If you could magically make yourself a better person, would you? Psychiatrist Peter Kramer famously reported patients feeling "better than well" on Prozac, and it's been estimated that Ritalin can boost a healthy kid's SAT score more than 100 points. But is a better you still "you"?
In a study to be published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Jason Riis of NYU and two collaborators asked people which traits they wouldn't want to enhance with a simple pill, and why. They found that we're less eager to boost abilities we consider fundamental to our identities, such as empathy and social comfort, than skills we see as ancillary, such as memory and concentration. The degree to which we'd like to legislate others' ability to enhance a trait is uncorrelated with our own resistance to enhancing it, though, and is motivated by concerns about fairness rather than threats to the nature of self.
The researchers also asked people to consider slogans for a hypothetical drug. When the tag line advertised its self-enhancement value ("Zeltor: Become More Than Who You Are"), those who thought that the drug increased concentration were more likely to take it than those who thought it increased social comfort. But when touted as a chance to enable their true selves ("Zeltor: Become Who You Are"), anxieties about boosting both traits were equally low.
Riis says preliminary data also reveal that we're wary of embellishing traits we consider fundamental through neurosurgery or embryonic gene selection. But other results suggest that we don't shy from sculpting these traits when told we can do so through mental-training techniques such as yoga. "When it's an effortful process," Riis says, "you may see it as just bringing out the best in yourself."
Tags:
anxieties,
better person,
collaborators,
hypothetical drug,
improvement,
individuality,
journal of consumer research,
neuroethics,
nyu,
self enhancement,
self-enhancement,
slogans,
tag line,
traits,
true selves
