistics
Technology
Transhumanism
Uncategorized
Meta
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
During my work on the Paris talk I began to wonder whether Paul Erdős (who I used as an example of a respected academic who used cognitive enhancers) could actually have been shown to have benefited from his amphetamine use, which began in 1971 according to Hill (2004). One way of investigating is his publication record: how many papers did he produce per year before or after 1971? Here is a plot, based on Jerrold Grossman’s 2010 bibliography:
Productivity of Paul Erdos over his life. Green dashed line: amphetamine use, red dashed line: death. Crosses mark named concepts.<br>The green dashed line is the start of amphetamine use, and the red dashed life is the date of death. Yes, there is a fairly significant posthumous tail: old mathematicians never die, they just asymptote towards zero. Overall, the later part is more productive per year than the early part (before 1971 the mean and standard deviation was 14.6±7.5, after 24.4±16.1; a Kruskal-Wallis test rejects that they are the same distribution, p=2.2e-10).
This does not prove anything. After all, his academic network was growing and he moved from topic to topic, so we cannot prove any causal effect of the amphetamine: for all we know, it might have been holding him back.
One possible argument might be that he did not do his best work on amphetamine. To check this, I took the Wikipedia article that lists things named after Erdős, and tried to find years for the discovery/conjecture. These are marked with red crosses in the diagram, slightly jittered. We can see a few clusters that may correspond to creative periods: one in 35-41, one in 46-51, one in 56-60. After 1970 the distribution was more even and sparse. 76% of the most famous results were done before 1971; given that this is 60% of the entire career it does not look that unlikely to be due to chance (a binomial test gives p=0.06).
Again this does not prove anything. Maybe mathematics really is a young man’s game, and we should expect key results early. There may also have been more time to recognize and name results from the earlier career.
In the end, this is merely a statistical anecdote. It does show that one can be a productive, well-renowned (if eccentric) academic while on enhancers for a long time. But given the N=1, firm conclusions or advice are hard to draw.
Erdős’s friends worried about his drug use, and in 1979 Graham bet Erdős $500 that he couldn’t stop taking amphetamines for a month. Erdős accepted, and went cold turkey for a complete month. Erdős’s comment at the end of the month was "You’ve showed me I’m not an addict. But I didn’t get any work done. I’d get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I’d have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You’ve set mathematics back a month." He then immediately started taking amphetamines again. (Hill 2004)
2 thoughts on “Did amphetamines help Erdős?”
It certainly looks suggestive that the second largest drop occurred in...