
Mind-enhancing drugs: Are they a no-brainer? - nreece
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mindenhancing-drugs-are-they-a-nobrainer-1708988.html
======
lionheart
I can say this: if I was sure that a drug like this had no long-term side
effects I would take it, at least sometimes when I was working on a hard
project.

But since we don't really know the potential long-terms effects of these drugs
I've made sure to stay away.

~~~
csomar
There's no medecines without sides effects. All medicines I have took on my
life have sides effects and sometimes dangerous.

For me the "drug" is a disaster, because it confirm that people don't work for
WORK and don't study for KNOWLEDGE but for EXAMS and work for MONEY which is
the biggest problem.

~~~
spudlyo
Placebo has no side effects.

~~~
philwelch
It does, if you think it does.

------
chaosmachine
Every time I read about these, I can't help but think of that scene in Blade
Runner.

"The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long. And you have
burned so very, very brightly, Roy."

------
GHFigs
The trend towards describing drugs like Adderal and Ritalin as "mind-
enhancing" is troubling. It seems more like a marketing strategy than science
or medicine and it implies that they make your mind function more like that of
a naturally smarter person, rather than the actual effect, which is to make
your mind function more like that of someone who has taken cocaine or meth.
That may not be a bad thing per se, but what will happen to a generation that
is so sold on the idea that they are "mind-enhancing" that they can no longer
tell the difference?

~~~
ctb9
What do you mean, my generation will no longer tell the difference between
adderall and cocaine or meth, or that everyone will be medicated so often that
"mind-enhanced" becomes the norm? also, for the record, there's a large amount
of biological and statistical work proving their efficacy, granted only on
controlled, specific tasks.

~~~
GHFigs
I mean that if we continue proliferating simplistic views of the effects that
drugs have, our collective ability to distinguish between that view and the
more nuanced truth will be diminished. We risk redefining "intelligent" to
mean "high on speed".

And yes, I am aware of their efficacy, but it's the "only on controlled,
specific tasks" part that concerns me. Blanket terms like "mind-enhancing"
mask the specifics of their effects in favor of a more marketable label. After
all, who doesn't want an enhanced mind? (And it is about marketing. Articles
like this reek of PR if you read them closely.)

The distinctions are too important to play so loose with language. If I feel
like a genius after downing a fifth of bourbon, that does not make bourbon
"mind-enhancing", even if the genius ideas that I have while so sloshed turn
out to be right. That's just not what we mean when we say "mind-enhancing".

Likewise for amphetamines. They don't cause you to think better or to have
better ideas, they cause you to think all of your ideas are good ones; they
don't give you focus, they nullify the sensation of boredom and make
everything exciting. At least that's how we describe the _same_ effects when
they're caused by cocaine or manic episodes.

We could describe cocaine and meth and manic episodes as "mind-enhancing" by
these standards, too, but collectively we've realized that it's more
complicated than that, and describing them as something universally positive
would be misleading. You also can't patent cocaine or sell a manic episode.

------
lispm
I don't care that much how people perform in exams. I don't hire people when
they need drugs to reach the work level they claim to be at. Should I send the
guy to a consultant job and on expenses then pay for the drugs he needs to do
his/her job?

Here is what I do to improve mental performance: I go jogging with my co-
workers in the morning. It is well known that sports like these also increase
mental capacity + it also has lots of other positive effects.

~~~
sho
_"I don't hire people when they need drugs to reach the work level they
claim"_

 _"I go jogging"_

Interesting that you are prejudiced against externally administered drugs, and
yet seem to support the idea of deliberately and regularly inducing opioid
release in yourself. I don't deny that jogging is a generally beneficial and
healthy activity, but I wonder how you can justify favouring one chemical and
being opposed to another on the sole grounds of their origin?

~~~
lispm
I go jogging to maintain a certain fitness level, no to 'induce opiod'.

~~~
sho
That's "opioids". And regardless of your intentions, by engaging in vigorous
exercise like jogging, you are triggering the release of very similar drugs to
those you'd criticised mere sentences before.

I don't mean to beat up on you or anything. Just want to point out that it's
all just chemicals. Drugs work, after all, by manipulating your built-in
neurophysiology - just as you unknowingly do by exercising. It is ridiculous
to arbitrarily discriminate against one category of drug, while recommending
another. Any human who wants to be purely drug-free better remove their brain
from their body, because that's the biggest drug lab around ..

~~~
GHFigs
_you are triggering the release of very similar drugs to those you'd
criticised mere sentences before_

Opioids are not similar to any of the drugs described in the article.

------
spudlyo
I would like to experiment with very low does of LSD to see what that does to
my focus and concentration. I think it'd be interesting to see what 5-10
micrograms feels like.

------
nreece
Seems like a sensitive subject (among young hackers I suppose). Four comments
have been deleted so far by their respective authors.

~~~
frisco
I expect that use is way, way more prevalent that is commonly believed.

~~~
ctb9
I'd say its highly (negatively) correlated with age. everyone knows that
college students, especially at elite schools, are taking it like candy and
that very few 50 year olds are being medicated for ADHD.

------
CalmQuiet
I would have said the same directly to The Independent's post, but that would
have required creating a "Live Journal" account :/

In the meanwhile, I suggest a search of _better_ stories / exchanges that have
appeared in the past on Hacker News .

Just in case The Independent monitors us here, this is what I wanted to convey
to them:

How might "smart drugs" help journalists?

For example: how might accuracy and attention to detail by reporters, writers,
and fact-checkers be improved.

More specifically, would someone at The Independent have caught this article's
reference to "the University of Harvard" and realized it was as absurd as "the
University of Oxford"?

Perhaps... if Ritalin & co. boosts performance of sleep-deprived journalists
as well as sleep-deprived helicopter pilots.

\--from other side of the pond

------
biaxident
Maybe if students find it necessary to take these drugs to succeed in exams it
highlights something going wrong there!

Are we pushing these kids too hard? Or letting in students who don't have the
capabilities to succeed?

~~~
euccastro
Or maybe it is just because they have procrastinated and want to cram, in a
stressed night, the material they were supposed to absorb in one semester.

------
radu_floricica
The article is a bit optimistic. If there is anything that scares me about
mind-enhancing drugs is students of all ages abusing them. But I do agree more
openness is needed, and more studies on long-term side-effects in their use as
mind-enhancers.

