Ethics of standarized test and medication.

[Soyut]

It's unlikely to help anyone who doesn't have attentional problems. The only way I can see an advantage is if the test was nine hours long and involved intricate, obsessive work.

Adderall doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you focused. If your standardized test scores significantly improve with its use, you probably need it.

Actually, people without ADD do score higher on tests when they take Adderall. We had a discussion about this in psychology class.

How much higher, and how is it determined that they don't have ADD?

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin, not Adderall. But there is a medical test that you can preform to determine wether someone has ADHD. My cousin has a masters in psychology and she is actually certified to administer the test. As ofr how much higher did they score. I dunno, it was a measurable amount. I will try to find the source.

EDIT: not the study I was looking for but a good source nonetheless http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0801back-ritalin-ON.html

Ritalin can make people who are not ADHD do better on tests, and not just because they can study longer. It actually helps them focus.

[Ryadn]

This feels like a transfer of the "is taking steroids cheating" question from an athletic arena to an academic one. It is hard to see how gaining an unfair competitive advantage in any sort of arena is ethical.

If it made you smarter or more knowledgeable, I'd agree. But it only makes you more focused. Most people probably won't show much of a difference. For those that do, they probably should have had it prescribed.

I don't see the difference. If you are diagnosed and it is determined you do NOT need it, and you take it anyway for the purposes of being more focused for a test, how is that not a performance-enhancement? You can hardly argue that being more focused for a test than everyone else due to a drug is not an advantage. Does it matter if the improvement is only marginal? It is still a competitive advantage.

True. But then, breakfast is a competitive advantage. People who eat breakfast score significantly higher on tests than people who don't, which is why they always gave us juice and crackers during test week. Isn't it unfair to people who can't afford breakfast?

I'll admit that it's hard for me to evaluate this from an outside perspective. I was diagnosed with ADD when I was 7 (it runs in the family). I've never been able to focus normally without medication, so I'm probably a lot more sensitive to the deficit and how hard it is to manage than people without ADD.

[Barringtonia]

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin

Ooh, that's the one.

How much worse is taking Ritalin compared to, say, having a coffee to stay awake - I don't mean in terms of effect, where one aids concentration and the other aids wakefulness, I mean in terms of potency or side effects.

Not that I'm going to go and find Ritalin but we do seem to find any 'aid' as unnatural and therefore wrong but if it leads to greater productivity and one can manage any abuse, I'm very hazy on whether it's okay or not.

[Lackadaisical2]

This feels like a transfer of the "is taking steroids cheating" question from an athletic arena to an academic one. It is hard to see how gaining an unfair competitive advantage in any sort of arena is ethical.

If it made you smarter or more knowledgeable, I'd agree. But it only makes you more focused. Most people probably won't show much of a difference. For those that do, they probably should have had it prescribed.

I don't see the difference. If you are diagnosed and it is determined you do NOT need it, and you take it anyway for the purposes of being more focused for a test, how is that not a performance-enhancement? You can hardly argue that being more focused for a test than everyone else due to a drug is not an advantage. Does it matter if the improvement is only marginal? It is still a competitive advantage.

True. But then, breakfast is a competitive advantage. People who eat breakfast score significantly higher on tests than people who don't, which is why they always gave us juice and crackers during test week. Isn't it unfair to people who can't afford breakfast?

Not that many people can't afford breakfast, and usually for those that can't there are programs to help them. What about those who can't take the pill without side effects? They'd have a large disadvantage, eh?

[Ryadn]

It's unlikely to help anyone who doesn't have attentional problems. The only way I can see an advantage is if the test was nine hours long and involved intricate, obsessive work.

Adderall doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you focused. If your standardized test scores significantly improve with its use, you probably need it.

Actually, people without ADD do score higher on tests when they take Adderall. We had a discussion about this in psychology class.

How much higher, and how is it determined that they don't have ADD?

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin, not Adderall. But there is a medical test that you can preform to determine wether someone has ADHD. My cousin has a masters in psychology and she is actually certified to administer the test. As ofr how much higher did they score. I dunno, it was a measurable amount. I will try to find the source.

