Slashdot Mirror
Gene Therapy Turns Slackers Into Workaholics
DrLudicrous writes "According to a recent Reuters article, scientists have been able to cause monkeys to stop procrastinating by blocking the development of a dopamine receptor in the brain. The net result- the monkeys turned into workaholics. An article has appeared in the online version of Nature. Apparently, monkeys, just like human beings, tend to slack off on tasks until the very last minute. They become quite adept at judging how long they have till they absolutely must complete these tasks. The original article appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. An additional blurb appears here courtesty of Science Blog." NIH has a press release.
Apparently, monkeys, just like human beings, tend to slack off on tasks until the very last minute.
Shouldn't it read "Apparently, human beings, just like monkeys, tend to slack off on tasks until the very last minute.
What with the evolution and all!
Free XBox, PS2
... Seriously, read it (if you haven't).
I suppose this used sparingly could become useful for those that find it hard to concentrate on work.
At least until your company makes you take one of this before going to work. Or you find yourself "forced" to do so in order to remain competitive with the rest of the workforce.
(I didn't RTFA) I hope there are no ugly secondary effects for long time users of this drug. Otherwise you'll find people that shine at work but then arribe home and hardly do anything but sit there staring the walls.
What is really so bad with slacking, or procrastinating? What is so great about getting something done right away? I'm no scientist or a study in psychology, but could there perhaps be a reason, a very valid reason, we slack and procrastinate? Perhaps it helps keep us sane?
I, for one, do not want to live in a world where slacking and procrastinating are eliminated by a pill.
Pez
In fact I imagine it quite clearly. Dopamine deficiency has been clearly linked to Parkinsons decease. So which medicine should Billy be taking? Agh?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I agree with this. It seems that the reason the monkeys became workaholics is that they were paranoid that what they needed to do would not get done. I would much rather procrastinate and get bitten for being wrong about how long it would take for something to get done instead of living my life in complete terror that I was not going to be able to get anything done in time when in fact I was doing a tremendous amount of work.
I can imagine companies doing genetic screening for the workaholic gene.
Parents, make sure your fetus gets that gene therapy it'll need to compete in the global marketplace!
Oh yah, and try to enjoy life sometimes.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Leave human beings alone and take beavers. Beavers are held up as a sort of Horatio Alger example of what hard work can bring to the humble, right? It's just not true. Beavers work pretty hard in the fall, to shore things up before winter -- but they take a long break during the height of the summer, during which they do stuff like swim upstream or downstream looking for other beaver colonies to party with and scouting for new lodge locations and stands of aspen they might want to snack on. A whole lot of their time is spent pretty easily; at most you'd say they were engaged in "open-ended planning" about how to build on that next addition to the lodge or whatever -- sort of like gardeners during the winter thinking out their next planting.
Evolution doesn't seem to favor supermotivated nose-to-the-grindstone workers any more than it produces superfast rabbits or superbig brains. Apparently a nice medium-fast rabbit is best. Someone who can work and play, both, is apparently the superior model of human.
(He said while posting to /. at work.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
After the party dies down at the GOP and in the Management offices around the world, what's this going to do to our society? (Even presuming its effect on the economy is positive)
First, Workaholic parents put work before family. Now, I know some uber-management asshat somewhere is saying "Great!" but lets think about this for 1 microsecond at least. Parents working 23.5 hours per day -> kids raised by TV & school system -> not very smart kids, who (being workaholics) know everything about trig and all the lines of Hamlet. But, kids don't feel loved, and have lots of emotional/social problems (requiring more drugs & therapy). This is a good outcome? Noooo....
No matter how dedicated you are, after around 38 hours per week, your productivity dips. Yes, that means you with the Lexus and the gold Timex. Staring at your secretary's boobs doesn't count as "work".
Let's say that our society can adjust as needed (I'm not saying it could, I'm saying let's just say it did, nevermind how). Let's say productivity per worker DOES go up (cots in cubes, working weekends, and presume I'm wrong about diminishing returns of productivity). Great for business right? Well, yeah. Those of us/you who are already wealthy and have $$ in the market, might see a stock bump. Meanwhile, 15% of the workforce is laid off. Oh, yeah well.. at least my stock is up. That 15% isn't coming back. That's not gonna help the economy. It may or may not help the richest of the rich.
