With the enhancement in technologies dreams of the past have become realistic in the coming future, one of these technologies is a cognitive enhancement for humans. There are currently forms of enhancements such as coffee, Ritalin, and Aderall, which are readily available for the public. There are clear social benefits associated with the increase in cognitive abilities of individuals from the beginning to end of their lives. So clearly it makes sense to have everybody to receive these benefits by taking these enhancements and government should be the one forcing it, but this comes with great opposition. Assuming technology is able to create an enhancement that is safe and has no negative effects the benefits of higher cognitive abilities are huge and cover many different desirable outcomes. Those with higher IQs tend to be reaping social benefits such as better health, improved results from educational experiences, and are able to make more complex and difficult decisions to improve their livelihoods. Higher IQs are also associated with greater economical benefits as those who with higher IQs are more likely to receive a higher education. This also correlates to receiving a more rewarding job with higher income later in life and able to use this income to increase their livelihood. If this drug is cheap also it could eliminate the cost of extra education, which is usually only available to the children of the well off in forms of private education, tutors, and higher education. By taking a cognitive enhancing this can even the playing field for those who can’t afford this extra education. This plays well with Rawls difference principle as it can also help eliminate the differences among natural assets and abilities, or intellige... ... middle of paper ... ...gher IQ. Perhaps if the drug gave the least advantaged 20, the next least advantaged 19, and so on so that they all would attain the same level of IQ with the drug, or just make the drug so that it maxes out at a certain IQ level it could satisfy the fair equality of opportunity, which has lexical priority over the difference principle. It is pretty clear that cognitive enhancing drugs are beneficial in both socially and economically for any individual taking the drug in a society and the society as a whole. Government should require all children to take the drug, as requiring the drug among all children is the best option as when in comparison with only offering it to one group of people making it openly available to those who can afford it, requiring everyone to take it creates the biggest benefit for society as a whole and also creates the most just distribution.
Is becoming smart always better than staying dumb? After considering Charlie’s situation, I have decided that the answer to this question is no. Charlie is the main character in the science fiction story Flowers for Algernon written by Daniel Keyes. In the book, Charlie is a 37 year old man who has an I.Q. of 68 and is on a mission to become smart. When the opportunity comes for him to participate in an experiment for an operation that can triple his I.Q., he willingly takes it. It turns out that the operation only grants a temporary intelligence boost, and Charlie experiences high intelligence only to have it start deteriorating. I think that Charlie was wrong to have the operation that temporarily made him smart.
Malcolm Gladwell makes many debatable claims in his book “The Outliers”. One of these controversial topics is brought up in chapter three when he talks about a person’s IQ and how that relates to one’s success. Gladwell says, “The relationship between success and IQ works only up to a point. Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn’t seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage.”After reading “Outliers” I believe that this is the greatest controversial topic. I agree with Malcolm Gladwell because there are a high amount of people who are not incredibly smart that are very successful, success can be viewed differently by different people, and from my own experiences on the U-High
In his book, Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcolm Gladwell makes the claim that IQ does not have an accurate correlation to success after a certain point. Specifically, he says, “The relationship between success and IQ works only up to a point. Once someone has reached an IQ of somewhere around 120, having additional IQ points doesn’t seem to translate into any measurable real-world advantage.” IQ tests and other talent assessments have long been used to enroll students in gifted education initiatives. It has been argued that not only are IQ tests inaccurate, but gifted programs are detrimental to a child’s education. While I concede that IQ tests are not the best way to determine intelligence, I still insist that gifted programs are beneficial for children that show a special aptitude in different school subjects. Without advanced programs to challenge children with unique abilities, these students are unable to reach their full potential.
The noon bell rings at an elementary school in the United States. The children walk in a supervised line from their classrooms to the cafeteria. Their smiles and voices reflect their anticipation and excitement after a long morning of learning. Once inside the cafeteria, they find their friends, sit down, and examine their lunches. I hear laughter and the typical lunch trading by those who didn't get what they expected in their brown bags. In the school office, a short distance from the cafeteria, a large group of children somberly wait in line for their medication. The school secretary is dispensing Ritalin. I'm told this medication will help them manage their attention behavior until they go home. But whom the Ritalin is really for is the issue I feel the need to examine.
Everyone would love to be intelligent and get good grades and a good job, maybe even invent something new and get money from it. If you had a chance to raise your IQ score by three times what it is now, would you do the operation? Would you take the risk of dying, having mental disabilities, not knowing the consequences? Most people would love to get smarter, but they do not want to get harmed during the operation.
production for use in society. When children first enter the education system, they are given several psychological tests to identify their intelligence quotient (IQ) score. This score allows educators to slot students on an accelerated, normal, or modified track which will follow them for their entire life. Students on an accelerated trajectory are identified throug...
