<p>I may need it one day for a PhD dissertation. :p </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, this drug will not make your SAT score go up by 300 points. Either the ability is there or not. The benefit is just to make you be able to keep your mind from wandering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Math will probably see the biggest increase.</p>
<p>Self-diagnosis is not to be relied upon, but I suspect for a lot of people they could do better if they could stay on task. For example, even if you're staring at a single problem for half an hour trying to work on a proof and you don't even look up, your mind could be wandering subconsciously.</p>
<p>I love abstract and linear algebra, but on exams I have major issues with keeping track of all the steps without being disoriented. "There, I finally normalised the vectors. Now ... I want to rotate .... do a linear transformation .... damn, what was I trying to originally do again?" If I can keep my mind from wandering off of minitangents (mental computation consists of basically thousands of different "minitasks" going on within several seconds; usually the process too fast for you to consciously be aware of what you're doing -- but try doing it when you're groggy -- you can catch your thought processes in the act). </p>
<p>On the SAT, fatigue wasn't the issue -- it was time management. I suspect Adderall would be a major help with that.</p>
<p>Everyone has the circuitry for math -- it's just that the circuitry might not be as less efficient. Try giving Adderall to a kid who's flunking a math class. I suspect you might see a significant difference. </p>
<p>And why should intelligence be "innate"? Why can't it be something that is engineered into individuals?</p>
<p>Substance abuse for now, maybe. But in the future, with the advent of safe gene therapy, it will be the zeitgeist behind transhumanism. I'm all for gene "doping" -- if you can engineer the heart of the biological processes, then there shouldn't be any ethical concerns. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
[/quote]
[quote]
We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cookies if you can guess the reference.</p>