Now imagine what it's going to be like to be on this drug. You don't mind working 10 hours per day, cause your brain chemistry is in tune with that. Meanwhile, your home life goes to utter shit. Your spouse hates you. Your kids stop loving you. You'd go to church for solace (if you're that type) but, mandatory unpaid weekend overtime is enforced because "no one minds working overtime anymore, and if they do, they're fired and replaced before the workflow is impacted."
This might have an application, somewhere. But we should enact legislation NOWNOW NOW!!! to ensure that the use of this (or similar) drugs can NEVER become mandatory or even suggested.
Work-aholic... now where did that suffix come from?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Learning and producing are two different things even though they require some degree of thought. New things or processes tend to intriuge people more than doing repetitive or already learned things. You attempt to point out that people learn differently but don't explain how creativity has anything to do with productivity.
ADD is not a black and white diagnosis but it is debilitating to many people. It prevents them from starting and finishing things which could be as simple as drawing a picture or remembering to feed their cat. Ritalin isn't a trend and ADD itself has had exposure in cases with children but research is beginning to show more and more that adults suffer from it too. The key point is "suffer", it's not about creative learning, it's about a hope for some sort of "normal" living where you don't put your keys in the kitchen and spend 30 minutes looking for them because you forgot where you put them.
When will all kids by default be forced to take this pill so they can do their homework? How long before this pill is forced on you by your employers? I don't like the idea but the idea is useful, I just don't think working "harder" matters very much though. For some people working harder would get them into an elite school, but working harder only leads to working harder, you get a more difficult job, you get longer hours, and you get more responsibilities, wheres the reward? Isnt it logical to ask this question? its not that people are lazy, people just don't like to work when they can play.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
we'd have a nation of mindless, workaholic zombies with few differences between one person and another.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, that sounds like most large company's wet dream...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Maybe the start of this thread expresses the suspicion that plenty of kids are prescribed Ritalin even though they may not have ADD. Lots of people suspect that.
I don't doubt there is such a thing as ADD; neither do I doubt, however, that there is such a thing as disinterested parents that would just as soon feed their kid a pill than spend time finding out what the real problem is, or if there is in fact a real problem.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
All technological breakthroughs are driven by one common underlying theme: laziness.
Or in technical terms "quality of life".
Runnning water is great, now we don't have to carry buckets from the well, washing machines are great, now we don't need to stand around all day bent over a washboard, etc, etc...
The predominant measure of quality of life is how much time is spent on relaxation/recreation v/s work. By genetically redefining the meaning of quality of life, we threaten that which has driven all human progress.
If, at a genetic level, I _enjoy_ spending 12 hours bent over a washboard, what motivation is there to develop a washing machine?
If no one will buy the new widget that saves them 15 minutes doing task X, what motivation is there for a company to spend money on R & D to develop the time saving widget?
In closing, let me be the first to welcome our new hypo-manic overlords... the lithium is in the fridge.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
I find it interesting that whenever we read about a possible discovery that could "enhance" a normal human (like the recent slashdot article on the mouse that got muscles from injections) or this one that scientists ALWAYS take great pains to point out that their research is ALWAYS to "understand" or to help people with disorders.
Why CANT we do research on human enhancement? What's ethically wrong with looking for ways to make us "Better...stronger...faster...smarter" by science? It's as if there is some un-written rule somewhere that most medical researchers that say " Though shalt not ever engage in research for the purpose of enhancing humans over the norm"
You are thinking of the wrong brain produced drug.
ADD and ADHD are related to seratonin level in people not dopamine. When you do coke or other "speed" drugs it dumps huge amounts of serotin into your body which is what give you the feeling of having huge amounts of energy. This is also why the crash is so hard, because you body has used up its reserve of serotinin and it takes a few days to produce it again.
