The use of brain-enhancing drugs in colleges continues to rise | Hacker News Reader

The use of brain-enhancing drugs in colleges continues to rise

singularityhub.com

13 pointskkleiner32 comments

I like what Michael Mandel had to say on this subject back in 2006:

"Suppose that a pharmaceutical company was selling a pill that would improve your memory by 30% or your IQ by 30%, with the same sort of side effects as steroids. Would you be willing to take them for 3 or 5 critical years in your career? What if you knew that everyone else was taking them? What if you knew that the Chinese or the French were taking them? And would you be willing to give your kids these pills in, say, the junior year of high school, to increase the odds of getting a good score on the SAT?"

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/arch...

A key difference is that the games played with higher intelligence are not zero sum.

If someone takes Provigil and shortens their life by 5 years (say), yet comes up with a breakthrough in physics that improves the lives of millions, then it's not the same as just running a bit faster in the 100m dash by using steroids. The latter is (arguably[1]) cheating, the former is self-sacrificing.

As for steroids themselves, they are only considered bad because they have negative side effects. If they had no side effects, they'd be like taking a multivitamin.

[1] why arguably? Because things like Phelps' bodysuit are also arguably cheating.

If schools start testing, we'll end up with a cat & mouse game similar to the one in professional sports. The cat's out of the bag.

A recent article serves as a good primer to the ethical issues raised by cognitive enhancers: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/09/the-age-of-enhance...

This whole thing is nuts. Please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=857922

Also, Einstein on exams: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=864539

I agree the idea of making yourself perform better for a test is ludicrous. These are performance enhancers for something that doesn't matter. If you are self-motivated and driven like Einstein, or like a startup founder, you will have the motivation and focus that Adderal provides. Rather than taking drugs to make ourselves fit into an unideal model of education, why not just modify the education system so that students learn what they want? Yea it would be a major overhaul, but we're going in the wrong direction here.

The problem here is that there is a chasm between the students that want to learn, and the students that see learning as a chore, and just 'want to have fun' because 'learning/reading is for nerds.'

Just allowing students to learn what they want to, won't necessarily change the 'poor' culture that discourages learning (e.g. poor, racist blacks that view learning as a 'white thing' or just poor people that view people that want to learn or are 'smart' as pretentious).

Personally I think everyone wants to learn something, because we all have some sort of desire which needs some new knowledge to be had in order to be achieved. The problem is that our current educational system tells students to learn something usually at an unoptimal time. What I mean is that if I am I taught algebra when I realize I want to learn it, and I do it myself, there is less time wasted in being forced to learn it.

While I think that there are definitely problems with the US education system, I think that if we leave everything up to the children it'll be worse off. There will be some that are freed to excel to higher heights, but -- taking from your example -- there will be far fewer people with even a basic understanding of algebra.

While it might not exactly be Lord of the Flies, children aren't known for making the best decisions for themselves nor for having a level of resistance to peer-pressure.

You're right. Most kids would probably know jack squat if it were up to them. I think I was just thinking a little too much about myself because I felt jailed in by education.

But on the other hand even though we force those kids to learn algebra who might not have learned it if it was up to them, how much do they really understand of it when they are initially taught? Do they only truly learn it when they rediscover it later on in life (perhaps at a more natural moment when it becomes practical) only to have the educational system take credit?

I mean even in college some of my friends take the attitude of pass now and learn the stuff for real when they get their jobs later in life.

I'm thinking we could improve efficiency by somehow bypassing the pass now stage. Of course it's much more complicated to do that than it seems.

Instead of focusing on cramming info to give the illusion of education, we could teach children why they should learn, and try to get them interested and self motivated.

You are on the right track, chrischen. Many of us seem to have made the hidden assumption that we are first supposed to have a two-decade-long "education" phase, and only then a "real world" phase. I'll bet even the not-so-bright kids can tell that the tasks they're ordered to complete while in the child processing system[1] are artificial, arbitrary, inefficient, and often useless. Quite a few people have admitted that bright kids would probably be better off outside the system, but I believe this applies even to the less intelligent kids. You're more likely to encourage yourself to learn if you enjoy what you're learning and/or you see that it really matters in some way; i.e., it has some real-world effect beyond some grade on a test.

