Become a Savant in Minutes!

[XS]

While watching season 3 of Through The Wormhole, the implications of brain zapping started rolling around in my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation

TDCS, Transcranial direct current stimulation has the ability to significantly increase the cognitive performance of the user, in essence giving the user the ability to learn anything the heart desires in minutes or hours. While there are scams on the Internet and DIY devices which probably won't do squat, real scientific experiments have shown subjects with the ability to learn calculus in minutes, and complex computer programming courses taken in one hour instead of months.
So I was curious GT Planet, is this something you would consider if/when it becomes commercially available? What do you think about people cheating their way to expertise on a certain topic?

Personally, I would consider TDCS, for learning to play the guitar. I've been at the same level of ability for years, and the idea of becoming a guitar savant seems exciting. The possibilities are endless. However, I do think it is cheating, and that alone makes it seem like it's not worth it. I am who I am, and I don't know how I feel about cheating my way to a better ability. What if we all were experts at GT? What fun would that be?

 

[Dean]

Yay, I'm not the only one watching Through the Wormhole !
(I actually remember watching that exact episode you're referencing to.)


- Well, yes, I would consider using it, if it's affordable, but as this will be a "new technology", I'm pretty sure it won't be.

Though, I do agree: it's cheating .

 

[Exorcet]

What makes it cheating?

 

[XS]

In my opinion, it's no different than performance enhancing drugs or blood doping for athletes. It's cheating because there's no way your own discipline and will could ever increase your cognitive performance the way TDCS could.

 

[Exorcet]

Those things are only cheating because they are banned, not because they are inherently wrong to use. They are tools. TDCS is a tool. Dumbells are tools. I don't see much difference.

 

[XS]

Dumbells are tools in the way a textbook is a tool. TDCS is an unnatural, man-made advantage, like performance enhancing drugs. Of course this is a difference of opinions, but I have a feeling that it's cheating, for me. What feels like cheating to me, does not for you, hence the controversy. If it ever becomes commercially available, am I better than you for not utilizing it? No, and I know that sounds contradicting, but it's not as if learning calculus is a competition, so I don't think it would be inherently wrong for someone to use TDCS to learn it faster, so long as they're being tested on equal standards.

 

[nobuffalo]

TDCS is an unnatural, man-made advantage...

And textbooks aren't?

 

[XS]

You're learning naturally, knowledge that is passed on from other humans who've already learned it, you can't get any more natural than that. A textbook is man made, yes, but the act of learning what is being communicated within the pages isn't improved, the pace and ability of which is up to the individual. Why are textbooks and dumbells more natural than TDCS or steroids? Because each can be substituted for another tool (spoken word, or outdoor exercise) and performance isn't gained or lost. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, you know exactly what I meant.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yes. Yes I would.

 

[niky]

There are textbooks and there are textbooks.

The proper textbook will teach you how to learn and programs you to follow the course in a logical sequence. It'll teach you the shortcuts (mnemonic, systemic, etcetera) that will help you approach the problem more quickly than you could otherwise. A straightforward textbook that merely details the subject matter like a laundry list, on the other hand, won't help you at all. In both cases, the information given is the same, but the approach is vastly different.

-

Is knowing the "SOH-CAH-TOA" shortcut cheating? Is learning the abacus cheating? Both allow you to perform calculations and approach problems more quickly and easily than if you approached them through rote learning and memorization.

Memory masters use mnemonic shortcuts that allow them to get around the memory-buffer limit. Is this cheating, as well?

You might argue that the difference is that both examples involve actual work... but they involve much less work than the ordinary ways of doing things.

-

This would be no different. It requires less work, but you still have to do the work.

-

That's if it's true. While I've heard that stimulation can increase learning and cognition for a bit, from what I know, it's not a tenfold increase or so dramatic that you can pick up something a whole lot faster... it just helps you retain what you've learned better. Much like electric brain food.

 

[KSaiyu]

But textbooks don't cause a biological change.

* ok so technically they will, but that's like how training causes a response in muscles. I think XS's point is they increase the capacity, a la performance enhancing drugs. It would be interesting who the person would be "cheating" though - God? Themselves?

 

[niky]

Read a textbook often enough and you will eventually cause a physical change in the brain.