Dopamine is what you body naturally releases in it pleasure reward system. When you have an orgasm, your body releases dopamine, when you exercise, you body release dopamine. Heroin and othe ropiate drugs also cause your body to release its dopamine reserves.
For both drugs, "tolerance" happens after continued use because your body can't produce enough to get high so you need to do more to get the same amount released.
The whole idea of creating a drug to block your body from using its natural reward circuits is blasphemous in my opinion. We will become a race of cold uncaring people because we will never get that "warm fuzzy" feeling from being in love, seeing a neekid woman, whatever gets you off basically.
We will become like the Greys (yes aliens) who are totally emotionless and are all about business. I for one don't want to end up like that.
If you'd read the article, you'd know that the "increase in work and concentration" is brought about by the supression of the monkeys ability to look forward to the eventual reward. The reason there is no slacking and or daydreaming is because the neural mechanisims have been surpressed. At the same time, other, more useful neural mechanisims, ALSO have been surpressed.
Thus, this would only have very limited benefits for anyone working a non-repetitive job. Might do wonders for garbage collectors though. The whole thing sniffs a little of "Brave New World".
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Um.. maybe it's just me, but perhaps both Humans and Monkeys slacking is because there is some evolutionary benefit for us to do so?
I dunno what it would be, but it seems that it is a theme. Maybe it's conservation of energy... only take actions you HAVE to take, instead of stressing your body unnecisarilly (sic (i know it's WAY off, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Which fits my point nicely.))...
We spend all this time making technology to make ourselves more efficient, but we dont use that efficiency to work less... we use it to work more. Which is stupid. I don't believe my reason for being on this earth is to buckle down and do more work. I think its to learn and play and do interesting things. Which I suppose is why all the truly happy people have jobs that are exactly what they do for fun too. They play all the time.
Renewable Resources + Proper Planning + Automation = Semi-Permanent vacation. (in a utopic idealist vision anyway)
Oh well.. I hope there was a coherent point in there somewhere. But it's doubtful.
... what the globalist technofeudalist billionaire overlords want--willing serfs. Add in implanted RFID chips, remote controlled drug delivery, then this type of drug, you start to get a lot closer to the alpha to epsilon society. You will learn your place, and stay in your place, slave, and like it, literally.
So? I've got until 8661 to send in my $30! I can wait!
(Hey, it's not my fault that "Bob" read the damn date for the Arrival upside down and backwards.)
I am a lazy person. That doesnt make me unproductive. I try to get my stuff done really fast so I can watch StarTrek or do some funstuff with my Linuxbox/girlfriend.
I keep my flat clean and organized since I hate searching thru all the cupboards for the carkeys.
I write shellscripts that make my work easier and if only I was smarter I would invent something really useful that makes all our lifes easier (like the car or the microwave). Most inventions are there to have more time for laziness. Never underestimate the power of laziness.
Why CANT we do research on human enhancement? What's ethically wrong with looking for ways to make us "Better...stronger...faster...smarter" by science? It's as if there is some un-written rule somewhere that most medical researchers that say " Though shalt not ever engage in research for the purpose of enhancing humans over the norm"
Because western society is still smarting from early abuses of the concept of Eugenics (as applied to humans), and the rhetorical hijacking of such notions, by such toxic regimes as the Nazis, Khmere Rouge, Mao, and others, and we have chosen to throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than grapple with such complex and emotionally high-charged subjects in any rational public debate.
As a result, it will probably not be a western country that first engages in significant planned evolutionary enhancement (e.g. increasing people's intelligence). There are of course other factors (religious dumbing down of the masses, political dumbing down of the masses, corporate dumbing down of the masses) that are particularly pronounced in the United States, but to which even Europe, with its better educated and more critical populace, is not immune. In short, many regimes don't want smarter people, they want dumber people.
As a result, should scientists develope a way to enhance the intelligence of unborn children (as they have gender selection, and the elimination of many genetic diseases), it will probably be a country like India or China that first applies the technology and moves their people forward through a deliberate act of planned pro-evolution, leaving us behind. Those regimes don't appear to have an issue with intelligent people, chosing instead to control information flow or use other means to insure allegiance instead.
