<p>Subscription required</p>
<p>A Dose Of Genius
'Smart Pills' Are on The Rise. But Is Taking Them Wise?</p>
<p>By Joel Garreau
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 11, 2006; D01</p>
<p>ALso, do you guys often hear about drugs used for studying? this article seems to make it well-known - but I never heard about them until I read a news article about them - since it's VIRTUALLY impossivle for me to make friends due to my Asperger's.</p>
<p>And as for those who say "look, hard work and motivation should do everything," IT'S NOT MY ****ING FAULT THAT I DIDN'T GET THE BEST INTELLIGENCE GENES. AND ALSO, THAT'S JUST A REFLECTION OF HOW COMPETITIVE LEARNING HAS BECOME - I JUST WANT TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE</p>
<p>well, it isn't. but society would collapse if there was no value placed on hard work and motivation. even if such things were determined more by who the hell your parents are than anything else</p>
<p><a href="http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=169&t=10517&hl=huperzine&s=%5B/url%5D">http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=169&t=10517&hl=huperzine&s=</a>
<a href="http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=Search&nav=&CODE=show&searchid=4e8fd5f3f994bce698d0a8e626ab381c&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&hl=&st=20%5B/url%5D">http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=Search&nav=&CODE=show&searchid=4e8fd5f3f994bce698d0a8e626ab381c&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&hl=&st=20</a></p>
<p>also, medications can make hard work and motivation far more accessible. The archetypal example of this is that of Paul Erdos and his amphetamines - so that he could work harder and sleep less - and he didn't care about ANYTHING other than math.</p>
<p>^^(that guy) what a loser!</p>
<p>You do realize, that Erdos was the most prolific mathematician in the 20th century.</p>
<p>So? He was hopped up on medication meant for ADHD kids (like myself) and drug rehab patients. Those drugs aren't meant for that, they are meant for actual psycological problems. I repeat: THEY ARE NOT FOR PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT OR "HIGHS".</p>
<p>I am fairly intelligent; I score in at least the 90th percentile on most exams, I have a 167 IQ, I speak two languages fluently (no, I'm not trying to brag if that's what you're thinking... I'm just citing anecdotal evidence). However, I don't think I was born like this. My parents are average at most, no one in my family has ever gone to college except for my sister. And, you know what? Even with ADHD, I don't take medication. Though, I will admit, I have the tendency to drift away from what I'm doing, but I still do well for myself.</p>
<p>I did what many do to attain knowledge: read, explored, took things apart, and applied new concepts. All you can do is do these things and hope for the best.</p>
<p>Please, don't abuse medication if that is your intention. Take only medication prescribed for REAL PROBLEMS, not for petty competition, personal/social achievement, or "highs".</p>
<p>don't abuse this stuff. use = abuse
the kids at my school who take them are ALWAYS poor students (though they were poor students beforehand as well)
the people who do well never require such things. You can give yourself an edge in healthy ways, like getting enough sleep. don't abuse drugs to get an edge. Not only will they possibly have bad side effects, but they don't seem to work on the kids I know!</p>
<p>No it is not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the kids at my school who take them are ALWAYS poor students (though they were poor students beforehand as well)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why were they poor students? Because they couldn't study? It's NOT ALWAYS someone's fault that they can't study. They might have attention problems but they may have had ULTRACONSERVATIVE PARENTS who REFUSED to let them see a psychiatrist. Look, they should be commended for at least making an effort to study.</p>
<p>Look, the good students are there MOST LIKELY because of PARENTS. THEIR PARENTS GIVE THEM THE GENES AND ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM TO INVEST HARD WORK AND EFFORT INTO STUDYING. YOU NEED SOME INTELLIGENCE TO BE ABLE TO INVEST HARD WORK AND EFFORT INTO STUDYING WITHOUT SUCKING ELSE SOMEONE ELSE'S TIME (IN OTHER WORDS, BEING ABLE TO STUDY BY YOURSELF). </p>
<p>
[quote]
You can give yourself an edge in healthy ways, like getting enough sleep.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, some people are tired EVEN when they HAVE PLENTY of sleep. IT'S A GENETIC THING. SOME PEOPLE JUST NATURALLY NEED MORE SLEEP THAN OTHERS. IT'S NOT A FAIR THING.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only will they possibly have bad side effects, but they don't seem to work on the kids I know!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you use them RESPONSIBLY, SIDE EFFECTS should not be that bad. AND YOU CAN STOP THEM IF YOU HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. And ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So? He was hopped up on medication meant for ADHD kids (like myself) and drug rehab patients. Those drugs aren't meant for that, they are meant for actual psycological problems. I repeat: THEY ARE NOT FOR PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT OR "HIGHS".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, tutoring is for personal improvement. It's an unfair thing - rich students get more of it than poor students. Look, if it can improve people, THEN WHY NOT LET THEM DO IT IF IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYONE ELSE?