Machst nichts. Ritalin and adderall operate in generally the same way, by stimulating the area of the brain that controls executive functioning.

There is a diagnostic test; there is not a "medical" test. You can't do a blood draw and determine if someone had ADD. Like many things, it's part of a continuum. There are people who are on the extreme end, like my father, who cannot function without medication. There are people like me, in the middle of the deficient range, who can sometimes get by on intelligence, but expend incredible energy just trying to maintain at "normal", and who benefit greatly from medication. And then there are people straddling the diagnostic line, who may fall on either side of it depending on who's diagnosing them. It's not always a clear-cut thing.

[Soyut]

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin

Ooh, that's the one.

How much worse is taking Ritalin compared to, say, having a coffee to stay awake - I don't mean in terms of effect, where one aids concentration and the other aids wakefulness, I mean in terms of potency or side effects.

Not that I'm going to go and find Ritalin but we do seem to find any 'aid' as unnatural and therefore wrong but if it leads to greater productivity and one can manage any abuse, I'm very hazy on whether it's okay or not.

I had this debate with my psychology teacher who actually owns his own private business that test kids for ADHD. It went something like this:

ME: "If amphetamines (Ritalin) are not all that harmful in small doses, and it helps students who don't have ADHD do better in class, then why don't we simply make it available in vending machines here on campus?

HIM: "Do you really want to live in a society that condones designer drugs?"

ME: "We already live in a society that condones designer drugs. I can go downtown and order a martini, I can go to the library here on campus and get a cappuccino."

[Ryadn]

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin

Ooh, that's the one.

How much worse is taking Ritalin compared to, say, having a coffee to stay awake - I don't mean in terms of effect, where one aids concentration and the other aids wakefulness, I mean in terms of potency or side effects.

Not that I'm going to go and find Ritalin but we do seem to find any 'aid' as unnatural and therefore wrong but if it leads to greater productivity and one can manage any abuse, I'm very hazy on whether it's okay or not.

Adderall is more powerful than Ritalin. In my experience, it goes Ritalin < Dexedrine < Adderall.

[Maurepas]

Ive never taken the SAT...I took the ACT, the other was optional...

I didnt taken any drugs, still got a 23, not the best, but, I thought it was pretty good...

[Maurepas]

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin

Ooh, that's the one.

How much worse is taking Ritalin compared to, say, having a coffee to stay awake - I don't mean in terms of effect, where one aids concentration and the other aids wakefulness, I mean in terms of potency or side effects.

Not that I'm going to go and find Ritalin but we do seem to find any 'aid' as unnatural and therefore wrong but if it leads to greater productivity and one can manage any abuse, I'm very hazy on whether it's okay or not.

Adderall is more powerful than Ritalin. In my experience, it goes Ritalin < Dexedrine < Adderall.

I was almost put on Ritalin as a kid, my dad put a stop to i though...Ive often wondered if Id be different today if he'd've let them go through with it...

[Soyut]

It's unlikely to help anyone who doesn't have attentional problems. The only way I can see an advantage is if the test was nine hours long and involved intricate, obsessive work.

Adderall doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you focused. If your standardized test scores significantly improve with its use, you probably need it.

Actually, people without ADD do score higher on tests when they take Adderall. We had a discussion about this in psychology class.

How much higher, and how is it determined that they don't have ADD?

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin, not Adderall. But there is a medical test that you can preform to determine wether someone has ADHD. My cousin has a masters in psychology and she is actually certified to administer the test. As ofr how much higher did they score. I dunno, it was a measurable amount. I will try to find the source.

Machst nichts. Ritalin and adderall operate in generally the same way, by stimulating the area of the brain that controls executive functioning.

There is a diagnostic test; there is not a "medical" test. You can't do a blood draw and determine if someone had ADD. Like many things, it's part of a continuum. There are people who are on the extreme end, like my father, who cannot function without medication. There are people like me, in the middle of the deficient range, who can sometimes get by on intelligence, but expend incredible energy just trying to maintain at "normal", and who benefit greatly from medication. And then there are people straddling the diagnostic line, who may fall on either side of it depending on who's diagnosing them. It's not always a clear-cut thing.

