Wednesday, June 27, 2012

What's Wrong With "Artificially" Enhancing Performance?

By Sherry Colb

In my Verdict column for this week, I examine the reported proliferation of drug use among high school students aiming to boost their academic performance.  By using medications like Ritalin and Adderall, students who do not technically suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (for which such drugs are prescribed) can -- like people with ADHD -- increase their ability to concentrate hard and learn efficiently.  Stimulants like these (and others) can enhance what psychologists call "executive function," including the brain's ability to self-regulate.  In my column, I discuss some of the risks  associated with the drug, including addiction and the related phenomenon in which many users of the drug find that it no longer enhances their abilities but has instead become necessary to maintain what had been their pre-drug-use baseline.

In this post, I want to focus on a different complaint that people have about the use of artificial means to enhance native capacities.  This particular complaint would be the same even if stimulants carried no harmful side-effects, was not addictive, and remained effective over the long term.  The complaint is that there is something unfair or akin to "cheating" in using artificial means to increase one's ability to achieve.

Consider a hypothetical example.  Say you have an easy time sitting down with a book and reading it cover to cover with great concentration.  Once having read the book, moreover, you are able, almost effortlessly, to remember what you have read and to apply it to new situations, even if the book is complicated and dense.  Say that I, by contrast, become easily distracted and frustrated when I begin reading the same book.  I can barely read two paragraphs without dozing off, heading to the kitchen to grab a snack, or daydreaming about my vacation.  Even if we come into the same course with the same background knowledge, you will likely earn an A on your exam on the book, and I will be lucky to scrape by with a B or a B-.  That is our baseline performance.  Your executive function is far superior to mine, even though I do not technically qualify for a diagnosis of ADHD.

Now imagine that there is a drug called "EasyThink" (ET) that supports greater executive function.  When I take the drug, I am suddenly able to concentrate effortlessly, just as you do without taking ET.  I can read the book in one sitting now, without feeling distracted or antsy and without becoming drowsy.  I too can get an A on the book exam, just as you can.  For many people, you will have succeeded "on the merits" in this example, and I will have benefited from a form of cheating -- chemically enhancing my "real" abilities.

In making this complaint, however, it is unclear why it would be accurate to describe what I have done as "cheating."  By hypothesis, I did not hire another person to take the test for me; I did not sneak answers into the exam.  What I did was to take a medicine that causes my brain to do what your brain does naturally, and -- as a result -- I honestly mastered the relevant material for the exam.  We put in the same amount of effort and received the same results, but many would consider your A more authentic than mine.  Why?

To state the problem differently, we can observe many inequities that yield difficult lives for some and easier lives for others.  Some of us are born to parents with means, and we receive the many benefits associated with financial security.  Others are born into more challenging or unsafe environments and find themselves with fewer benefits and opportunities.  Some people are sick, and others are healthy.  Some are strong, and others are weak.  Though hard work can make a huge difference in one's life prospects, even the ability to work hard is not evenly distributed in the population.  Some of us come into this world with more willpower than others, and those with little willpower may have no idea how to change themselves.

With all of these inequities, we pick and choose which ones we consider unfair and which ones we accept without question.  If a person is born with a terrible illness, no one says it would be unfair to treat the illness, because only those people who are healthy "on the merits" should be able to enjoy their authentic health.  On the contrary, we consider it a wonderful thing that someone who is born sick can be healed and enjoy the same life prospects as someone lucky enough to be born healthy.

With other inequities, however, we take a very different approach.  If a particular person who has a difficult time integrating dense material into his brain performs poorly at school (but not poorly enough to merit a diagnosis), many of us consider it "fair" that the person accomplishes only enough to earn a B- on an exam, while someone else can accomplish enough to earn an A, because she can integrate material far more easily than her classmate.  If we consider this inequity fair, then it is not surprising that we would regard it as unfair to artificially boost her classmate's performance so that he too can earn an A when he studies the book in question.

Consider an analogy from a very different area.  If a particular person remains young-looking and attractive as he ages, we consider him truly handsome.  If, on the other hand, he looks as good as he does because of plastic surgery or other artificial enhancements, we say that he has "had work done" and we dismiss his attractiveness as fake in some way.  This differential attitude toward an older person's good looks exposes the following view:  if someone looks like he is 35 when he is actually 70, then he either deserves to look that way (because his looks are unaffected by surgical intervention) or he has taken unfair advantage of surgery or other technology.  "Natural" good looks merit admiration, while "surgically enhanced" good looks merit contempt and gossip.

One could easily see things quite differently, however.  The person who naturally looks like he's 35 when he is 70 has been very lucky.  He was perhaps born with "young looking" genes -- something that he did not have to work to get.  His surgically enhanced analogue, by contrast, has had to undergo pain, risk, and difficulty to achieve the looks that he has.  In a sense, he has had to suffer for his looks, while the other man just had those looks fall into his lap.  Yet we manage somehow to consider the natural inequity legitimate, while the surgically generated equity is not.

Returning to executive function, a famous old study on young children suggests that the ability to delay gratification (which is an executive function) predicts success later in life with far greater accuracy than any other known test does.  In the study, an experimenter gives a preschooler a marshmallow and tells her that she can eat the snack now or she can hold off on eating it for 15 minutes, until the experimenter returns.  If she waits, then she will receive two marshmallows to eat instead of just one.  The children who are able to wait for the two sweets, despite the temptation, scored an average of 210 points higher on the S.A.T.s many years later than the children who could not wait for 15 minutes.  No test of "intelligence" has similar predictive power.