If we want to make everything fair, I propose that we ban tutoring and make the government control the genetic supply of material such that everyone is born from the same pool of genes. BECAUSE ADULTHOOD INTELLIGENCE IS .8 CORRELATED WITH PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE.
[quote]
I am fairly intelligent; I score in at least the 90th percentile on most exams, I have a 167 IQ, I speak two languages fluently (no, I'm not trying to brag if that's what you're thinking... I'm just citing anecdotal evidence). However, I don't think I was born like this. My parents are average at most, no one in my family has ever gone to college except for my sister. And, you know what? Even with ADHD, I don't take medication. Though, I will admit, I have the tendency to drift away from what I'm doing, but I still do well for myself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ADD is a spectrum disorder - you do not speak for all of those with ADD. Some with ADD can manage without medications. Some cannot. Some have to put SEVERE RESTRICTIONS on their lives in order to manage their ADD. For me, I've had to ban pretty much every single source of fun from my life to manage my attentional problems, and they're still afflicting me. I'm trying to get on medication of some sort. Although I'm now more partial to deprenyl tha adderall or ritalin because at least deprenyl is neuroprotective, rather than neurotoxic.</p>
<p>There is one legitimate concern about raising people's intelligence beyond natural levels - the concern that the rare antisocial scientist might be more able to wreak havoc upon the world with increased intelligence.</p>
<p>Study drugs are stupid -- period.</p>
<p>Anyone who is advocating them here deserves to be shunned.</p>
<p>You say that taking these pills won't effect anyone else. That may be true on an individual level, but on a societal level, if all the rich people started taking smart pills -- that does effect other people. </p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing for the government to take away usage of these "smart pills", Simfish. But I do think its unfairness is an issue, especially if these have a permanent effect. If that were true, these pills would have the effect of creating a real physical divide between rich and poor and entrench the class hierarchy in biology. That doesn't sound very fair to me, but that's just me. </p>
<p>Clearly, the government isn't going to practice eugenics to make sure everyone's smart. But, the government should also not endorse a practice that priviledges a few over the masses. The problem is the lack of equal of opportunity to something that could benefit anyone equally. I think equality of opportunity is pretty important, which is why I think poorer students should get some sort of edge in college admissions(your examples are just preposterous, btw).</p>
<p>and honestly, if i found out someone without psychological problems was taking them, i'd probably think less of them :P</p>
<p>oh, your evidence on erdos is pretty sketchy. Since when interviewed Erdos even said that he hoped kids wouldn't follow his example in taking amphetamines. Also, he didn't start taking them until he got old.</p>
<p>And uh, whoever called Erdos a loser is ignorant since his existance probably outweighs your current and future existance by like 1000x given his massive and numerous contributions to mathematics.</p>
<p>"Hey, tutoring is for personal improvement. It's an unfair thing - rich students get more of it than poor students. Look, if it can improve people, THEN WHY NOT LET THEM DO IT IF IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYONE ELSE?
