I’ve long wondered if AD/HD is a myth or exaggeration. Sure, they tell us that Adderall is useful only to people with attention-deficit disorder, but clearly this is false. On college campuses, use of stimulants is rampant. To tell the truth, I’ve never met someone who did not benefit cognitively from Adderall. Which begs the question: what’s so special about me that I deserve this cognative advantage over non-A.D.D.-people who cannot legally take Adderall?
Last Tuesday on NPR’s On Point, host Tom Ashbrook tackled the issue of “mind-enhancers,” and the likelihood that they’ll soon be available to everyone—not just those of us with AD/HD. The show’s guests included:
Gibson focused on the business aspect. It’s not just the pharmaceutical companies that want to see this change occur; business managers now see the benefits as well. There is big money in drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry is constantly focusing on the next big thing. We have drugs that help aging housewives remove wrinkles or aging baseball players break homerun records; pills that can renew anything from a thinning hairline to a floppy penis. Gibson points out, practically, that it’s only a matter of time before drugs that enhance the human mind are as widespread and accepted as those that enhance the body. T he present generation of college students is already on-board with the notion of using drugs to study, whether they have A.D.D. or not. There’s little reason to believe they’ll change their habits upon entering the work force. Already, stimulants are revolutionizing some of the most sought after and respected career fields. From doctors to lawyers to scientists—even fighter jet pilots—all are known to rely on A.D.D. drugs to maximize their effectiveness and productivity.
Next, Martha Farah described the shift that’s required in our collective thinking, if widespread use of stimulants is to take off in the coming decade. For Farah, the issue is in part a philosophical one. She and her colleagues reject the idea that “enhancement” must be treated as taboo. They liken pharmaceutical mind-enhancers to other means of self-improvement: including education, exercise, sleep, and nutrition. Ultimately, Farah agrees with Gibson that the transformation is “inevitable”—human beings are warming up to drugs that improve mental functioning.
Against Farah and Gibson, Thomas Murray presented a rather bleak future scenario in which everyone has to take drugs in order to be competitive and employable. That’s exactly what happens the sports world, Murray explains, as athletes take steroids more out of necessity than free will. When all of one’s opponents are advantaged in some specific way, it’s awfully hard to deny oneself of that same enhancement.
Adderall and Ritalin clearly offer a competitive advantage. Certainly Adderall can’t make you smarter than everyone, but it definitely turns you into a sharper version of yourself. If I can only do the things I do on Adderall, what happens if everyone else can take it, too?
Finally, Murray poses a question about our education system and the nature of learning. Should education be about memorizing and regurgitating information? By focusing solely on this aspect of learning, are we stifling other forms of intellectual growth, creativity, critical thinking, the ability to connect with ourselves and others?
This very dilemma has troubled me for some time now, as I’ve felt the reigns of academia choking me and smothering me. I used to feel connected to the world and yet still uniquely me. Now, somedays, I feel that I am neither–more like a robot with a brain on autopilot.
All in all, the NPR program touched on a number of pertinet questions, and I enjoyed hearing the back and forth from both sides. You can listen to the segment here.
I’ve long wondered if AD/HD is a myth or exaggeration. Sure, they tell us that Adderall is useful only to people with attention-deficit disorder, but clearly this is false. On college campuses, use of stimulants is rampant. To tell the truth, I’ve never met someone who did not benefit cognitively from Adderall. Which begs the question: what’s so special about me that I deserve this cognative advantage over non-A.D.D.-people who cannot legally take Adderall?
Last Tuesday on NPR’s On Point, host Tom Ashbrook tackled the issue of “mind-enhancers,” and the likelihood that they’ll soon be available to everyone—not just those of us with AD/HD. The show’s guests included:
Gibson focused on the business aspect. It’s not just the pharmaceutical companies that want to see this change occur; business managers now see the benefits as well. There is big money in drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry is constantly focusing on the next big thing. We have drugs that help aging housewives remove wrinkles or aging baseball players break homerun records; pills that can renew anything from a thinning hairline to a floppy penis. Gibson points out, practically, that it’s only a matter of time before drugs that enhance the human mind are as widespread and accepted as those that enhance the body. T he present generation of college students is already on-board with the notion of using drugs to study, whether they have A.D.D. or not. There’s little reason to believe they’ll change their habits upon entering the work force. Already, stimulants are revolutionizing some of the most sought after and respected career fields. From doctors to lawyers to scientists—even fighter jet pilots—all are known to rely on A.D.D. drugs to maximize their effectiveness and productivity.
Next, Martha Farah described the shift that’s required in our collective thinking, if widespread use of stimulants is to take off in the coming decade. For Farah, the issue is in part a philosophical one. She and her colleagues reject the idea that “enhancement” must be treated as taboo. They liken pharmaceutical mind-enhancers to other means of self-improvement: including education, exercise, sleep, and nutrition. Ultimately, Farah agrees with Gibson that the transformation is “inevitable”—human beings are warming up to drugs that improve mental functioning.
Against Farah and Gibson, Thomas Murray presented a rather bleak future scenario in which everyone has to take drugs in order to be competitive and employable. That’s exactly what happens the sports world, Murray explains, as athletes take steroids more out of necessity than free will. When all of one’s opponents are advantaged in some specific way, it’s awfully hard to deny oneself of that same enhancement.
Adderall and Ritalin clearly offer a competitive advantage. Certainly Adderall can’t make you smarter than everyone, but it definitely turns you into a sharper version of yourself. If I can only do the things I do on Adderall, what happens if everyone else can take it, too?
Finally, Murray poses a question about our education system and the nature of learning. Should education be about memorizing and regurgitating information? By focusing solely on this aspect of learning, are we stifling other forms of intellectual growth, creativity, critical thinking, the ability to connect with ourselves and others?
This very dilemma has troubled me for some time now, as I’ve felt the reigns of academia choking me and smothering me. I used to feel connected to the world and yet still uniquely me. Now, somedays, I feel that I am neither–more like a robot with a brain on autopilot.
All in all, the NPR program touched on a number of pertinet questions, and I enjoyed hearing the back and forth from both sides. You can listen to the segment here.