-

I've seen demos where stimulation has temporarily increased creativity... somewhat... but in the end, it doesn't make your regular schmoe an M.C. Escher.

In the same vein, increasing neuroplasticity (as cited in the wikipedia article) won't make you an Einstein. It'll help you learn faster and retain more easily, but in the end, it won't make you smarter.

-

But if eventually there comes a technology that does... why not? A lot of our world problems could be lessened if people were just a little bit smarter. At the very least, democracy would work better.

 

[Exorcet]

You're learning naturally, knowledge that is passed on from other humans who've already learned it, you can't get any more natural than that. A textbook is man made, yes, but the act of learning what is being communicated within the pages isn't improved, the pace and ability of which is up to the individual. Why are textbooks and dumbells more natural than TDCS or steroids? Because each can be substituted for another tool (spoken word, or outdoor exercise) and performance isn't gained or lost. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, you know exactly what I meant.

I don't think there is any arguing for the sake of arguing here. We may know what you mean, but perhaps it doesn't make sense to us like it does to you.

I don't see the textbook as more natural. Human nature is to modify the environment to suit ourselves. Dump humans in a forest with no knowledge of science, no clothing, not even sharpened stones for tools, and you end up with New York City eventually. This is an extension of our nature, and there are some pretty big potential benefits. Not just for the person who gains intelligence, but for everyone.

Textbooks came about when people developed language and information storage capability that did not exist previous and allowed us to remove the barriers of information blocking one mind from the next. Altering our bodies is just like a directed and sped up form of evolution, which is what made us what we are in the first place. It's perfectly natural, I think.

 

[Lizard]

In my opinion, it's no different than performance enhancing drugs or blood doping for athletes. It's cheating because there's no way your own discipline and will could ever increase your cognitive performance the way TDCS could.

There is a huge difference though between drugs and this if it works.

People want to see which athlete is the fastest. Not the one who took the best drugs so drugs were banned, also health worries.

This on the other hand would have the power to advance science and other things. That engineer only needing a few hours to learn means an engineer is available rather than you waiting for them to train over years.

What is the point in putting years of study in when they don't need to? It is in our interest to do it quickly.

Cheating in exams is also different. You get answers but you don't know them when you come to need them. With this you would remember when you need that knowledge for a job.

 

[KSaiyu]

I wonder, would taking "smart" drugs be cheating?

 

[Lizard]

I wonder, would taking "smart" drugs be cheating?

In exams?
I don't think so as exams are to see if you have the required skills/knowledge in a subject. With this system you would keep the knowledge whilst you forget it again under normal cheating.

 

[marxlien]

why cheating?
cheating on what?, the competition of life?
you cheat when you compete in/for something and this competition has certain rules that you break.

use a shortcut to learn how to play a guitar, love or do calculus it's not cheating.

i wouldn't do it.btw.

 

[photonrider]

I just eat fish.

 

[Akira AC]

Having an IQ of 127 measured by a psychiatrist makes me think that sole cognition can't do the trick, I would think that only a neurotransmitter that can trigger certain areas on the frontal lobe that might increase some of the associative functions.

Now, a bit of neurology has to be accounted for this, specially how synapses in the brain works and what can affect/non affect the neuroreceptors, apparently they want to to cheat the I/O system on the neurons by working out the grey matter. Props for them, but intelligence works in par with memory/association/cognition/linguistics/spacial recognition/interpersonal and intra personal abilities, most of them wide spread across the brain so the whole "savant in minutes" can be a bit misleading, it might increase memory and cognition itself, but there are many more areas to be covered.

(Inverse effect is me taking clonazepam, that seem to impair some of the brain activity when it comes to cognition or memory, also balance and it generates confusion as it blocks some of the synapses between neurons).

 

[Zenith]

"Do as little work as possible" is the mantra of the smart, not the lazy.

 

[Dean]

I just eat fish.

So do I, but I don't get smarter ...

 

[kennylmao]

"Do as little work as possible" is the mantra of the smart, not the lazy.

YES. 👍

Because efficiency.

 

[lbsf1]

Why not, surely the intelligent thing to do would be to do it since you are getting to the same result with the least amount of effort, and thus leaving more time to pursue other interests.