If we want to make everything fair, I propose that we ban tutoring and make the government control the genetic supply of material such that everyone is born from the same pool of genes. BECAUSE ADULTHOOD INTELLIGENCE IS .8 CORRELATED WITH PARENTAL INTELLIGENCE."</p>
<p>Then, why don't you ask for help from a teacher or fellow student who is good at the subject in which you require assistance? Last time I checked, that doesn't require money. Hell, even my school with many low-income kids does that, and many of them improve 2 and even 3 fold!</p>
<p>And, my parents aren't brilliant rocket scientists. In fact, my sister and I are the first to go to college in our ENTIRE FAMILY! So, to say that you have to have smart parents to be smart yourself is LUDACRIS!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then, why don't you ask for help from a teacher or fellow student who is good at the subject in which you require assistance? Last time I checked, that doesn't require money. Hell, even my school with many low-income kids does that, and many of them improve 2 and even 3 fold!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because it takes away their time. Look, they expect you to understand the material in a certain amount of time. If they don't, then they'll get annoyed and stop helping you. If every single kid asked for help from soneone else, teachers would just be overwhelmed.</p>
<p>Besides, the education system needs a MAJOR REHAUL. A "one-size-fits-all" system just doesn't work for those with different learning styles. And besides, sociological evidence points out that schooling in fact, only widens the gap between rich and poor - the poor waste time on very slow classes, while the rich continue in their accelerated classes.. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, my parents aren't brilliant rocket scientists. In fact, my sister and I are the first to go to college in our ENTIRE FAMILY! So, to say that you have to have smart parents to be smart yourself is LUDACRIS!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just because they didn't go to college does not mean that they aren't intelligent. Look - they probably didn't go to college due to lack of opportunities - lack of cultural capital - but they still can have genes for INTELLIGENCE. Social science research shows that intelligence correlates to that of parents by a HUGE AMOUNT - I think the figure was around .8 or something between identical twins reared apart. </p>
<p>The point stands - you have almost no control over your own intelligence. And intelligence is obviously important in a technologically driven society like ours. </p>
<p>
[quote]
oh, your evidence on erdos is pretty sketchy. Since when interviewed Erdos even said that he hoped kids wouldn't follow his example in taking amphetamines. Also, he didn't start taking them until he got old.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know about that interview - the point was - Erdos wasn't a loser just because he took amphetamines.. I'm sure that had he found a drug that didn't have the side effects or withdrawal symptoms of amphetamine (but that could still let him sleep as little as possible), he's go for them all the way. And now there are a couple: modafinil and deprenyl. </p>
<p>Also, he took amphetamines for a couple of decades - not just the last years of his life. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Study drugs are stupid -- period.</p>
<p>Anyone who is advocating them here deserves to be shunned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why are smart drugs stupid? Are you ultra-conservative and unwilling to accept change? Honestly, your opinion is total BS unless you can back it up. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and honestly, if i found out someone without psychological problems was taking them, i'd probably think less of them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even say, Paul Erdos?</p>
<p>And well, most radical new ideas are difficult to get accepted into mainstream society. It takes generations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that taking these pills won't effect anyone else. That may be true on an individual level, but on a societal level, if all the rich people started taking smart pills -- that does effect other people. </p>
<p>I don't think anyone is arguing for the government to take away usage of these "smart pills", Simfish. But I do think its unfairness is an issue, especially if these have a permanent effect. If that were true, these pills would have the effect of creating a real physical divide between rich and poor and entrench the class hierarchy in biology. That doesn't sound very fair to me, but that's just me. </p>
<p>Clearly, the government isn't going to practice eugenics to make sure everyone's smart. But, the government should also not endorse a practice that priviledges a few over the masses. The problem is the lack of equal of opportunity to something that could benefit anyone equally. I think equality of opportunity is pretty important, which is why I think poorer students should get some sort of edge in college admissions(your examples are just preposterous, btw)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The concern about the widening gap between rich and poor is a valid one. While the class hierarchy is already influenced by biology to some extent (since intelligence genes are so important in this information-obsessed society), smart drugs are probabilistically most likely going to the rich and advantaged, instead of the disadvantaged.</p>
<p>And how are my examples preposterous? Of course, they address how unfair biology is already - since parents determine pretty much all of your characteristics - what genetics does not determine, the environment the parents happen to live in determine. </p>
<p>Of course, if IQ was equalized, a question arises - does this necessarily make society equal? It makes a Communist society much more possible - but without natural differences in ability - and if this was well known, then people just wouldn't be motivated to prove themselves. </p>
<p>Anyways, some newer smart drugs are coming out soon - in the next decade, say. This issue is only an emerging one, and I'm sure there will be many debates over this.</p>
<p>Also, the research indicates that as one grows older, intelligence starts to correlate more with that of parents than in the past. Childhood intelligence is only moderately correlated with parental intelligence - adulthood intelligence highly so.</p>