The real intersting question is that, once left behind like this for emotional, religious, or other irrational reasons, will we ever be able to reach parity again, or does that spell the end of western culture and the ascendance of another, smarter, less irrational culture instead?
Because rest assured, sooner or later, some group of people are going to choose artificially enhanced intelligence for their children (if not retroactively for themselves), and they will have a significant edge over those of us who remain behind. Decrying it, wishing it weren't so, praying to God, swearing allegiance to America, etc. will do nothing to make it go away, or to help those prosper who will have certainly lost any economic edge they might once have enjoyed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
for example, when I'm driving, I find it VERY difficult to have a conversation with someone because I'm constantly asking "what did you say?" I don't count that as ADHD, I count that as a heuristic computer focusing on one task, then being forced to concentrate on multiple tasks.
I consider being hard to talk to while driving one of the hallmarks of a good driver... it shows you have your priorities straight.
How exactly is this a bad thing? Seriously I know some true workaholics, depressed people who never take time off to relax because they are always pushing themselves to be earlier and earlier and to get yet more things done. Typically the end being acheived is overshadowed by the need to "do" the need to push more units rather than acheive any real effect or even get a good night's sleep. Depressed dot commers, or office slaves who consume a lot of booze.
The article states that the monkeys are very good at judging just how long each task will take and then, it seems, they do it when necessary. You call it slacking, I call it a combination of good time management and gathering roses while one may. Why should it be the case that everyone be working so far in advance that they burn out like true workaholics?
IMHO you shouldn't call someone a slacker unless they do nothing, and you shouldn't conclude that not working 24/7 is a sign of poor character, poor genes, or some disease that needs to be "fixed."
I'm in agreement with the other posters who compared this to Ritalin for ADD kids. Just another non-disease that was manufactured from hysteria and stupidity not real need.
No, AOL has already disproved this hypothesis.
No, the key here is monkeys are a random string generator. You can't replace a random string generator with a stupid string generator and expect to get the same result.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Is anyone else reminded of Focus from Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky? Kind of scary. (If you haven't read the book, then I highly recommend it. Don't worry that's it's a sequel -- or prequel? -- to another book. You really don't need to have read the first one.)
On the other hand, a mild version of Focus might not be so bad. Especially if it were people other than me who it was being done to. (Starting to feel like Pham Nuwen...)
The reward is work that is satisfying in itself, and makes you want to come to work on the weekends, late nights, and early mornings. Makes the 60-70 yrs we all get just fly by. But people shouldn't forget that there are non-pharmaceutical methods of acheiving the same results - like discipline and encouragement, emphasis on the value of education, etc. etc. Of course these take years, but there's generally no weird neurological side-effects, and you don't have to line the pockets of Big Pharma executives to do it.
"There is actually a treatment for Autism that is a change in diet and increase in nutritional supplements that has been proven to work in a few hundred patients."
There is no scientific evidence backing nutritional treatment of autism. Evidence for it is entirely anecdotal. Usually the person who has improved under a special diet has also been undergoing other treatments such as behavioral therapy so causality is hard to establish. In addition, gaging improvement is pretty subjective.
Personally, I'm very sceptical of claims that diet is the cause or the cure for problems. For virtually any disorder out there, there is someone advancing a diet that can treat it, like depression anger bad sex or aging. I think people just like to feel they are in control of things, and controlling what they eat gives them that feeling.
I hate it when philosophy types bring this up.
Look, even if you accept an archaic definition of the word beg (to assume) as still current (which it isn't) the phrase (as used in logic) still doesn't make sense. You're not assuming the question, you're assuming the answer to the question. So the phrase (in logic) should be "Assumes (or begs, if you must) the answer."
But even if you accept the logic falacy phrase as semsible (which it isn't) that still doesn't preclude other gramatically and semantically correct usage of the phrase, such as "That begs (urgently pleas for) the question [to be asked]: {insert question here}."
Just because, say, "power triangle" refers to the vector diagram of real, reactive, and apparent power in electronics doesn't mean sombody couldn't refer to a three-sided battery pack, or a group of three nearby power plants as a "power triangle".