In the article “Brain Gain: The Underground World of “Neuroenhancing” Drugs” (Yorker 2009) Margaret Talbot discusses the misuse of prescription drugs that enhance academic performance at the college level. First Talbot introduces readers to a young college history major at Harvard University named Alex who receives a description of a demanding, busy life which seems impossible to control without the safety unapproved adopted use of a drug named Adderall. After that Alex’s dependency on the prescription drugs cognitive enhancers is described when he asks his doctor to increase the amount of intake and the listing of his daily routine on using Adderall during a week that required him to write four term papers. Next Talbot describes a personal
The author argues that certain decision leads to vast amount of untapped human potential and limits success to few who are selected unjustly. This example supports “Mathews Effect”. The Gladwell’s example of Bill Gates proves the “10,000 Hour Rule”, He explained that the timing and opportunity played a huge role to become an expert at computer programming. Bill Gates had access to computers decades before computers became mainstream. Such a timing helped him capture the opportunity to master the tool of trade and put him in the perfect position to start Microsoft. The Gladwell’s example of experiment by Lewis Terman, He argues about that a person’s IQ have a limited control over success. He claims that there is a minimal difference in the levels of success attained by those with IQs between 125 and 170. The author adds that IQ cannot efficiently measure person’s creativity. A person who has a high IQ does not mean that it has a high chance of winning a Nobel Prize because other kind of intelligence matter too. With the help of these facts, Gladwell proves that the relationship between IQ and success is
"If Mozart or Beethoven had lived today they would have been drugged for ADHD. This would have destroyed their souls and immeasurably diminished human culture. In my opinion, the current indiscriminate drugging of children is satanic. It destroys character development and fosters a valueless culture. "When a problem arises take a drug."
Julian Savulescu has three main arguments in favor of biological enhancement for children. His first argument is choosing not to enhance is wrong. He talks about neglecting parents and lazy parents. Lazy parents are those who have children that have normal intelligence but refuse to do something that could better their child. Neglecting parents are those who give birth to those with special abilities that need enhancement to maintain, but the parents do not give them the enhancement they need. The choice of the parents to deprive their child of higher intellectual achievement due to enhancement is wrong because they choose to not to allow their children be able to obtain that more desirable state. The only way it is right to not enhance
Possessing an underutilized brain is like making a billion dollars, but simply hiding the money away forever: there are so many opportunities that stem from it, but it is worthless because it is never put to use. Rene Descartes felt this way himself, as he said, “It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well.” I wholeheartedly agree with this quote; a mind is the most precious of commodities but one’s brain is not employed, than it is as useless as a pile of dirt. Still, not only does one have to make use of their mind, it must be in a way that can benefit society. Only than has one truly “used it well.” Despite what some may believe, it is not enough to simply be intelligence; one must use it to make something of themselves.
DeNelsky, G. Y. (1996). The case against prescription privileges for psychologists. American Psychologist, 51(3), 207-212. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.3.207
The demographic used for the study is described as “highly advantaged children (middle-class whites with IQs of at least 135)…” (Gallagher). An IQ of 135 or higher is a very selective group and less than 1% of the entire world fits that criteria (“What Goes Into the Making of a Genius?”). With an IQ at or over 135, these children are more susceptible to anxiety, stress, and relationship issues among peers (“Social and Emotional Issues”). These troubles could directly impact their happiness and have a large effect on their lives if the issues persist. The results are even more limiting when the other factors such as race and financial background are taken into account. The lives led by these children are by no means typical and having access to certain advantages and a greater susceptibility to certain conditions can have an impact on the results. When 99% of the world is exempt from this study and the results are being applied to such a broad spectrum, it is not an acceptable application of the provided
Many students and young people trying to leave marks on their jobs now use brain-enhancing "smart" pills to help boost their exam grades or their ability to work long hours without tiring. It's quite possible that employers will start to demand that employees use stimulants. Drugs, originally made for dementia patients and children diagnosed with ADHD, are now available without prescription. Healthy individuals use them solely to improve their memory, motivation and attention, without any prior consult with their doctors. Many of these drugs are available on the Internet which comes in handy to young people who want to save their money for the future. What they do not take into consideration when buying stimulants on the Internet is the risk of not knowing for certain what they are getting. Moreover, long-term consequences and safety of the technologies are not known. Scientists haven’t done enough research to know how much of an impact even a short period of using such substances leaves on our brains.
The Oxford Dictionary defines intelligence as “the ability acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” Many people are born naturally intelligent, able to grasp and understand concepts easily, with little work. In children, it is easy to separate those born with higher intellectual ability from the rest, because they easily excel in learning. This skill is often lost by those born with it, and through a great deal of work others attain it. In order for an individual to have true intelligence into her adult years, she must foster what gifts she is given, and strive to better her self academically. Even as early as elementary school, many who are born with natural talent begin to fall behind intellectually. These students are often not