<p>Give you all a thought question - do we deserve to be determined almost entirely on our genes?</p>
<p>Yes, I am somewhat of a fatalist - and IQ tests aren't everything, but the research unequivocally indicates correlations between IQ and a lot of indicators of societal success..</p>
<p>"If you use them RESPONSIBLY, SIDE EFFECTS should not be that bad. AND YOU CAN STOP THEM IF YOU HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. And ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING. "</p>
<p>Problem is, the way your talking about using them is NOT responsible. Plus, give pills like this to super competitive kids and they're more likely to overdose; they'll get this feeling of "well, I think I'm smarter than the damn doctor, and I want results NOW," so they'll pop more pills than they're supposed to. </p>
<p>"ADD is a spectrum disorder - you do not speak for all of those with ADD. Some with ADD can manage without medications. Some cannot. Some have to put SEVERE RESTRICTIONS on their lives in order to manage their ADD. For me, I've had to ban pretty much every single source of fun from my life to manage my attentional problems, and they're still afflicting me. I'm trying to get on medication of some sort. Although I'm now more partial to deprenyl tha adderall or ritalin because at least deprenyl is neuroprotective, rather than neurotoxic."</p>
<p>I had the problem of drifting my attention away from classwork in elementary school and before I knew it, class was over and I'd get a "F" for the assignment I was working on. Hell, sometimes, I'd get up in the middle of a test, walk out the door, use the bathroom, walk around the halls, visit people, etc.. So, I actually had a PROBLEM. I had no idea what the hell I was doing. I just did stuff, and when I realized I'd say "uh oh" and go back to class. Then, the teacher thought I was making trouble and sent me to the principal's office. Unfortunately, I didn't always go because I'd forget what I was doing. So, I was taken to a psycologist and diagnosed with ADHD. They put me on medication, and the problems above were virtually eradicated. Luckily, I didn't have to take the medication when I got into latter middle school. </p>
<p>Now, when you have problems like that, you call me and I'll refer you to my old psychiatrist ;) .</p>
<p>
[quote]
Problem is, the way your talking about using them is NOT responsible. Plus, give pills like this to super competitive kids and they're more likely to overdose; they'll get this feeling of "well, I think I'm smarter than the damn doctor, and I want results NOW," so they'll pop more pills than they're supposed to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what if the pills are virtually harmless? Piracetam has no known lethal dose - because it's so harmless. Someone attempted to overdose on 80 modafinil pills and came out without harm. Of course, amphetamines are of a concern - but the article addresses drugs that are NEWER than amphetamines and are FAR MORE HARMLESS than amphetamines. Well, we don't know of the long-term effects, of course. We're taking a gamble in that direction. But one of the newer smart drugs, deprenyl, has been shown to increase mouse lifespan by 14 weeks, and the results have been reproducied in 5 studies, 4 in mice and one in old dogs. Go to scholar.google.com and google up deprenyl + lifespan to see the results. </p>
<p>Furthermore, you can't get high on the majority of the new smart drugs. They may eventually make Adderall and Ritalin obsolete. Although none of them are as potent as Adderall - at least they don't have the nasty side effects, such as the crash afterwards. </p>
<h1>There is of course, a reason for putting Adderall and Ritalin onto Schedule II - but the newer smart drugs are unscheduled since they don't give you highs and most of them are relatively safe even when overdosed. modafinil, though, is schedule iv since it can produce euphoric effects - but the lethal dose is so high that it's virtually impossible to get an overdose before your money runs out. </h1>
<p>Oh, and therapy can help a lot of those with ADD. But therapy frequently goes unsuccessful. A combination of drugs and therapy to treat depression is said to be the most effective approach - I'd assume the same for ADD.</p>
<p>"Because it takes away their time. Look, they expect you to understand the material in a certain amount of time. If they don't, then they'll get annoyed and stop helping you. If every single kid asked for help from soneone else, teachers would just be overwhelmed.</p>
<p>Besides, the education system needs a MAJOR REHAUL. A "one-size-fits-all" system just doesn't work for those with different learning styles. And besides, sociological evidence points out that schooling in fact, only widens the gap between rich and poor - the poor waste time on very slow classes, while the rich continue in their accelerated classes.. "</p>
<p>You can't be serious. Most teachers are willing to help you if you're willing to work with them. Plus, I said you can ALSO GO TO A FELLOW PUPIL and ask for help. </p>
<p>And, most districts have alternative schools for children with learning disabilities, different learning styles, or schedules. My district has a few of these schools (about 8) which allow for LD supervision, kids who want to take classes in the evening versus the traditional schedule. And, don't tell me that "I probably live in a district more funded than an inner-city one". Inner-city ATL pays MORE per pupil than does my district.</p>
<p>"Just because they didn't go to college does not mean that they aren't intelligent. Look - they probably didn't go to college due to lack of opportunities - lack of cultural capital - but they still can have genes for INTELLIGENCE. Social science research shows that intelligence correlates to that of parents by a HUGE AMOUNT - I think the figure was around .8 or something between identical twins reared apart. </p>
<p>The point stands - you have almost no control over your own intelligence. And intelligence is obviously important in a technologically driven society like ours."</p>
<p>No, they had opportunity. My mom came from a decent upper-middle class home, my dad a middle class home. But, still, they didn't attend college. They tell me "it wasn't for them" and that they had a difficult time with their schoolwork in secondary school.</p>