Things work out better in many, many ways when people of all levels of intelligence are allowed to learn and work as they wish.

[1] Credit for this term goes to HN poster gruseom; I believe he coined it.

It amazes me that stimulants continue to be called "cognitive enhancers" or "brain-enhancing drugs." ...Really?

Focus and persistence do not equate to intelligence. Not by a long shot, and certainly not at the cost of awareness and creativity.

Honestly I do not think any of these drugs really work. Notice how the article does not cite any studies showing these drugs work on people that are not suffering any mental disorders.

I remember in college there were some people that thought they could take a pill to make them smarter but from my perception those people started out dumb and stayed dumb after they took their pills.

I am sure that if someone has ADD they may benefit from drugs that are prescribed to treat that but I doubt there would be a benefit otherwise.

So no, they should not be treated like steroids. The main problem with steroids is that they work.

Also, the majority listed (though not the racetams) are stimulants, either related to amphetamines or e.g. ritalin. Those are generally understood to have troublesome side effects.

Getting enough sleep, exercising regularly, and eating well will have a much bigger impact.

These so-called 'smart drugs' are poorly named. They don't actually make you smarter, they just make it easier to focus on doing work.

Intelligence has a lot of dimensions. It's not unreasonable to say focus is one of them.

Supposedly Adderall stunts creativity. In this respect it makes you dumber. So it is unreasonable to say these drugs make you smarter.

That's the problem -- anything that makes you "more focused" will stun your creativity and may cause you to obsessively repeat mindless tasks and anything that makes you more creative will prevent you from getting anything done.

So in the end you may as well just use your original god-provided brain.

This is a non-sensical argument. Where did you get this false spectrum of creative <-> focused from?

It's a pretty common belief. I've seen it numerous times online, not sure if I've ever seen it tested though.

I've read it somewhere too. It makes sense if you think about it. In certain types of ADHD, the hyperactiity is in the thoughts. So the person would have more thoughts racing through his or her head than normal and this probably constitutes the creativity since they have more random thoughts to seed a good idea. The drive for this is thought to be caused by understimulation. In other words the mind is bored, so we start racing through thoughts to try to make something more exciting. What Adderall does is stimulate your mind so that it's no longer bored. Less random thoughts are needed and the person can focus on one thing better. Of course, the random thoughts, which constituted the creativity, is traded off. It's actually my theory behind how it works (I have ADHD).

They're orthogonal.

When I'm focused, I still get odd, interesting ideas popping in my head, but I have the wherewithal to either ignore them or to jot them down for latter.

There's a difference between focused and indifferent. My experience with assorted nootropics is that, with the better ones, boring things are still boring, but I have the means to do them anyway if I have to.

It hinders, it does not prevent you from being creative. And the reason why it would make you less creative is that it makes you more satisfied. When you are satisfied in your mind you naturally make less of an effort to strain your thoughts to come up with something exciting.

If you're on nootropics and something is exciting, does it get more exciting? And something boring becomes doable because you have less urge to replace it with something more exciting. So it obviously would still seem comparatively boring.

"And something boring becomes doable because you have less urge to replace it with something more exciting. "

Oh no, the urge is still strong. I just resist it. It's the difference between a diet drug that reduces appetite, and one that does not change appetite, but gives you the resolve to not eat just because you feel hungry.

In any event, I've never seen my creativity tied to any amount of satisfaction. Stuff just pops into my head.

There are endless variations on things; it's not like one needs a reason to make stuff up, because it's intrinsically satisfying.

EDIT: Also occurred to me that now, 2 months taking Adderal, I may be more creative than 3 months ago. I get more stuff done, and while doing things I have more interesting ideas than when just dicking around. So I'm at least more tangibly creative.

Strong is very subjective and relative. Why didn't you just resist it before taking Adderal then? What exactly does Adderal do for you then?

It is not impossible for a good idea will just "pop into your head." But say I need to come up with a good idea on the spot. Maybe I'm designing a poster. What I would do in this situation is run through a shitload of various possibilities through my head. This is what I meant when I said creativity, your ability to think boundlessly. So some people might be better or worse at doing this.

