Unlike in athletics, academics isn’t necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information.
No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions.
Does this mean we'll soon see articles about how the Ivy League and most hacker dens dope more than the Tour de France?
Even more unfair than drugs, there are native abilities. Some lucky ones are born athletes, others… well. A good body is a totally unfair advantage. Yet this is not cheating. Similarly some people are just brighter, smarter and less lazy than others. They will breeze through while others must sweat tears and blood if they ever hope to enter college. This is even more unfair, yet it is still not cheating.
The reason dope is officially cheating in sports is because they are a breach of explicit rules. It is the same as removing an enemy pawn when no one is looking. You could perfectly have sports where the use of dope were permitted (I'm not sure I would endorse it though: it may have unhealthy consequences —oh, wait it did).
Now college entrance exams are about selecting students smart enough to make it through the curriculum, and make a worthy career afterwards. Ideally, you'd want to select those most likely to succeed. My take is this: any way to deceive that predictor is cheating. Anything else is not. By this analysis, nootropics are cheating only to the extent they deceive the predictor. My bet is that someone willing to take such drugs to go to college will probably continue to do so later (permanently or when needed). In this case, the drug doesn't fool the predictor, it actually helps being a little smarter in the long term. What would be cheating would be to take the drugs for a short term benefit, then never or rarely do that again.
Finally, this really is not a zero-sum game. Even if only an elite 1% take those drugs, even if it does make things even more unfair than they already are, those people may solve problems faster for the rest of us, so we all benefit. And boy do we have problems that need solving.
Starting with Death.[1]
(One last detail: nootroopics also have to work and not have nasty side effects. Personally, I'm still a bit afraid.)
[1] I work from naturalistic assumptions. For those who believe in an afterlife: imagine your soul being destroyed instead of living happily ever after. I don't want that either.
So what? Sports are essentially about competing, so the playing field being leveled is important. Academics is about the advancement of science. If doping helps a student to find a cure for cancer, I see no reason to object.
That is valid only if those substances are equally helpful for exams (and their preparation) and actual research. Otherwise, the wrong people may get into great schools and graduate programs. Of course the problem of selection criteria being different from the actual work also exists without smart drugs. However, reading some articles about Provigil, I can't help but feel that the uber-disciplined and concentrated individual would have a disproportionate advantage in studying/exams, compared to the enhancement of them doing original work.
An interesting thought -- is this for performance on the "hamster wheel" stuff or does it actually improve "deep" thought. alot of the latter seems to come more from perserverence, inspiration, and character than IQ per-se.
From what I've been reading, the results depend on what you take, how much you take, and in what combination you take it.
Some people have described their nootropic use giving them perfect narrow focus on whatever they set in front of them, but gradually over time being left with an empty uncreative head. As time wen by, their reservoir of random wide ranging thoughts got depleted, till they got off the drugs.
Another guy used a combination of drugs including racetams to keep a keen edge of concentration and energy.
Others exploded, I think on one forum there are the remains of someone who medicated a bit too much...he sounded manic, and seemed to have had underlying mental complications.
Academics is about the advancement of science. Getting into a prestigious school is only half about academics. The other half - as HN commentors are so often happy to point out - is about signalling.
Unless it's side-effect free, it could pose an ethical dilemma. Would you take a pill wich makes you a prodigy but shortens your expected lifetime with 5 year? What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?
>Would you take a pill wich makes you a prodigy but shortens your expected lifetime with 5 year?
Absolutely. Perhaps it's the naivety of youth speaking, but I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.
> What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?
I'd argue the world would be a much better place if this was the case. The real question you might want to ask is what if these drugs become expensive and only the upper class can afford them. It might lead to a sort of catch 22 by which no one was interested in hiring less intelligent or less capable people who couldn't afford such drugs.
> I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.
There's no guarantee you're trading the 5 worst years of your life; it's far more likely that you'll also trade some perfectly good ones for bad ones.
And as far as the naivety of youth is concerned; the simple answer is yes. The complex one is that you'll end up understanding the trade-offs you made in a way that you couldn't now and that the decision on whether it was right or not well be just as moot as it is hard to make.
> The real question you might want to ask is what if these drugs become expensive and only the upper class can afford them. It might lead to a sort of catch 22 by which no one was interested in hiring less intelligent or less capable people who couldn't afford such drugs.
Unless government regulations get in the way, I would expect employers to start paying for their employees' drugs.
