My Great Moral Questions/Holocaust teacher's good friend had a heart attack at 21 because of abusing red bull. But it's okay because it's legal.Uzique wrote:
at least i have the experience and entitlement to talk about both sides of the storyFlaming_Maniac wrote:
ITT: FDA professionals
in every thread with FM: wikipedia scholar with vast knowledge of fighter-jets, world literature and all forms of contemporary social debate.
coffee and red-bull does a fuckload of damage over a prolonged period of time. mood-swings and mental alterations, too.
the fact is, legally and socially... ritalin was probably like any other pharmaceutical compound, synthesized and tested... it was found to have a particular use in a certain area of (mental) healthcare, and then controlled and distributed with regulation for a) profits and industry-protection, b) because there was no valid social, utilitarian benefit in giving it to non-ADHD sufferers. the fact that the government/regulatory body considers it to have 'no benefit' to the public at large doesn't mean it's the devil's-pill and causes any particular harm to body/mind or mentality. shit, the fact that ritalin boosts performance and concentration in non-ADHD sufferers was only discovered serendipitously after it had been classified and deemed prescription-only-- if my prior research and knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry is anything to go by. my aunt is one of the senior-level experts in the NHS that considers directives and legislature to do with pills and medicine like this. the simple fact is that ritalin and the like probably aren't all that bad for you. caffeine isn't killer, either, but people neck it every single day. taurine isn't exactly the best thing for your metabolism or mood but people utilize that to their own ends every day, too. it's a social and ethical problem. not a medical crisis.
you could give yourself a myocardial infarction or form of cardiac injury using any form of stimulant, really. enough quantity and enough abuse. amphetamines and caffeine arent very different in their effect on your circulation and central-nervous system. heart gets jacked up. amphetamines are only possibly more dangerous because the chemical compounds metabolize and have different long-term effects/harm than caffeine and the like. as i said earlier though, and will continue reiterating... the best way to achieve a healthy, well-motivated work ethic is to develop a healthy, well-balanced diet. i wouldnt recommend any short-cut method, at all. ive already gone past the serious-damage phase myself.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I know it was a few pages back but I just got here...
Engineering. Long lists of memorizing stuff. I wish.
Engineering. Long lists of memorizing stuff. I wish.
My degree is in economics. On that spectrum, we're ahead of the social sciences, but behind the hard sciences. The same goes for business majors, although economics majors do a little bit more math than them.SenorToenails wrote:
First year calculus does have some memorization...as does first year anything. That is because you haven't learned enough to actually understand the basis for most of it...so you just need to know it for the test. Once you start deriving your own formulas, there is nowhere near as much memorization as there is a need to understand the problem and intelligently solve it. I would not EVER lump bio with a mature, mathematically based science. I say this as a guy with a BS in Applied Math and a MS in Physics who works in Biological/Medical research. Bio is not a matured science in the way Chem/Physics/Math are.Pochsy wrote:
Really? No experience? I tried them all before having decided it wasn't what I wanted to do. I took first year calculus.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You of course say all this with no experience in any of the fields.
You're ego is legendary.
But, my experience is limited, so we'll put aside the obvious argument: you don't have to sit them to understand what goes on.
Unoriginal thought. Original application.
Unless you are a PhD. Are you?
But Uzique is right...each field is different and complicated in it's own right.
Of course...there is a deep -seeded 'holier than thou' feeling that science and engineering majors tend to have over humanities and 'lesser' sciences, and this sums it up nicely!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
My finals, Mechanical Engineering at Imperial, were all open notes - howzat?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
nah I don't need to memorize this stuff, I can derive it all on the test
Fuck Israel
imperial is the sweet mother for abstract science/math courses. flaming, bow down.
and leave us art, humanity and philosophy students to our ivory tower.
ta.
and leave us art, humanity and philosophy students to our ivory tower.
ta.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think it's cute you used the proper medical terminologyUzique wrote:
you could give yourself a myocardial infarction or form of cardiac injury using any form of stimulant, really.......
Did I learn any real engineering practice though?Uzique wrote:
imperial is the sweet mother for abstract science/math courses. flaming, bow down.
and leave us art, humanity and philosophy students to our ivory tower.
ta.
No, bugger all.
Fuck Israel
that wasn't really the point though, was it? you don't go to imperial for a vocational degree... you go to a polytechnic.
more so i bet a degree from imperial could land you a placement at a much higher-level firm doing far more challenging practical work.
come on dilbert, you can't possibly complain.
plus over here in ivory tower land we love engrossing ourselves in petty academia and worlds completely removed from all concrete reality. who wants to get 'real' experience? over-rated.
more so i bet a degree from imperial could land you a placement at a much higher-level firm doing far more challenging practical work.
come on dilbert, you can't possibly complain.
plus over here in ivory tower land we love engrossing ourselves in petty academia and worlds completely removed from all concrete reality. who wants to get 'real' experience? over-rated.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
ok so reading thru this thread......
