There's serious demand for "study aids". It's really not a surprise. If you're statistically going to score higher than your peers by taking a pill, that's not too far off from hacking. Code optimization for the brain.
If amphetamine use is a mental "hack", then so is cheating or paying someone to do your work; call it crowd-sourcing, or distributed education, but that doesn't lend it any legitimacy.
(I did find it very boring and generally worthless, so I dropped out to work on something more interesting. The real world is even less competitive -- there is more work to do than there are people available to do it.)
Don't assume it's a risk. The effects of these stimulants are well known and well studied. Taken safely and in proper doses these are not risky drugs. The world is not black and white and learning and self development can be aided by these drugs. It is not cheating.
Artificially enhancing your natural cognitive abilities is a trend that is only going to continue to increase as we learn more and more about the brain and how to manipulate it. The body is a machine, and if we learn to make the machine operate better through chemicals, which is inevitable, then we're going to take advantage of that. You won't see people complaining when they're daily regiment of 20 pills lets them live healthy lives well into their 200's.
Some people realize this is already happening and are taking advantage of it.
In my experience, calling the effects "enhancing your natural cognitive abilities" is extremely inaccurate, as the state of mind created is not one you can achieve naturally. That alone would not be bad, but there is a trend toward ignoring the difference. The risk here is that we recalibrate the world of normal human functioning to the standards of people high on speed.
That doesn't matter, what matters is the affect and side effects of the drug on people is known. This isn't a roll of the dice on some newly discovered drug where the long terms effects are unknown.
> In my experience, calling the effects "enhancing your natural cognitive abilities" is extremely inaccurate, as the state of mind created is not one you can achieve naturally.
Not true, people can and do naturally achieve extreme focus and flow, the drug isn't giving you new abilities, it's giving you more of an ability you already have and allowing you to control when you have it.
> The risk here is that we recalibrate the world of normal human functioning to the standards of people high on speed.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as people are aware of what they're doing and it's reasonably safe to do so. People have always used drugs, people are always going to use drugs, and as the drugs get better and better, more and more people will use them if they find it beneficial to do so.
Yes, this is obvious, and I wasn't denying that at all. What is not obvious, and what there is no evidence for, is that these states are the same as what is achieved on stimulants. It is my own experience that they are very distintly different, and I would never refer to the effects of speed as "natural". The very fact that they are achieved in humans without use of stimulants should be a strong indication that the stimulants do not recreate the same effect. Lack of focus is not due to deficiency of Ritalin.
it's giving you more of an ability you already have and allowing you to control when you have it.
This is exactly what I am saying is not true. Taking speed does not do the same thing to your brain that your brain is ordinarily capable of doing to yourself. When you take speed, you're not making your brain function like one of a smarter person, no matter how much smarter you feel. Cognition is altered, not just enhanced, and I think it is a huge mistake to ignore that. We don't ignore it when talking about cocaine or any other illegal drugs that people report similarly positive effects from. Why are we so willing to ignore that distinction for these drugs?
There's nothing wrong with that as long as people are aware of what they're doing and it's reasonably safe to do so.
That people believe (as you do) that these drugs merely enhance existing brain function is a sign that people really aren't aware of what they are doing.
Who cares? Really? People use these drugs because they give you super focus, both the feeling, and the reality. You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect.
> The very fact that they are achieved in humans without use of stimulants should be a strong indication that the stimulants do not recreate the same effect.
That makes no sense at all. Sleep is natural, it doesn't follow that any pill which also induces sleep is not doing it via the same mechanism. In fact, it's an indication of nothing, either way.
> Lack of focus is not due to deficiency of Ritalin.
No one claimed it was. You're ignoring the desire for superhuman focus. People take these when they want more focus than is natural.
> That people believe (as you do) that these drugs merely enhance existing brain function is a sign that people really aren't aware of what they are doing.
That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue and you assume others don't know the risks and if you could just educate them they'd change their behavior; you'd be wrong.
People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with. Drug use is not drug abuse.
