虽然它们是有害的，但几乎没有报道说它们没有效果。亚历克斯(哈佛毕业生)说，“生产力是一件好事”。Adderall和类似的药物通常被认为是神经增强剂，因为它们被认为有助于提高效率和集中注意力。Alex也说过，“只有当你专注于完成手头的任务时，它才会起到认知增强的作用”(Talbot, 655)，所以它们不仅仅是可以被接受和自动帮助。Alex解释道:“有多少次我在深夜服用了Adderall，然后决定，与其开始写论文，不如组织我的整个音乐图书馆!”Alex声称，“我回头看了我写的关于Adderall的论文，它们都很冗长”，“有了Adderall，我可以写出两页纸的东西，这些东西可以用几句话表达出来”。因此，尽管它们可能有助于提高生产率，但并不能提高良好的写作能力。一个名为Seltzer的“超人类主义者”使用了“一种叫做吡拉西坦的药物”(Talbot, 656)，但FDA并没有批准它的任何用途。在采访中，我问萨尔茨他是否认为他应该等待皮拉西坦的科学批准。他笑了。“我不想，”他说，“因为它正在起作用”(Talbot, 659)。使用者报告说，尽管已知和未知的风险和药物对人体和精神的设计，他们不在乎，只要它是有效的和工作的。这又引出了一个问题，如果人们继续使用它，是否值得禁止?虽然它有这样的后果，为什么没有被禁止。根据Talbot的说法，“禁止使用神经增强剂是没有意义的。(659) Talbot提出了一个观点，就像非法毒品交易一样，人们喜欢他们，并且可能会继续使用他们。此外，Talbot的概括“用户往往受过教育，享有特权……只要足够谨慎，就可以避免陷入麻烦”(659)引出了另一点;这是用户的决定。塔尔伯特声称，“他们可以自己选择如何改变自己的想法，就像他们可以自己决定如何塑造自己的身体一样。”“服用神经增强药物是使用者的选择和接受的风险，就像抽烟和喝酒一样，他们必须为后果和产品承担全部责任。”Seltzer相信使用神经增强剂“就像定制你自己定制你的大脑”(Talbot, 657)。在发展中社会，让个人表达他们的感受是很重要的，即使这意味着改变他们的一些东西。在社交方面，使用神经增强剂以一种他们想要的方式来开发一个人的大脑，可能不会被负面看待。然而，这会导致职业并发症。
While they are harmful, it is hardly reported to not be effective. Alex (a Harvard graduate) put it, “Productivity is a good thing”(Talbot, 655). Adderall and drugs like it are commonly identified as neuroenhancers because of they fact that they are supposed to help with productivity and focus. Alex has also stated though, “it only works as a cognitive enhancer insofar as you are dedicated to accomplishing the task at hand”(Talbot, 655), so it is not just like they can be taken and automatically help. Alex elaborates, “The number of times I’ve taken Adderall late at night and decided that, rather than starting my paper, hey, I’ll organize my entire music library!”(Talbot, 655) Alex claims, “I’ve looked back at my papers I’ve written on Adderall, and they’re verbose” and, “with Adderall I’d produce two pages on something that could be said in a couple of sentences”(Talbot, 655). So while they may help productivity, they don’t increase ability to write well. A “transhumanist” named Seltzer uses, “a drug called piracetam”(Talbot, 656), which is, not approved for any use by the FDA”(Talbot, 656). Upon interview, “I asked Seltzer if he thought he should wait for scientific ratification of piracetam. He laughed. “ I don’t want to,” he said, “Because it’s working”(Talbot , 659). Users report despite the known and unknown risks and design of the drug on the human body and mind, they don’t care as long as it is productive and working. This begs a further question, is it worth banning if people will continue to use it anyways? Though it has such consequences, why hasn’t it been banned. According to Talbot, “It makes no sense to ban the use of neuroenhancers. Too many people are already taking them, and the user’s them to be educate damd privileged peopler who proceed with just enough caution to avoid getting into trouble.”(659) Talbot makes a point, just like illegal drug trades, people like them, and will likely continue using them. Furthermore, Talbot’s generalization “the users tend to be educated and privileged…with just enough caution to avoid getting into trouble”(659) leads to another point; it is the user’s decision. Talbot claims “They can make their own choices about how to alter their minds, just as they can make their own decisions about shaping their bodies.” It is the choice and accepted risk of the user to take neuroenhancing drugs, just like smoking and drinking, they have to take all responsibility for the consequences and products. Seltzer believed using neuroenhancers, “ is like customizing yourself-customizing your brain” (Talbot, 657). In the developing society, it is considered important to let individuals express how they feel, even if it means changing something about them. Socially, using neuroenhancers to develop ones mind in a way they want, may not be looked negatively upon. However, this can lead to professional complications.