Oh yeah true, I hate it when people argue that ADHD isn't real because you can't prove it with a blood test. I mean, there is no blood test to prove wether someone has schizophrenia, and that most definitely is a real disease.

[Ryadn]

This feels like a transfer of the "is taking steroids cheating" question from an athletic arena to an academic one. It is hard to see how gaining an unfair competitive advantage in any sort of arena is ethical.

If it made you smarter or more knowledgeable, I'd agree. But it only makes you more focused. Most people probably won't show much of a difference. For those that do, they probably should have had it prescribed.

I don't see the difference. If you are diagnosed and it is determined you do NOT need it, and you take it anyway for the purposes of being more focused for a test, how is that not a performance-enhancement? You can hardly argue that being more focused for a test than everyone else due to a drug is not an advantage. Does it matter if the improvement is only marginal? It is still a competitive advantage.

True. But then, breakfast is a competitive advantage. People who eat breakfast score significantly higher on tests than people who don't, which is why they always gave us juice and crackers during test week. Isn't it unfair to people who can't afford breakfast?

Not that many people can't afford breakfast, and usually for those that can't there are programs to help them. What about those who can't take the pill without side effects? They'd have a large disadvantage, eh?

Honestly, I can't take the pill without side-effects. It makes my tachycardia worse, even the extended release formula.

I can see the ethical issues surrounding it, certainly. I just wonder if someone who scores significantly higher on a standardized test using Adderall doesn't really need it.

[Ryadn]

Ive never taken the SAT...I took the ACT, the other was optional...

I didnt taken any drugs, still got a 23, not the best, but, I thought it was pretty good...

My standardized test scores didn't always show a lot of difference whether I was on my meds or off, because I've always enjoyed and had a knack for standardized tests (it was the one time of the year that many of my teachers realized I wasn't dumb). I'm a pretty fast test-taker, too: I never needed the extra time I was allowed by my 504. Adderall helps me more in day-to-day life, where it's harder to focus, prioritize and organize.

[Barringtonia]

I mean, what's more fair here?

Either you're just stuck with who you are, your upbringing, levels of concentration and intelligence and school is just a means of establishing the pecking order according to that..

Or you can use aids to give yourself every advantage required, and weigh that against the effects on your body or happiness or sense of self-worth.

I mean, sure, people will abuse it, some will suffer and some won't but, overall, what's the difference here?

Especially since we seem to have an arbitrary system for choosing which stimulants are okay and which are not.

[Ryadn]

Oh sorry, I meant Ritalin

Ooh, that's the one.

How much worse is taking Ritalin compared to, say, having a coffee to stay awake - I don't mean in terms of effect, where one aids concentration and the other aids wakefulness, I mean in terms of potency or side effects.

Not that I'm going to go and find Ritalin but we do seem to find any 'aid' as unnatural and therefore wrong but if it leads to greater productivity and one can manage any abuse, I'm very hazy on whether it's okay or not.

Adderall is more powerful than Ritalin. In my experience, it goes Ritalin < Dexedrine < Adderall.

I was almost put on Ritalin as a kid, my dad put a stop to i though...Ive often wondered if Id be different today if he'd've let them go through with it...

I was lucky in that regard, because my dad was diagnosed as a kid (way back in the 60's, before it was cool!) and my parents knew the signs and were both supportive. If it had been up to the school, I wouldn't have received any medication, any accommodations, or an extra ounce of their time.

[Maurepas]

Ive never taken the SAT...I took the ACT, the other was optional...

I didnt taken any drugs, still got a 23, not the best, but, I thought it was pretty good...

My standardized test scores didn't always show a lot of difference whether I was on my meds or off, because I've always enjoyed and had a knack for standardized tests (it was the one time of the year that many of my teachers realized I wasn't dumb). I'm a pretty fast test-taker, too: I never needed the extra time I was allowed by my 504. Adderall helps me more in day-to-day life, where it's harder to focus, prioritize and organize.

Same, Ive never taken any medications though...

[Sdaeriji]

This feels like a transfer of the "is taking steroids cheating" question from an athletic arena to an academic one. It is hard to see how gaining an unfair competitive advantage in any sort of arena is ethical.

