4 ms·

people can and do naturally achieve extreme focus and flow Yes, this is obvious, and I wasn't denying that at all. What is not obvious, and what there is no ev

by GHFigs 17y ago

people can and do naturally achieve extreme focus and flow Yes, this is obvious, and I wasn't denying that at all. What is not obvious, and what there is no evidence for, is that these states are the same as what is achieved on stimulants. It is my own experience that they are very distintly different, and I would never refer to the effects of speed as "natural". The very fact that they are achieved in humans without use of stimulants should be a strong indication that the stimulants do not recreate the same effect. Lack of focus is not due to deficiency of Ritalin. it's giving you more of an ability you already have and allowing you to control when you have it. This is exactly what I am saying is not true. Taking speed does not do the same thing to your brain that your brain is ordinarily capable of doing to yourself. When you take speed, you're not making your brain function like one of a smarter person, no matter how much smarter you feel. Cognition is altered, not just enhanced, and I think it is a huge mistake to ignore that. We don't ignore it when talking about cocaine or any other illegal drugs that people report similarly positive effects from. Why are we so willing to ignore that distinction for these drugs? There's nothing wrong with that as long as people are aware of what they're doing and it's reasonably safe to do so. That people believe (as you do) that these drugs merely enhance existing brain function is a sign that people really aren't aware of what they are doing.

gnaritas 17y ago
> What is not obvious, and what there is no evidence for, is that these states are the same as what is achieved on stimulants. It is my own experience that they are very distinctly different Who cares? Really? People use these drugs because they give you super focus, both the feeling, and the reality. You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect. > The very fact that they are achieved in humans without use of stimulants should be a strong indication that the stimulants do not recreate the same effect. That makes no sense at all. Sleep is natural, it doesn't follow that any pill which also induces sleep is not doing it via the same mechanism. In fact, it's an indication of nothing, either way. > Lack of focus is not due to deficiency of Ritalin. No one claimed it was. You're ignoring the desire for superhuman focus. People take these when they want more focus than is natural. > That people believe (as you do) that these drugs merely enhance existing brain function is a sign that people really aren't aware of what they are doing. That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue and you assume others don't know the risks and if you could just educate them they'd change their behavior; you'd be wrong. People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with. Drug use is not drug abuse.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Who cares? Really? I would hope that anybody taking "cognitive enhancers" would care. It seems entirely relevant that one should know the difference between normal brain functioning and drug-induced brain functioning. My concern is that there is a trend towards not knowing the difference, and that this is being applauded. You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect. I am specifically talking about the effect. It is different. It is not, in your words, "enhancing your natural cognitive abilities". You cannot honestly argue that it is the same as a natural state of focus while simultaneously claiming that the point is to have unnatural kind of focus. And yes, I regard the distinction between natural and unnatural states as important when it impacts things like (say) competition for top-tier education. That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue I have no idea what this means. You seem to be rejecting the validity of my opinion because it does not agree with yours. That's...deft. People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with. Taking Ritalin to "enhance work or study performance" is getting high. The effect of the drug is the same regardless of whether you take it to study or not. Why have we recently gotten a free pass to class it up by calling it "cognitive enhancement"? People have historically taken all kinds of drugs for performance reasons, be they legal, illegal, or legal but illegally obtained--many to famously great effect. What changed to allow us to use such different terminiology for the same act? What is the effect on our culture of continuing to do so? And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms?
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    > Taking Ritalin to "enhance work or study performance" is getting high. No it isn't. No more so than drinking a cup of coffee gets you high on caffeine, or eating a candy bar gets you high on sugar, or drinking a bottle of Jack gets you high on Jack. Getting "high" is generic slang for the consumption of some mind altering substances for fun. 99% of the time getting high specifically means smoking marijuana. You do not label the taking of all substances as getting high, I'm not getting high if I take a percocet, I'm not getting high if I take a paxil, I'm not getting high if I take an abilify. You can tweak on Ritalin by taking far more than the prescribed dose which people usually do by crushing and snorting it. This is not at all comparable to those taking the pill in the prescribed fashion in the same dose that one would take for ADD. > What changed to allow us to use such different terminology for the same act? What difference, you don't say an athlete is getting high on steroids, that's not what getting high means. Secondly, you'll note we're against steroids because they're known to be very damaging to the user, not because they enhance his muscles. If steroids were as safe as Ritalin they wouldn't be illegal and they'd be used by the vast majority of athletes just like every other legal substance they've found that works. The terminology hasn't changed, you're just mistakenly thinking we use the same term for every drug and intent. We never have other than the generic "using drugs". Name a drug and there is specific lingo associated with that drug. > And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms? You should be aware of them, but not concerned because what other people do shouldn't concern you unless it affects you, I fail to see how it affects you. Being concerned implies that you feel the right to object to the behavior and prevent others from doing what they want with themselves, that's what I'm objecting to. Social norms change, that's life, they've always been changing. If someone wants to take a pill - widely considered safe - to make themselves perform better, who's business is that but theirs?