I would hope that anybody taking "cognitive enhancers" would care. It seems entirely relevant that one should know the difference between normal brain functioning and drug-induced brain functioning. My concern is that there is a trend towards not knowing the difference, and that this is being applauded.
You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect.
I am specifically talking about the effect. It is different. It is not, in your words, "enhancing your natural cognitive abilities". You cannot honestly argue that it is the same as a natural state of focus while simultaneously claiming that the point is to have unnatural kind of focus.
And yes, I regard the distinction between natural and unnatural states as important when it impacts things like (say) competition for top-tier education.
That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue
I have no idea what this means. You seem to be rejecting the validity of my opinion because it does not agree with yours. That's...deft.
People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with.
Taking Ritalin to "enhance work or study performance" is getting high. The effect of the drug is the same regardless of whether you take it to study or not. Why have we recently gotten a free pass to class it up by calling it "cognitive enhancement"?
People have historically taken all kinds of drugs for performance reasons, be they legal, illegal, or legal but illegally obtained--many to famously great effect. What changed to allow us to use such different terminiology for the same act? What is the effect on our culture of continuing to do so? And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms?
No it isn't. No more so than drinking a cup of coffee gets you high on caffeine, or eating a candy bar gets you high on sugar, or drinking a bottle of Jack gets you high on Jack.
Getting "high" is generic slang for the consumption of some mind altering substances for fun. 99% of the time getting high specifically means smoking marijuana. You do not label the taking of all substances as getting high, I'm not getting high if I take a percocet, I'm not getting high if I take a paxil, I'm not getting high if I take an abilify.
You can tweak on Ritalin by taking far more than the prescribed dose which people usually do by crushing and snorting it. This is not at all comparable to those taking the pill in the prescribed fashion in the same dose that one would take for ADD.
> What changed to allow us to use such different terminology for the same act?
What difference, you don't say an athlete is getting high on steroids, that's not what getting high means. Secondly, you'll note we're against steroids because they're known to be very damaging to the user, not because they enhance his muscles. If steroids were as safe as Ritalin they wouldn't be illegal and they'd be used by the vast majority of athletes just like every other legal substance they've found that works.
The terminology hasn't changed, you're just mistakenly thinking we use the same term for every drug and intent. We never have other than the generic "using drugs". Name a drug and there is specific lingo associated with that drug.
> And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms?
You should be aware of them, but not concerned because what other people do shouldn't concern you unless it affects you, I fail to see how it affects you. Being concerned implies that you feel the right to object to the behavior and prevent others from doing what they want with themselves, that's what I'm objecting to.
Social norms change, that's life, they've always been changing. If someone wants to take a pill - widely considered safe - to make themselves perform better, who's business is that but theirs?
The point is that you're arbitrarily defining which substances and what uses qualify as fun. If you snort a line of coke and then write a paper is that getting high or not? If you take Ritalin and play Xbox is that getting high or not? If you smoke marijuana because you feel it allows you to have better ideas is that getting high or not?
There is no heuristic here, no fact-based rule for whether we acknowledge the different states of consciousness or not. We've just taken the exact same activity that people have been doing with stimulants for decades and given it a more palatable marketing label.
This is not at all comparable to those taking the pill in the prescribed fashion in the same dose that one would take for ADD.
The drug has the same effect either way, with only slight differences between methods of delivery. The drug does not care why you take it. In any event, we are specifically not talking about anyone taking it for the treatment of an actual deficiency of functioning (controversy over ADHD aside), we're talking about people taking it for "cognitive enhancement", where the indicated dosage is none.
...they'd be used by the vast majority of athletes just like every other legal substance they've found that works.
There are plenty of legal substances frequently banned in competitive sports. For example: Ritalin, Adderal, and modafinil.
I fail to see how it affects you.
Exactly. Can you understand why that would bother me? I'm talking about broad sweeping changes in cultural norms that could potentially redefine what we expect from individuals in society to standards set by people on drugs that make them perform certain tasks at superhuman levels -- in essence doing to our civilization what we've done to professional baseball -- and all you're doing is arguing with my use of the term "getting high" to include "tweaking".