If it made you smarter or more knowledgeable, I'd agree. But it only makes you more focused. Most people probably won't show much of a difference. For those that do, they probably should have had it prescribed.

I don't see the difference. If you are diagnosed and it is determined you do NOT need it, and you take it anyway for the purposes of being more focused for a test, how is that not a performance-enhancement? You can hardly argue that being more focused for a test than everyone else due to a drug is not an advantage. Does it matter if the improvement is only marginal? It is still a competitive advantage.

True. But then, breakfast is a competitive advantage. People who eat breakfast score significantly higher on tests than people who don't, which is why they always gave us juice and crackers during test week. Isn't it unfair to people who can't afford breakfast?

I'll admit that it's hard for me to evaluate this from an outside perspective. I was diagnosed with ADD when I was 7 (it runs in the family). I've never been able to focus normally without medication, so I'm probably a lot more sensitive to the deficit and how hard it is to manage than people without ADD.

Not being able to afford breakfast isn't quite the same as literally not having access to pills, but yes, if breakfast was truly unavailable to certain test-takers, it could be determined to be a competitive advantage, and steps would need to be taken to even that playing field.

Perhaps if I appeal to your sensitivity to ADD, I can get my point across better. You have ADD, so you require the medication simply to be brought up to a level playing field, focus-wise, as people who do not have ADD, yes? So, if someone who does not have ADD takes the medication to gain increased focus, that is an advantage you literally cannot achieve, since you need that same medication simply to function, focus-wise, similarly to the way someone unafflicted does naturally. Someone who is diagnosed as not having ADD taking ADD medication will have a competitive advantage over you that you will never be able to replicate, thus putting you back at the same disadvantage as if neither of you were taking any medication.

[Soyut]

I mean, what's more fair here?

Either you're just stuck with who you are, your upbringing, levels of concentration and intelligence and school is just a means of establishing the pecking order according to that..

Or you can use aids to give yourself every advantage required, and weigh that against the effects on your body or happiness or sense of self-worth.

I mean, sure, people will abuse it, some will suffer and some won't but, overall, what's the difference here?

Especially since we seem to have an arbitrary system for choosing which stimulants are okay and which are not.

I believe that people can live more fulfilling and productive lives through creative and strategic drug use. People always like to point out that drugs have bad side effects that often outweigh the advantages, but I contend that the risks involved in drug use have gone down significantly over time and personal drug use continues to become safer as medical knowledge and technology advances. Like those anti-depression drugs that were developed back in the 1980s that actually caused people to become more suicidal over time. Modern anti-depression drugs have great success rates and help people everyday. I think one of the best choices I have ever made in my life was to take anti-depressants.

[Maurepas]

I was lucky in that regard, because my dad was diagnosed as a kid (way back in the 60's, before it was cool!) and my parents knew the signs and were both supportive. If it had been up to the school, I wouldn't have received any medication, any accommodations, or an extra ounce of their time.

Idk If I actually needed them or not...I dont really have a problem concentrating really, so I suppose no...but the fact that they were considering it always made me wonder...

[Lackadaisical2]

This feels like a transfer of the "is taking steroids cheating" question from an athletic arena to an academic one. It is hard to see how gaining an unfair competitive advantage in any sort of arena is ethical.

If it made you smarter or more knowledgeable, I'd agree. But it only makes you more focused. Most people probably won't show much of a difference. For those that do, they probably should have had it prescribed.

I don't see the difference. If you are diagnosed and it is determined you do NOT need it, and you take it anyway for the purposes of being more focused for a test, how is that not a performance-enhancement? You can hardly argue that being more focused for a test than everyone else due to a drug is not an advantage. Does it matter if the improvement is only marginal? It is still a competitive advantage.

True. But then, breakfast is a competitive advantage. People who eat breakfast score significantly higher on tests than people who don't, which is why they always gave us juice and crackers during test week. Isn't it unfair to people who can't afford breakfast?

Not that many people can't afford breakfast, and usually for those that can't there are programs to help them. What about those who can't take the pill without side effects? They'd have a large disadvantage, eh?

Honestly, I can't take the pill without side-effects. It makes my tachycardia worse, even the extended release formula.

