Some people have described their nootropic use giving them perfect narrow focus on whatever they set in front of them, but gradually over time being left with an empty uncreative head. As time wen by, their reservoir of random wide ranging thoughts got depleted, till they got off the drugs.
Another guy used a combination of drugs including racetams to keep a keen edge of concentration and energy.
Others exploded, I think on one forum there are the remains of someone who medicated a bit too much...he sounded manic, and seemed to have had underlying mental complications.
Absolutely. Perhaps it's the naivety of youth speaking, but I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.
> What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?
I'd argue the world would be a much better place if this was the case. The real question you might want to ask is what if these drugs become expensive and only the upper class can afford them. It might lead to a sort of catch 22 by which no one was interested in hiring less intelligent or less capable people who couldn't afford such drugs.
There's no guarantee you're trading the 5 worst years of your life; it's far more likely that you'll also trade some perfectly good ones for bad ones.
And as far as the naivety of youth is concerned; the simple answer is yes. The complex one is that you'll end up understanding the trade-offs you made in a way that you couldn't now and that the decision on whether it was right or not well be just as moot as it is hard to make.
Unless government regulations get in the way, I would expect employers to start paying for their employees' drugs.
If they don't produce enough of an effect for that to be worthwhile, I wouldn't expect them to see widespread use. (If they cost $X,000/year but only increase your earning potential by $Y,000/year, with Y<X, how many people are really going to take them? Not zero, but I'd guess not enough to have much impact on the market. And if Y>X, it's a good deal for employers, who might also be able to use economies of scale to get the drugs at a discount.)
Well, every place I've worked at has offered free coffee, which is a well-studied (albeit minor?) nootropic.
>Absolutely. Perhaps it's the naivety of youth speaking, but I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.
Yes. I agree. (I'm 42 - does that make a difference?)
Maybe I'd have to think about it if the deal was genius level prodigy but with severe life-long pain. (Either mental anguish, or physical severe arthritis or whatever.) (I'm reminded of Aronofsky's PI.)
The new average is computer programmers who are all extremely awesome? Sign me up! I'd probably get more than five years of additional free time from such a situation, so it would be well worth the tradeoff.
People seem too focused on relative advantage, when it's not usually important. There are a few areas where increasing everybody's ability equally will change little, but most fields would benefit immensely from raising everyone.
Academics is also about fighting for the esteem and attention of your peers, winning grants and awards, and getting yourself known. If athletes are willing to risk their health for a few hundredths of a second in a race, I can imagine some academics would be willing to dope their brains for a better shot at a publication in Nature.