Social norms effect everyone that desires to participate in society. I want those norms to be reasonable because I happen to want to participate in society, and what I see happening with these drugs seems unreasonable, expecially when seen as a long-term trend.
In ten years, am I going to have to take drugs in order to hold a decent job? In twenty years, is my child going to have to take drugs in order to get into college? More generally: what will be the long-term large-scale effect of using drugs that alter the mesolimbic reward pathway? What reason do I have to not be concerned about these possibilities?
If someone wants to take a pill - widely considered safe - to make themselves perform better, who's business is that but theirs?
If everyone were free to take whatever drug they want for whatever purpose they want, that would be a good point. But that isn't the situation we have. A person can only take some drugs for some purposes if obtained in some ways. It is already everybody's business and we already have strict laws and rules specifying which pills you have to take, what kind of performance is acceptable, and who gets to decide if you can take them.
I don't want more constraints on what people are allowed to do with themselves than already exist, and in general my preference would be for less, but I do want less of this irrational exuberance that treats normal baseline human cognition as a disease to be medicated.
> but I do want less of this irrational exuberance that treats normal baseline human cognition as a disease to be medicated.
Ah, but it is. Some of us feel extremely limited by biology and regardless of what others feel is or isn't normal, we're going to push biology beyond what nature provided because we can. This doesn't just apply to drugs, in the next 100 years as biotechnology really takes off, people are going to be augmenting everything they can. Transhumanism is coming whether you like it or not.
If I can implant artificial memory to surpass the abilities of the brain nature provided me, I will, and so will many others, and no amount of clinging to the past or to what nature intended will prevent this from happening.
What you fear, is inevitable, the march of technology will not be stopped because people who don't want to augment cry foul when augmented people are out competing them, that's just how it's going to be.
You cannot, and I resent your attempt to do so. You're just retreating into vagueness instead of arguing pertinent points. You're also projecting opinions on me that I haven't stated, apparently because you're more comfortable with parrotable dogma than relating your own opinions. Suddenly, instead of arguing for my own specific statements, you expect me to argue against extremely general statements about technology and phrophetic claims of inevitibility. You'd might as well say "God wills it" for all the passivity and coarseness of thought you've expressed here.
You're making the worst sort of argument that a person can make about transhumanism when you pretend that everything with turn out perfectly in some distant future regardless of the actions taken by people in the meantime. That is faith, not reason, and I'll have no part of it.
Reality is not an implementation detail. We're done here.
Furthermore, arguing about the legitimacy is a completely different matter, and deserves its own thread altogether IMO. I would be with you on amphetamines being illegitimate, a subtle form of cheating. However, what is one man's cheat is simply "clever" or "brilliant" to another. You ought to be prepared to spell out exactly what you mean by "cheating", and in what context, before you try and rail against me for suggesting something as innocuous as I did.
Finally, if you think higher education is for 'self-development and learning', then you're either living in the past, or have a naively idealistic view on what the current situation is in colleges across the country. If colleges are about one thing, it's about getting a job. The school I attend is incredibly competitive, and there isn't room for self-development. If you want self-development, you're better off dropping out. 0.02c
I agree with you that that is the claim of the people taking the pills, but where are the statistics? How well controlled are studies claiming to show that the pills help normal people?
You actually see the same thing in artists. Sure, the top geniuses are prone to hard-life and drug use, but there are plenty of phonies abusing drugs and living the "life style" without producing any work of value. My gf is a musician and every time I hangout with her friends I feel like I am the dirty unhealthy one. Nearly all the musos are vegeterian yoga freaks, even the rockers, while I the computer programmer chase cigarettes with spirits like a "rockstar" :-P
I wouldn't describe Erdős's amphetamine use as "hard life". He wasn't taking the pills for euphoria, and his body survived longer than most people's; amphetamines in the doses he was presumably taking don't seem to cause much extra wear and tear on the body.
Basically, he tried stopping taking amphetamines, and was okay, but couldn't do any math without them. He was dependent on them.
Besides, when did the geeks become pill-popers?