I can see the ethical issues surrounding it, certainly. I just wonder if someone who scores significantly higher on a standardized test using Adderall doesn't really need it.

Its hard to say, and as you said, these things tend to be a spectrum. It might just be those on the more ADD side that are getting benefits, I really don't know. I think Sdaeriji's situation goes more for what i was trying to say, but whether or not thats the case, I don't know.

[Lackadaisical2]

I mean, what's more fair here?

Either you're just stuck with who you are, your upbringing, levels of concentration and intelligence and school is just a means of establishing the pecking order according to that..

Or you can use aids to give yourself every advantage required, and weigh that against the effects on your body or happiness or sense of self-worth.

I mean, sure, people will abuse it, some will suffer and some won't but, overall, what's the difference here?

Especially since we seem to have an arbitrary system for choosing which stimulants are okay and which are not.

I believe that people can live more fulfilling and productive lives through creative and strategic drug use. People always like to point out that drugs have bad side effects that often outweigh the advantages, but I contend that the risks involved in drug use have gone down significantly over time and personal drug use continues to become safer as medical knowledge and technology advances. Like those anti-depression drugs that were developed back in the 1980s that actually caused people to become more suicidal over time. Modern anti-depression drugs have great success rates and help people everyday. I think one of the best choices I have ever made in my life was to take anti-depressants.

Last I heard, they still increased the risk of suicide, or at least in teens and young adults. I've lately considered taking anti-depressants, but I don't think thats the way to go for me.

[Barringtonia]

Perhaps if I appeal to your sensitivity to ADD, I can get my point across better. You have ADD, so you require the medication simply to be brought up to a level playing field, focus-wise, as people who do not have ADD, yes? So, if someone who does not have ADD takes the medication to gain increased focus, that is an advantage you literally cannot achieve, since you need that same medication simply to function, focus-wise, similarly to the way someone unafflicted does naturally. Someone who is diagnosed as not having ADD taking ADD medication will have a competitive advantage over you that you will never be able to replicate, thus putting you back at the same disadvantage as if neither of you were taking any medication.

Perhaps if the case was simply that medication was aimed at providing a level educational playing field but it does so much more than that for someone suffering from ADD. The gain is in terms of quality of life overall so I'm not sure the comparison is valid overall.

What we seem to be saying is that medication is fine only where there's a deficiency but then we provide or deal with various other advantages and/or disadvantages all over the board in terms of study. It's not a case of there being an equal playing field and the issue is only that some people simply have medical problems.

I was very suited to exam-based tests, I know others very suited to project-based tests, some are better overall from class to class but when 'tested' they have issues.

I'm just not sure one can call anything fair here and so taking a pill to increase concentration, decrease nerves or associate with others better all seems much of a muchness to me.

In an arbitrary world, I can't see the moral hazard of providing oneself with an advantage given it's weighed against any risk.

[Ryadn]

I mean, what's more fair here?

Either you're just stuck with who you are, your upbringing, levels of concentration and intelligence and school is just a means of establishing the pecking order according to that..

Or you can use aids to give yourself every advantage required, and weigh that against the effects on your body or happiness or sense of self-worth.

I mean, sure, people will abuse it, some will suffer and some won't but, overall, what's the difference here?

Especially since we seem to have an arbitrary system for choosing which stimulants are okay and which are not.

I believe that people can live more fulfilling and productive lives through creative and strategic drug use. People always like to point out that drugs have bad side effects that often outweigh the advantages, but I contend that the risks involved in drug use have gone down significantly over time and personal drug use continues to become safer as medical knowledge and technology advances. Like those anti-depression drugs that were developed back in the 1980s that actually caused people to become more suicidal over time. Modern anti-depression drugs have great success rates and help people everyday. I think one of the best choices I have ever made in my life was to take anti-depressants.

Last I heard, they still increased the risk of suicide, or at least in teens and young adults. I've lately considered taking anti-depressants, but I don't think thats the way to go for me.

Really, we just need more studies and more data about these medications. I'm pretty pro-medication if it's necessary, but it's not something to take lightly, and a pill certainly isn't a magical fix-all in these cases. I take adderall to help my concentration, but I've also worked with specialized counselors to become more organized and develop systems that help make up for my handicap. I take anti-depressants for depression, but I also see my therapist every week. Medication can be an important component in mental health, but it's only ONE component, and anyone who expects it to fix their lives without any work on their part is going to be disappointed.