by GHFigs 17y ago

gnaritas 17y ago

> What is not obvious, and what there is no evidence for, is that these states are the same as what is achieved on stimulants. It is my own experience that they are very distinctly different Who cares? Really? People use these drugs because they give you super focus, both the feeling, and the reality. You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect. > The very fact that they are achieved in humans without use of stimulants should be a strong indication that the stimulants do not recreate the same effect. That makes no sense at all. Sleep is natural, it doesn't follow that any pill which also induces sleep is not doing it via the same mechanism. In fact, it's an indication of nothing, either way. > Lack of focus is not due to deficiency of Ritalin. No one claimed it was. You're ignoring the desire for superhuman focus. People take these when they want more focus than is natural. > That people believe (as you do) that these drugs merely enhance existing brain function is a sign that people really aren't aware of what they are doing. That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue and you assume others don't know the risks and if you could just educate them they'd change their behavior; you'd be wrong. People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with. Drug use is not drug abuse.

GHFigs 17y ago
Who cares? Really? I would hope that anybody taking "cognitive enhancers" would care. It seems entirely relevant that one should know the difference between normal brain functioning and drug-induced brain functioning. My concern is that there is a trend towards not knowing the difference, and that this is being applauded. You're too concerned about the mechanism rather than the effect. I am specifically talking about the effect. It is different. It is not, in your words, "enhancing your natural cognitive abilities". You cannot honestly argue that it is the same as a natural state of focus while simultaneously claiming that the point is to have unnatural kind of focus. And yes, I regard the distinction between natural and unnatural states as important when it impacts things like (say) competition for top-tier education. That people such as you are so strongly opposed is a sign that you're not objective about the issue I have no idea what this means. You seem to be rejecting the validity of my opinion because it does not agree with yours. That's...deft. People willingly take far worse and far less safe drugs off the street just to get high. Those who use prescription drugs like Ritalin off label to enhance work or study performance are not the people you need to be concerned with. Taking Ritalin to "enhance work or study performance" is getting high. The effect of the drug is the same regardless of whether you take it to study or not. Why have we recently gotten a free pass to class it up by calling it "cognitive enhancement"? People have historically taken all kinds of drugs for performance reasons, be they legal, illegal, or legal but illegally obtained--many to famously great effect. What changed to allow us to use such different terminiology for the same act? What is the effect on our culture of continuing to do so? And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms?
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > Taking Ritalin to "enhance work or study performance" is getting high. No it isn't. No more so than drinking a cup of coffee gets you high on caffeine, or eating a candy bar gets you high on sugar, or drinking a bottle of Jack gets you high on Jack. Getting "high" is generic slang for the consumption of some mind altering substances for fun. 99% of the time getting high specifically means smoking marijuana. You do not label the taking of all substances as getting high, I'm not getting high if I take a percocet, I'm not getting high if I take a paxil, I'm not getting high if I take an abilify. You can tweak on Ritalin by taking far more than the prescribed dose which people usually do by crushing and snorting it. This is not at all comparable to those taking the pill in the prescribed fashion in the same dose that one would take for ADD. > What changed to allow us to use such different terminology for the same act? What difference, you don't say an athlete is getting high on steroids, that's not what getting high means. Secondly, you'll note we're against steroids because they're known to be very damaging to the user, not because they enhance his muscles. If steroids were as safe as Ritalin they wouldn't be illegal and they'd be used by the vast majority of athletes just like every other legal substance they've found that works. The terminology hasn't changed, you're just mistakenly thinking we use the same term for every drug and intent. We never have other than the generic "using drugs". Name a drug and there is specific lingo associated with that drug. > And why should I not be concerned with changing social norms? You should be aware of them, but not concerned because what other people do shouldn't concern you unless it affects you, I fail to see how it affects you. Being concerned implies that you feel the right to object to the behavior and prevent others from doing what they want with themselves, that's what I'm objecting to. Social norms change, that's life, they've always been changing. If someone wants to take a pill - widely considered safe - to make themselves perform better, who's business is that but theirs?