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).
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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