Ballmer Peak

>>>/g/

Yes.

Is there any real science to back up the claim.

I don't think anyone would fund this type of study.

>>8263769
>Test it for yourself
>Find out if it's empirically true for you, by your own metric
>Better understand the universe and yourself, for yourself, by yourself, instead of reading someone else's shit and then deciding to have faith in that "this is how it works, cuz they said so."
Congrats bud, you're doing science and can answer it for yourself! :^)
Now you just have to get your dick out of your hand, get some booze, stop posting inane horseshit on a Mongolian tapestry weaving and basket construction discussion circle website, and pursue the truth.

All you would need is some alcohol and some programmers.

It would have to be a longitudinal study with the same groups. You would have to alternate the control group. Use electroencephalography and wearable fMRI and test blood alcohol level continuously. You would need a real good programmer to evaluate the work

>>8263787
>longitudal study
Yes, this. But it also depends on the individual and their overall frame of life. We're talking a timespan of years, a demographic from 20's to 40's of various ancestries, and a sample size of at least 10,000.

The goal wouldn't be to evaluate the BAC range typically associated with the Ballmer peak, it would be to find if such a peak can exist, and if so, when. I know I've experienced it, and I know my own context, but there's a lot of factors to control for.

>>8263745
Anecdotal, but I've coded while under the influence on a few occasions and have found that I'm quicker and make fewer mistakes.

Also, some empirical evidence to support it.
http://observer.com/2012/04/bottoms-up-the-ballmer-peak-is-real-study-says/

>>8263745
> Is the ballmer peak real?

Yeah, it actually is.

Just do some debugging while you're sober, and you should be fine.