A pastor named John Piper said it well, “If hearing about God’s judgment makes it harder for us to love God, then probably the God we love is a figment of our imagination and not the real and true God. If we would love the true God, we must know the true God. There is something wrong with our faith if we cannot sing praises to God not only as our loving Father but also as the righteous Judge of all the earth.”
The benefit of sequential analysis here is being able to stop early, conserving pills, and letting me test another dosage: if I see another pattern of initial benefits followed by decline, I can then try cutting the dose by taking one pill every 3 days; or, if there is a benefit and no decline, then I can try tweaking the dose up a bit (maybe 3 days out of 5?). Since I don’t have a good idea what dose I want and the optimal dose seems like it could be valuable (and the wrong dose harmful!), I can’t afford to spend a lot of time on a single definitive experiment.
Farah has also been considering the ethical complications resulting from the rise of smart drugs. Don't neuroenhancers confer yet another advantage on the kind of people who already can afford private tutors? Writing last year in the Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Virginia, a columnist named Greg Crapanzano argued that neuroenhancers "create an unfair advantage for the users who are willing to break the law in order to gain an edge. These students create work that is dependent on the use of a pill rather than their own work ethic." Of course, it's hard to imagine a university administration that would require students to pee in a cup before entering an exam hall. And even with the aid of a neuroenhancer, you still have to write the essay, conceive the screenplay or finish the grant proposal. Moreover, if you can take credit for work you've done on caffeine or nicotine, then you can take credit for work produced on Provigil.