I... doubt that's true. I imagine there are people who think that this help will help them become top scientists (and maybe we should have a talk about the pressure to succeed etc.). But I suspect that a lot of the actual top scientists are plain good at what they do, and they neither need nor want the effects of drugs in their work.
(Which is very different from recreational use, of course, or recreational use turning into addiction.)
I was at Cambridge for 4 years and I can safely say that none of the professors in my department were using stimulants other than coffee. I can clock someone who is up across a crowded room. None of them were ever up. A large number of the ambitious PhD students and postdocs were though, and a very large proportion of the undergraduates. I think it's probably a generational thing. Students sell to students. Nobody is selling to professors, and even if they tried, those people have already achieved their success in a generation of people that didn't have access to these things.
I think we will see a generation of people come into these positions (e.g. professorships) where a significant proportion of them are using pharmaceutical enhancement as one of the many tools in their box. Stimulants aren't magic, they don't make idiots clever. But if you're a clever person who is tired or stressed, they can (seem to) make a big difference.
how can you tell if someone is up? Just from years of using stimulants yourself or are there obvious, telltale signs? I missed a boatload of them with Peter.
Dilated pupils. Tense jaw. Muscles around the eyes are slightly more tense (small wrinkles temporarily disappear for example). People react faster and speak more coherently (or if they took too much, incoherently but very fast). Dry mouth (very slight lisping or tongue sticking when they talk). Straighter back, clenched fists, grasping or fidgeting hands that they don't normally have. A general appearance of alertness. Unusually impressive performance in a social situation.
Some combination of the above, but it's pretty obvious once you get used to it. At the same time, I'm pretty sure many people in my life have no idea that I take stimulants (though as I said, I don't hide it), but just see me as being at my best when I'm on them.
Flinches if surprised, picks at skin or scratches more than normal (there might be visible sores from this), intense preoccupation with things ordinarily beneath interest, hard to interrupt from work, drinks lots of water if responsible, particularly unconcerned with thirst if not. Particularly prone to discuss subjects at length, perhaps an unusually quiet or loud vocal tone.
> Flinches if surprised, picks at skin or scratches more than normal (there might be visible sores from this), intense preoccupation with things ordinarily beneath interest, hard to interrupt from work, drinks lots of water if responsible, particularly unconcerned with thirst if not.
... is someone giving me stimulants without my knowledge? That's me at baseline.
Or should I cut out even my one cup of coffee per day?
(Excess) scratching, excess fidgeting. Staring off into the distance in the same direction for a while. Overconfidence and they really like to talk about stimulants ;-).
Part of what I'm trying to determine is if that pressure to succeed makes people believe they need something to be competitive. My daughter, for example, sometimes feels like she's at a disadvantage at college because so many of her peers are taking adderall (w/o a prescription) for tests and studying. Is it the same after college, professionally?
IME, in academic biology, the answer is generally no. Personally, I do use, but it isn't a result of competition, but rather a desire to achieve the most I can for a goal I care about. I don't feel pressured in any way to make this decision; if anything, the pressure is slightly in the other direction.
The big trouble with it is that a drug -- any drug -- will alter your perception of the world such that it is difficult to know with absolute confidence whether you are taking the drug for purely rational reasons to further your personal goals...or not.
Amphetamines at least, based on my experience and reading of the literature, improve your ability to do huge amounts of light/easy work at the expense of "deep" thinking. This means that they would be most effective for people who are knee-deep in work that is too easy for them and need to get more throughput. Undergrad is exactly this -- tons of relatively easy work. Professional life is not; quality is in the long term valued over shitty quantity.
I hope your article won't be a complete hatchet job on white-collar drug use -- the reality is very complex. Humans in general, and white-collar workers in particular, are living in environments and doing things extremely different from what humans evolved for. Thus, some of us use drugs to tweak our biology to adapt to the situation. Assuming that these do in fact improve performance -- a very disputable assumption -- this would be a success story for human intelligence and adaptability.
I don't want to do a hatchet job on white collar drug use, no. I want to learn what's actually being used, the extent of the use and then draw some meaning from that, meaning that doesn't intend to say whether the use is bad or good but just why it exists and what that might mean about work culture, society, etc. If you'd be open to talking more about this separately, pls email me at zimmermaneilene@gmail.com. Thanks.
I'm in my last semester of college as a Computer Science student. I know a ridiculously large number of people who use adderall or vyvanse to gain a competitive edge.
No. I think that I would enjoy them too much, so I know I shouldn't participate. Also, I still do better on exams than most of the people I know who use these, so it seems unnecessary.
(Which is very different from recreational use, of course, or recreational use turning into addiction.)