It would be odd, though, to suggest that the children who found themselves unable to wait 15 minutes for the marshmallow deserve to perform measurably less well in life than the children who were able wait.  Yet that is essentially what we say when we describe the person who uses a stimulant drug gaining an "unfair" advantage.

There are plenty of reasons to worry about the increasing number of children and teens using drugs like Ritalin and Adderall to conform to the expectations that schools and parents have.  But "unfairness" to people who can concentrate easily without a drug is not such a reason.  It is instead part of a common  tendency to assume that "natural" inequities are fair and call for no rectification, a tendency that does not hold up well to critical scrutiny.


Patrick S. O'Donnell said...

Wow, to think that in my day we were using drugs to experience "altered states of consciousness" (which we came to learn could be attained without such drugs), while today, and albeit a different a kind of drug, they're being used to "enhance performance." Performance anxiety rules the roost for these young people: how sad if not depressing (yes, I know, they've got drugs for that too).

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

similarly compare the incidents where law students were forced to retake exams after the instructor happened to use one of the (publicly available) sample exams they practiced on.

Unknown said...

I wear eyeglasses, Is this cheating?


Unknown said...

The young people who can pay for these performance enhancing drugs already have an advantage that they don't necessarily "deserve."

Adam S. said...

Interesting and important observations, which all relate to the basic problem of the "moral arbitrariness" of natural/inherited endowments. These points, of course,relate directly to all sorts of arguments about distributive justice, affirmative action, etc. etc. One of Rawls's points, for example, with the veil of ignorance, was that you must evaluate the fairness of social arrangements before you know whether you happen to be smart, handsome, born to wealth, etc. And while it's probably most efficient to reward the highest SAT, LSAT, etc. with the choice admissions, salaries, etc., on the narrow point of "cheating," one might wonder if techno-medical advances might someday obviate these concerns by permitting all humans --- through organic AND inorganic means --- to reach our physical and mental asymptotes.
Interesting to consider how a world with uniformly but brilliantly talented people would function.

Blogger said...

I was also going to give the eyeglasses example. No one argues that baseball players who wear glasses or contacts are cheating by artificially enhancing their vision. But steroidal enhancements are considered cheating.

Embedded in the cheating idea, I think, is that it has a net negative effect on society. Drug enhancements are seen as harmful to the users, and stealing the answers to a test is seen as underming the pedagogical and evaluative purposes of the test.

But maybe there are counterexamples.

Jim Denken said...

These factors, of course,relate straight to a number of justifications about distributive rights, positive activity, etc. etc. One of Rawls's factors, for example, with the veil of lack of knowledge, was that you must assess the equity of public agreements before you know whether you are actually sensible, attractive, blessed to success, etc. And while it's probably most effective to compensate the greatest SAT, LSAT, etc. with the option acceptance, incomes, etc., on the filter point of "cheating," one might wonder if techno-medical developments might at some point obviate these issues by allowing all people --- through natural AND inorganic indicates --- to arrive at our psychological and actual asymptotes.
Interesting to consider how a world with consistently but exceptionally skilled people would operate.Windows 7 ultimate Key
Windows 7 ultimate product Key
Buy Cheap Windows 7 Key

Jet Li said...

One among Rawls's factors, for instance, using the veil of lack of edcuation, was that you must measure the value regarding cultural preparations before you realize whether you happen to be intelligent, handsome, delivered to riches, and many others. And while it should be handiest in order to prize the very best Lay, LSAT, and so forth. with all the choice admissions, wages, etc., for the filter reason for "cheating,In . 1 may possibly wonder in case techno-medical advancements might sooner or later obviate these concerns by letting just about all human beings --- by way of natural Along with inorganic means --- to achieve our mental and physical asymptotes.

RachaelBari said...

This is a strong argument. But you say in the beginning that the argument would be the same even if stimulants carried no harmful side-effects, were not addictive, and remained effective over the long term. I disagree. I think the fact that the drugs are illegal, are highly addictive, and do have harmful side effects factors into the equation of whether it is fair to use them. I believe that is unfair for some students to use these drugs in this manner, altering the curve of the class, affecting their grades and their classmates' grades, because having to compete with students artificially enhancing their performance puts pressure on all students to follow their lead and subject themselves to legal and health risks. Maybe it is not inherently unfair, the way that copying someone else's test answers is, but it is bad policy for schools to ignore or approve such behavior. I believe that using these drugs, which enhance cognitive functioning, allowing students to get more work done in less time, is especially unfair to other students who cannot concentrate easily without the drugs but are not willing to take the legal and health risks, or cannot take the drugs for health reasons, or will not take the drugs because of a philosophical opposition to performance enhancing drugs. If the drugs were affordable, available over the counter like caffeine, and generally harmless like caffeine, the story might be different.

wei wusuo said...

Mages are dangerous competitors, both in gamer compared to gamer fight and raiding, and are a useful device in any group. If a gamer is looking to create a mage, a Globe of Globe of warcraft mage stabilizing details can be an awesome resource. Data of this arcane classification and the overall miracle they use is important in stabilizing as easily as possible.

RS Gold  Buy Diablo 3 Gold   Buy Guild Wars 2 Gold

qiong zhang said...

lists numerous rights you will find they're under threat but Galaxy 3 cases you are they are absolutes? We've simply no complete to certainly vacation in most situations. Our own decisional privacy provides restrictions. Actually, we've got a lot of rights that sometimes conflict. The authority to know v. the ability to a good demo.

Saha William said...

that is the right reason Artificially Performance.
get banner design by right now.

shahbaz said...

Great work.These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post.create free store cards