you guys are comparing a ADULT fighter pilot being given similar drugs by a DOCTOR on a limited basis versus kids using them whenever they want without a scrip?
you guys are comparing a ADULT fighter pilot being given similar drugs by a DOCTOR on a limited basis versus kids using them whenever they want without a scrip?
they're mostly used by 20+ year old university students for their exams...
there's no 'damage' done; not any more than there is done to the fighter pilot, anyway.
there's no 'damage' done; not any more than there is done to the fighter pilot, anyway.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
its rare with pilots....and monitored. you cannot say the same for college students. comparison is invalid imo.Uzique wrote:
they're mostly used by 20+ year old university students for their exams...
there's no 'damage' done; not any more than there is done to the fighter pilot, anyway.
comparison is invalid but the principle and precedent is the same... if doctors are giving these drugs to pilots, with millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of investment in them - i.e. pumping an asset worth more than the fighter jet he's flying with chemicals - then they clearly know it's not arsenic, right? similar to the germans being given amphetamines during WW2; admittedly the german command gave less of a shit about health or long-term effects, but they realized that these drugs do have a purpose and can be used to gain an advantage. im not saying that students are using it as responsibly or as safely as the military: what i am saying is that the fact they are even given in the first place to non-ADHD sufferers proves that there is a valid 'use' for them in the non-medical sector. the 'comparison' part is akin to comparing how 'safe' it is to drink in a bar with a barman watching over your inebriation, and the alternative of walking into a liquor store and buying a huge bottle of JD to consume in one session. personal (ir)responsibility is not a reason to ban a drug.
for the record, if it's not already clear, i don't agree with it - but for ethical reasons, not health. people use a range of chemicals, whether they're legal, approved, illegal, disapproved, to get them through revision sessions. everybody has a different body and brain chemistry when they're sat in an exam - even when it comes to factors like hydration, sleep/rest, energy-levels - and it affects performance for better or for worse. people that throw in extreme compounds/chemicals that boost performance or alter mindsets significantly are just ruining the fairness of the assessment.
for the record, if it's not already clear, i don't agree with it - but for ethical reasons, not health. people use a range of chemicals, whether they're legal, approved, illegal, disapproved, to get them through revision sessions. everybody has a different body and brain chemistry when they're sat in an exam - even when it comes to factors like hydration, sleep/rest, energy-levels - and it affects performance for better or for worse. people that throw in extreme compounds/chemicals that boost performance or alter mindsets significantly are just ruining the fairness of the assessment.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-04-28 04:27:54)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The British used amphetamines, the Germans used amphetamines, they don't use them any more.11 Bravo wrote:
its rare with pilots....and monitored. you cannot say the same for college students. comparison is invalid imo.
There is a colossal difference between alcohol and caffeine, and amphetamines, SSRIs etc.
The average college student shouldn't be 'self-medicating' with controlled drugs to get them through exams.
This is why I prefer subject which are a test of intelligence and deep understanding, as opposed to rote learning and regurgitation of 'accepted' arguments.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-28 06:11:37)
Fuck Israel
^ which is exactly why i refused to take law/economics/politics at university and instead went for a universal-understanding arts degree. of course to different ends; your idea of a subject which tests 'deep understanding' ultimately, i suppose, comes back to some practical implementation or vocational application, e.g. engineering, where one uses intelligence and initiative to achieve a goal or work around a concrete problem. i very much enjoy studying theoretical, conceptual and abstract notions without the aid of amphetamines, SSRI's and even caffeine/mood-altering chemicals; i save the former for occasions after the hard-work is done .
Last edited by Uzique (2010-04-28 06:23:18)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think some of you are mixing long term use and side affects into the equation, when really the topic appears to be focusing more upon students using ritalin and dexamphetamines for study before exams, cramming assignements etc.
In reality I seriously doubt there's any long term damage done to uni students if they're giving the same medications to children - whom have developing brains and bodies - and over a longer period of time, and with more regularity (though I remain open to be proven incorrect through cited scientific study).
In reality I seriously doubt there's any long term damage done to uni students if they're giving the same medications to children - whom have developing brains and bodies - and over a longer period of time, and with more regularity (though I remain open to be proven incorrect through cited scientific study).
Who the hell brought SSRIs into this conversation they're antidepressants. I guarantee no one is popping Prozac to help study (unless you're prescribed of course). College students use stimulants: adderall, concerta, ritalin, and good ol' caffeine. It's not really a big deal, as long as you don't rely on them. Amphetamines seemed to work well for Paul Erdos.
i mentioned ssri's because i know from heavy amphetamine abuse / addiction that the SSRI's are the other side of the equation
after a heavy amphet binge, you pop some ssri's and it puts your seratonin levels back up- avoids the comedown and feeling of dysphoria.
also nukes your brain to holy shit
after a heavy amphet binge, you pop some ssri's and it puts your seratonin levels back up- avoids the comedown and feeling of dysphoria.
also nukes your brain to holy shit
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
My sole incentive to study hard is to avoid shitting myself.