3 ms·

What do you mean, my generation will no longer tell the difference between adderall and cocaine or meth, or that everyone will be medicated so often that "mind-

by ctb9 17y ago

What do you mean, my generation will no longer tell the difference between adderall and cocaine or meth, or that everyone will be medicated so often that "mind-enhanced" becomes the norm? also, for the record, there's a large amount of biological and statistical work proving their efficacy, granted only on controlled, specific tasks.

GHFigs 17y ago
I mean that if we continue proliferating simplistic views of the effects that drugs have, our collective ability to distinguish between that view and the more nuanced truth will be diminished. We risk redefining "intelligent" to mean "high on speed". And yes, I am aware of their efficacy, but it's the "only on controlled, specific tasks" part that concerns me. Blanket terms like "mind-enhancing" mask the specifics of their effects in favor of a more marketable label. After all, who doesn't want an enhanced mind? (And it is about marketing. Articles like this reek of PR if you read them closely.) The distinctions are too important to play so loose with language. If I feel like a genius after downing a fifth of bourbon, that does not make bourbon "mind-enhancing", even if the genius ideas that I have while so sloshed turn out to be right. That's just not what we mean when we say "mind-enhancing". Likewise for amphetamines. They don't cause you to think better or to have better ideas, they cause you to think all of your ideas are good ones; they don't give you focus, they nullify the sensation of boredom and make everything exciting. At least that's how we describe the same effects when they're caused by cocaine or manic episodes. We could describe cocaine and meth and manic episodes as "mind-enhancing" by these standards, too, but collectively we've realized that it's more complicated than that, and describing them as something universally positive would be misleading. You also can't patent cocaine or sell a manic episode.

by ctb9 17y ago

GHFigs 17y ago

I mean that if we continue proliferating simplistic views of the effects that drugs have, our collective ability to distinguish between that view and the more nuanced truth will be diminished. We risk redefining "intelligent" to mean "high on speed". And yes, I am aware of their efficacy, but it's the "only on controlled, specific tasks" part that concerns me. Blanket terms like "mind-enhancing" mask the specifics of their effects in favor of a more marketable label. After all, who doesn't want an enhanced mind? (And it is about marketing. Articles like this reek of PR if you read them closely.) The distinctions are too important to play so loose with language. If I feel like a genius after downing a fifth of bourbon, that does not make bourbon "mind-enhancing", even if the genius ideas that I have while so sloshed turn out to be right. That's just not what we mean when we say "mind-enhancing". Likewise for amphetamines. They don't cause you to think better or to have better ideas, they cause you to think all of your ideas are good ones; they don't give you focus, they nullify the sensation of boredom and make everything exciting. At least that's how we describe the same effects when they're caused by cocaine or manic episodes. We could describe cocaine and meth and manic episodes as "mind-enhancing" by these standards, too, but collectively we've realized that it's more complicated than that, and describing them as something universally positive would be misleading. You also can't patent cocaine or sell a manic episode.