Getting Smarter Faster
How to solve seemingly intractable problems like catastrophic AGW? The answer is likely to spark a new inequality debate. Check out this Emily Singer interview with Michael Gazzaniga, an advocate of the widespread use of cognitive enhancers.
TR: The commentary argues that cognitive-enhancing drugs “should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology.” Why do you think this is true?
MG: All new technologies are at first resisted, even the typewriter. When changing mental states, people get antsy, especially when it appears to enhance capacity. There is somehow a sense one is cheating the system. Well, so is chemotherapy. When all of these new technologies are used in moderation and the right social context, they are a good.
And later,
TR: Really? What about in high-pressure situations, like academia?
MG: Remember, these drugs don’t make you smarter. They keep you awake so you can study so you can be smarter. While there are always fads of use with such products, usage will settle down to a base rate. That base rate may be higher than some people like, but it will be established no matter what the external drug policy might be.
This brings to mind the idea of sharpening incentives. Cognitive enhancers might, for a variety of reasons, magnify inequality — but will it do so in a way that has a clear moral upshot? We’ve seen that more educated societies tend to have more income dispersion, in no small part because different people have different values concerning the appropriate balance between market production and household production, or between work and leisure. Plenty of physician assistants, for example, could have become physicians, but they weren’t willing to make the required sacrifice of time and sanity.
Pervasive use of cognitive enhancers, or rather more pervasive use, will introduce new puzzles.
Is it appropriate to redistribute from capable middle-class achievers who choose to use cognitive enhancers to maximize their income to capable middle-class achievers who have ethical qualms about artificial cognitive enhancement and thus fall behind? These are fine distinctions that are essentially impossible to police, and of course they extend to variety of other choices and interventions that are already part of our daily lives. We have good reason to believe that upper-middle-class parenting styles that involve extensive verbal interaction between parent and child, limited autonomy, and a wide space for parent-child negotiation are “good” for kids in that they train children for success in the educational and professional world. Working class parenting styles that emphasize broad autonomy for the child but that discourage negotiation in favor of clear lines of authority seem to work somewhat less well in this narrow context. But aren’t kids who wheedle and negotiate all the time little bastards? Whoa, I’m not saying this is necessarily true — just throwing out that training kids for success can clash with having cool, agreeable kids who can cook up fun activities independently, e.g., popping wheelies.
Also, I’d love to see some crude measurement of the effect of traditional stimulants, e.g., caffeine, nicotine, etc., on cognitive ability, work effort, etc. I’m sure numbers are out there. Because I consume neither, I’m hoping the benefits are fairly modest. I have to say, if Adderall were available over-the-counter, I would be strongly inclined to try it. Having never used it, I’m really, really curious as to what effect it would have on my ability to concentrate, and also on my general demeanor.
Yes they are.
— Adam Greenwood · Dec 10, 11:17 PM · #
Good grief. Today I ran into an acquaintance whose son has some mental health issues. Adderall caused him to start barking like a dog the day he began it. They soon had him taken off, but it took a long time, months if not years, to fade the behavior. At which time he began meowing like a cat.
Don’t play with your mind. It’s a gift.
— Julana · Dec 11, 03:18 AM · #
Will Wilkinson had a post on this a while ago, in response to a New Yorker article on the subject of insight. As an abuser of caffeine and a sometimes user of nicotine, Adderall and Ritalin (allegedly), I can tell you I would never, ever, ever be able to sit down and do hardnosed work without these blessings of nature and industry.
I also agree with the article: true insight is found while moving in the other direction.
— JA · Dec 11, 03:35 PM · #
reihan –
I would be interested to see how adderall would affect you as well. I occasionally use it now (allegedly use it), and I am a college student. As far as I can tell, there are two types of people at my school who illegally (allegedly) use adderall: frat/sorority types, and good students who seem to have fallen behind or just procrastinate.
The first time I (allegedly)took it, I stayed up until 6 am, but I was just looking up grilled sandwich recipes instead of writing about David Hume.
But recently, when I have taken it, it allows me to stay up an entire night, writing and working, without getting tired, without losing focus and thinking “i wish i was sleeping”, etc. If I used it merely to enhance my abilities, that would be great. Unfortunately, most students that use it on their own tend to be doing so to allow them to keep up some really bad study habits.
— harie · Dec 11, 04:41 PM · #
I freely admit to being a caffeine fiend. Being a night owl by nature who is forced to live a larks’ life, I could not drag myself from bed without the promise of several hot, steaming cups of the elixir of life.
That being said, Adderall is IMHO not all it is cracked up to be. I was prescribed this for my ADHD-ishness; so it may well have different effects than on a “normal” person.
It did make me much more organized and focused. Normally, tedious planning activities like making a shopping list fill me with a desire to run around in circles screaming. However, on Adderall I found myself calmly taking inventory of my cupboards and writing down things that were needed.
It also made me drive below the speed limit, for what is quite possibly the first time in my life. In fact, I got a little nervous going 55 — it seemed so fast!
However, all that calm organization came at a steep price — it made me noticeably less quick-witted. Normally, I am a person who is at her best under pressure. I love a good debate, I have a reputation for being witty and vivacious and for being good at thinking on my feet. But Adderall made me into a zombie. I could not summon a single witty remark or devastating rejoinder; all I could do was smile serenely and nod. My husband agreed that he preferred me au naturel — messy, disorganized, and full of life — rather than the Stepford wife-bot I was turning into.
I would hate to think of the magic that is Reihan being dulled by that nasty stuff!
(However, stimulants have different effects upon the neurotypicals; for us ADHDers, they slow us down by stimulating our executive functions, which put the brakes on the rest of our brains which apparently are running at around 600 mph. I don’t know what they would do for a so-called “normal” person, though – the opposite, maybe? I always felt the actual moment the drug went into effect — it was like someone had just poured a vat of molasses over my brain and suddenly I was only able to think one thought at a time, which seemed terribly inefficient to me).
— Salamander · Dec 11, 05:23 PM · #
Maybe the sight of Pete Singer in the rearview mirror scares people into enhancing cognition.
— Julana · Dec 12, 11:57 PM · #