| Title |
Social Policy and Cognitive Enhancement: Lessons from Chess
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-018-9354-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilian Mihailov, Julian Savulescu |
| Abstract |
Should the development of pharmacological cognitive enhancers raise worries about doping in cognitively demanding activities? In this paper, we argue against using current evidence relating to enhancement to justify a ban on cognitive enhancers using the example of chess. It is a mistake to assume that enhanced cognitive functioning on psychometric testing is transferable to chess performance because cognitive expertise is highly complex and in large part not merely a function of the sum specific sub-processes. A deeper reason to doubt that pharmacological cognitive enhancers would be as significant in mind sports is the misleading parallel with physical enhancement. We will make the case that cognitive performance is less mechanical in nature than physical performance. We draw lessons from this case example of chess for the regulation of cognitive enhancement more generally in education and the professions. Premature regulation runs the risk of creating a detrimental culture of suspicion that ascribes unwarranted blame. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 9% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Singapore | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,189,903
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#101
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,542
of 336,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.