Now I believe the ADHD (at least inattentive subtype) sufferer has a problem where they cannot control this hyperactive thinking. So their minds are constantly polluted by a shitload of thoughts. This in term causes memory problem because so many new thoughts run through, it's like 5 hours of time passed in terms of thoughts when only 5 minutes has gone by.

Well in comes Adderal and like I said before, it takes effect by stimulating the brain. So there is no more need to go through all those thoughts, since supposedly they go through those thoughts so that they could achieve mental stimulation.

It hinders creativity in that the person no longer has racing thoughts all the time. Can they still pull that skill up on demand? Maybe.

I have a prescription for Adderal and I haven't taken it yet. I don't really want to though. I can attest to my theory of the mechanism behind ADHD, but I am not as sure Adderal has this effect as I am sure about the mechanism behind ADHD-inattentive. However since I read online from user experiences and whatnot that adderal hinders creativity, and it makes sense seeing how it acts that it would do this, that's why I believe it probably hinders creativity.

Why didn't you just resist it before taking Adderal then?

For the same reason a depressed person doesn't "just cheer up".

I have a prescription for Adderal and I haven't taken it yet....

I've also been struggling with the question of whether to take medication. I have a bias/desire not to take meds as well. But you know what? It doesn't seem like anyone's saying that the effects of most of these drugs are permanent! Seems like you and I could simply take the drugs, see if the benefits are worth the risks/deleterious effects, and make the decision then. If we notice, say, that there's too much of a creativity loss, then we stop. No big deal.

My reason for not taking it is not really the possible creativity loss. It's just that Adderal could have negative effects, and that I don't want to subject myself to that risk just so that I can conform to the system.

But I'm curious though, what type of ADHD do you have, inattentive or hyperactive? Why/how does Adderal help you?

Honestly, the psychiatrist didn't say, or I forgot it if he did. I am certainly hyperactive at times, but the inattentiveness is the major problem in my life.

I am not taking anything for this (besides caffeine at the moment), I've been rather against it as mentioned above. Thinking about starting. What I was getting at was that it seems that the risks seem temporary. One could try it, determine if the benefits are worth the risks, and if they aren't, simply discontinue with no lasting effects.

"Maybe I'm designing a poster. What I would do in this situation is run through a shitload of various possibilities through my head. This is what I meant when I said creativity, your ability to think boundlessly. So some people might be better or worse at doing this."

Here's what's changed for me since taking Adderal (caveat: I'm still adjusting dosage and how/when I take it, since the effects are varied throughout the day). I have no reduced ability to generate ideas (and possibly more ability to think up more substantial ideas). I have an increased ability to grab a particular idea and give it further thought. I have the ability to consider if right now is a good time or not to act on an idea, and if not, then make a note of it for later.

You seem concerned that you'll have fewer creative ideas popping into your head; you need to consider of what value are those thoughts if they are constantly replaced by the next new idea, and you cannot find the wherewithal to take a specific idea and properly act on it.

I really can't see the equivalence of racing thoughts with creativity. Nor valuing mere quantity of ideas over deliberately acting on even a fraction of those ideas.

Do some research on the near-term effects of Adderal and consider trying it. You'll need to give it at least a few weeks to acclimate. You may be surprised. In any event, it should be educational.

It wouldn't be making you "dumber" then, it would simply be making you less creative. I know a lot of brilliant people who are not creative whatsoever. I also know a bunch of very creative people who would normally be considered dumb using common metrics. less creative != dumb

I was following along johnny's reasoning. I was saying that if by his reasoning adderall makes you smart, then it makes you dumber too. He said there are various components to intelligence. Creativity could be one too. So if focus is one aspect and it is enhanced, and it makes you smart, then creativity, which is hindered makes you dumber. Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

I think you mean arram's reasoning? I agree that if adderall stunts creativity, it is at best somewhat misleading to say it makes you smarter. Imagine someone said this: "Hey, I found this new drug. It makes you smarter and less creative." That should be enough to make anyone go, "Huh?"

So someone that is more focused can be reasonably defined as a 'smarter' or 'more intelligent' person?

Somehow I don't really think this fits the majority view of what 'smarter' means, and when writing articles like this the majority view of the meaning of a word is what really matters (at least majority of your audience).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com