Slashdot Mirror


Cosmetic Neurology

The New Yorker has a long piece examining the growing trend of healthy people, not diagnosed with any mental condition, taking drugs that enhance mental functioning, including Adderall and Provigil. The profiles include a Harvard student, a professional poker player, a number of brain researchers, and a self-described transhumanist. "Zack [Lynch]... has a book being published this summer, called 'The Neuro Revolution'... In coming years, he said, scientists will understand the brain better, and we'll have improved neuroenhancers that some people will use therapeutically, others because they are 'on the borderline of needing them therapeutically,' and others purely 'for competitive advantage.' ... Even if today's smart drugs aren't as powerful as such drugs may someday be, there are plenty of questions that need to be asked about them. How much do they actually help? Are they potentially harmful or addictive? Then, there's the question of what we mean by 'smarter.' Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among the increasing number of Americans who are performing daily experiments on their own brains. ... [A cognitive researcher said,] 'Cognitive psychologists have found that there is a trade-off between attentional focus and creativity. And there is some evidence that suggests that individuals who are better able to focus on one thing and filter out distractions tend to be less creative. ... I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.'"

14 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. For years... by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone has been taking caffeine. So what else is new?

    1. Re:For years... by rootofevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not to mention 'creativity enhancers' like acid, pot, shrooms, etc.

      it all depends what you want to optimize for.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    2. Re:For years... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea of healthy people taking modern pharmaceuticals to enhance their thinking dates back at least to LSD in the 1960s.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:For years... by Narpak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a nootropic came to exist that made you a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative with no other obvious side effects - I think you can kiss creativity goodbye.

      "Smarter" is a fairly vague term. Smarter how? Some activities (work related or not) require creativity for you to be effective. Not counting the obvious ones (like design, music, painting, architecture etc) I would say that a scientist or detective without creativity could be hyper intelligent and still not be able to produce a usable result; depending of course on what the desired result is. One could argue that making certain connections requires creativity.

      That being said I find this area of research to be fascinating; even if it does at times make me a just a bit apprehensive.

    4. Re:For years... by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um... "a whole bunch smarter, and a whole bunch less creative" is damn near a contradiction in terms. Granted, there are all kinds of "smart", but some form of creativity (whether analytic or intuitive) is involved in most of them.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  2. PR footwork for Big Pharma? by openfrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There have been a few pieces of that kind in recent months, among those one in The Economist. They all follow the very same scenario and use the same rhetoric. Comments from readers testified of few benefits (confusion and excitation rather than concentration) and dramatic, often tragic side effects, with dependency consequences, etc. Each time the piece resurfaces, none of the downsides are mentioned and the same rhetoric: benign use, everybody uses it, unquestioned efficiency is brought back. Deregulating the sale of those drugs seems to be a coveted objective of Big Pharma and no wonder, considering the fabulous sums involved. Soma anyone?

  3. Re:Used in college by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Those people all ended up with better GPA's for it.

    And how much did they retain a month later, would you think, compared with those who didn't? That's the real point of getting an education, you know, not just grades.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  4. How is this "cosmetic"? by Virak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like saying driving a car instead of walking is "cosmetic transportation". Something whose main purpose is to provide functionality is pretty much the exact opposite of "cosmetic".

  5. Reinvented wheel by anonum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AFAIK amphetamines were popular already in WW2 among soldiers being able to stay sharp extended periods (weeks or so), in 1960's truck drivers and students did it for the same purpose. This is really nothing new, just amphetamines renamed. The extremely addictive nature of amphetamines will create once again another generation of drug addicts from unsuspecting students who fall for the hype.

  6. Re:Evolution versus artificial modification by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution. Perhaps evolution could come up with many of these modifications (intelligence/less drowsiness) naturally."

    Sigh... why do people keep thinking that things are "unnatural" technically everything we do is NATURAL by definition, value judgements that x is good and y is bad because it is not 'natural' is cultural thing not ab objective truth.

    If we were really so concerned about "cheating evolution" we would not save the sick, we would not have hospitals that keep people who are "wasting resources" on life support for x many years, we would let diseases run their course and not have anti-biotics or drugs, only our natural immune systems to deal with sickness.

    The whole idea that we are "cheating evolution" or doming something "unnatural" is bogus, psychologically generated bullshit that we inherit from the culture and our proclivities.

    IS playing video games natural?? or inventing computers? What about programming? What about making machines that do work for you so you no longer have to work at hard labour which kept your muscles in shape?

    This whole obsession with an unreal version of nature that never was in our cultural mythos is the culprit.

  7. Re:Used in college by moteyalpha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mind and body and personality. I can over clock my CPU until it melts and it gets faster and faster until it dies. In the 60's it was a common expression to hear, "Speed Kills" and it was very true, as I witnessed the slow/fast decay of numerous people, not just from Amphetamines, but LSD-25, Heroine, Cocaine and things that are not even around anymore.
    The few that lived after sniffing Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons or OD ing, I see trying to make change at the local ice cream store or equivalent.
    To some extent they all eat away at the body and mind. It is a strange road to take and the end of that road is as often creativity or some other advantage, followed by the opposite *10.

  8. Re:I call BS by Obyron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you're using a prescription drug without a prescription, that's drug abuse. When you're using a drug in a way its not intended to be used, that's drug abuse.
    Let's not kid ourselves with name games here.

    When you're using a drug in a way it's not intended, that's off-label use. When you're using a drug with a prescription, that's prescribed use. When you're using a drug without a prescription, that's illicit use. It is possible to abuse a drug even with a prescription, and it is possible to use a drug responsibly without one. I have, for example, used benzodiazepines for which I have no prescription to control anxiety. With no health insurance it's easily possible for buying the medicine on the street to be more cost effective than paying for a doctor's appointment, scheduling time off from work to go to the appointment (for which you won't be paid), and then paying outlandish prices for prescriptions, depending on the medication the doctor agrees to give you. And that's not to mention subjecting a person with anxiety to the harrowing process that is convincing your doctor that you need a controlled medication. I now have a prescription for anxiety, but I battled it in my own way for years because the thought of going to a doctor and being subjected to their suspicion was enough to put me into a panic attack. I realize that's irrational, but that's anxiety.

    I'm glad your Adderall works for you, but I'm sorry that you can't accept that there are other people who can also benefit from the medication who, for one reason or another, do not have or want a prescription. It's not like ADD isn't real until a doctor tells you it is. It's worth remembering that drug regulation laws were not enacted because people were abusing drugs, but rather because drug companies were putting out tainted shit that killed people.

    --
    --Obyron
  9. focused accountants by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a little concerned that we could be raising a generation of very focused accountants.

    perhaps preferable to a generation of very creative accountants.

  10. Giving Them Drugs, Taking Their Lives Away? by meehawl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are tens of thousands of people in mental hospitals because of the permanent psychological damage [LSD] can cause in certain individuals, most notably those who already walk the fine line between creative genius and insanity.

    Please supply any reference to substantiate this claim.

    --

    Da Blog