If they don't produce enough of an effect for that to be worthwhile, I wouldn't expect them to see widespread use. (If they cost $X,000/year but only increase your earning potential by $Y,000/year, with Y<X, how many people are really going to take them? Not zero, but I'd guess not enough to have much impact on the market. And if Y>X, it's a good deal for employers, who might also be able to use economies of scale to get the drugs at a discount.)
>>Would you take a pill wich makes you a prodigy but shortens your expected lifetime with 5 year?
>Absolutely. Perhaps it's the naivety of youth speaking, but I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.
Yes. I agree. (I'm 42 - does that make a difference?)
Maybe I'd have to think about it if the deal was genius level prodigy but with severe life-long pain. (Either mental anguish, or physical severe arthritis or whatever.) (I'm reminded of Aronofsky's PI.)
> What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?
The new average is computer programmers who are all extremely awesome? Sign me up! I'd probably get more than five years of additional free time from such a situation, so it would be well worth the tradeoff.
People seem too focused on relative advantage, when it's not usually important. There are a few areas where increasing everybody's ability equally will change little, but most fields would benefit immensely from raising everyone.
Academics is also about fighting for the esteem and attention of your peers, winning grants and awards, and getting yourself known. If athletes are willing to risk their health for a few hundredths of a second in a race, I can imagine some academics would be willing to dope their brains for a better shot at a publication in Nature.
I was a little shocked with how much politics plays a role in University research departments. I mean, it's expected in any human organization, but the PIs are thinking about and acting on it constantly.
Who cares if thinkers use drugs? They have since the dawn of time, and it's helped all of us by letting already brilliant people get an extra boost. Whether it's psychedelics, marijuana, or nootropics, we know substances can not-insignificantly impact our creativity and inspiration.
Nevermind what a specific college or professional sports organization has to say about this; maybe someday they'll start thinking themselves, perhaps with the help of some substances, and realize that maybe the "college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions" are themselves a bit silly in the context of trying to truly find important ideas.
Whenever the topic of nootropics comes up, especially when comments come critique, people seem to forget about the second most traded commodity in the world.
The majority of people reading these very words are doped up on stimulants, probably from the ubiquitous stimulant machine down the hall.
Yes. Both critics and proponents of nootropics give caffeine short shrift. Critics don't want to admit to chemical enhancement of mental function and proponents are always eager to propagandize the latest fad nootropic.
This is true in general. I haven't noticed these behaviors among the brighter critics and supporters (e.g. many comments here on HN are pretty thoughtful).
This was the most self serving, disingenuous, logically unsound sentence I've read in the past few days.
Firstly - "isn't necessarily a competition". A half truth. The rest of the time it is a competiton and is bloody damned important.
In classes graded on a curve? Percentile based rankings?
What about a country like India or Japan or any country where competitive exams determine your chance to gain an extremely competitive seat?
This becomes more pernicious in a country which is trying to build an educated populace.
Who is going to have access to these drugs in a third world country?
Aside from a few outliers, let's agree that that subset of people with the means and knowledge won't be the chap who doesn't get three square meals a day.
it entrenches older families/competitors with money unfairly
The rest of the time it is a competiton and is bloody damned important.
Exactly. The academic system has much competition, and some professors teach through competition. Have you ever had a prof who failed the entire class then graded on a curve? So your 32% grade in the class translates to a grade of 3.6?
Who is going to have access to these drugs in a third world country?
Get ready to see articles about the "Nootropic Divide" between the more and less advantaged people of the world. Better, how long until employers start drug-testing for these, to make sure you're getting a sufficient dose to maximize your performance? I could see EA doing that.
There are already many students who are prescribed Ritalin, Concerta, Adderal etc, and these drugs give those students an unfair edge. How are normal students supposed to compete with their peers who are on amphetamines?
Life is a competition. May the best man win. Remember Darwin? The strongest will survive. I'm not going to proactively try and injure someone else or hold someone else back, but you can bet i'll do whatever I possibly can get get the leg up. It's a dog eat dog world.
High school prepares you for college, and college ultimately, cough somewhat sarcastic, prepares you for the real world.
People are too concerned with playing by the rules in those environments. While we do have rules (read: laws and codes) in the real world, there are also 'no rules'
No the "strongest" don't necessarily survive. Evolution is only about individual survival insofar is a longer lifespan may result in more reproduction. The best adapted species in an particular environmental niche will outlast competitors.
No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions.
Does this mean we'll soon see articles about how the Ivy League and most hacker dens dope more than the Tour de France?