[Ryadn]

Perhaps if I appeal to your sensitivity to ADD, I can get my point across better. You have ADD, so you require the medication simply to be brought up to a level playing field, focus-wise, as people who do not have ADD, yes? So, if someone who does not have ADD takes the medication to gain increased focus, that is an advantage you literally cannot achieve, since you need that same medication simply to function, focus-wise, similarly to the way someone unafflicted does naturally. Someone who is diagnosed as not having ADD taking ADD medication will have a competitive advantage over you that you will never be able to replicate, thus putting you back at the same disadvantage as if neither of you were taking any medication.

Perhaps if the case was simply that medication was aimed at providing a level educational playing field but it does so much more than that for someone suffering from ADD. The gain is in terms of quality of life overall so I'm not sure the comparison is valid overall.

What we seem to be saying is that medication is fine only where there's a deficiency but then we provide or deal with various other advantages and/or disadvantages all over the board in terms of study. It's not a case of there being an equal playing field and the issue is only that some people simply have medical problems.

I was very suited to exam-based tests, I know others very suited to project-based tests, some are better overall from class to class but when 'tested' they have issues.

I'm just not sure one can call anything fair here and so taking a pill to increase concentration, decrease nerves or associate with others better all seems much of a muchness to me.

In an arbitrary world, I can't see the moral hazard of providing oneself with an advantage given it's weighed against any risk.

This is pretty much what I'm struggling with. Well said.

And absolutely, medication improves all aspects of my life, not just academics (especially since I'm done with school). I think it's just associated so strongly with school because that's a setting where the impairment is really visible, but it affects every area of life.

[Dark Side Messiahs]

I watched an episode of Law & Order: SVU where a kid at a school for geniuses took a similar drug to be able to cram for a test. After she hadn't slept for 6 days, because the drug also acts like amphetamines, she slammed her roommates head in and dumped her body in the river.

Granted Adderall has not had a reaction like that, is just like abusing any drug. It is prescribed for a purpose to certain people who have a genuine need for the drug. If you need something to 'focus' go get some ginkgo biloba. Its less harmful in the long run.

[Sdaeriji]

Perhaps if I appeal to your sensitivity to ADD, I can get my point across better. You have ADD, so you require the medication simply to be brought up to a level playing field, focus-wise, as people who do not have ADD, yes? So, if someone who does not have ADD takes the medication to gain increased focus, that is an advantage you literally cannot achieve, since you need that same medication simply to function, focus-wise, similarly to the way someone unafflicted does naturally. Someone who is diagnosed as not having ADD taking ADD medication will have a competitive advantage over you that you will never be able to replicate, thus putting you back at the same disadvantage as if neither of you were taking any medication.

Perhaps if the case was simply that medication was aimed at providing a level educational playing field but it does so much more than that for someone suffering from ADD. The gain is in terms of quality of life overall so I'm not sure the comparison is valid overall.

What we seem to be saying is that medication is fine only where there's a deficiency but then we provide or deal with various other advantages and/or disadvantages all over the board in terms of study. It's not a case of there being an equal playing field and the issue is only that some people simply have medical problems.

I was very suited to exam-based tests, I know others very suited to project-based tests, some are better overall from class to class but when 'tested' they have issues.

I'm just not sure one can call anything fair here and so taking a pill to increase concentration, decrease nerves or associate with others better all seems much of a muchness to me.

In an arbitrary world, I can't see the moral hazard of providing oneself with an advantage given it's weighed against any risk.

But, within the context of test-taking, its relevant function is that it increases the user's ability to focus. So, someone who suffers from a diagnosible deficiency in the ability to focus needs the medication just to have the level of focus that an unafflicted person possesses. By taking the drug, they are given a level playing field in much the same way a blind person levels the playing field of a test by taking an audio version. But, in the case of a drug that increases the ability to focus in everyone, not just those who suffer from ADD, a person without ADD taking the drug gains an advantage over both people with ADD taking the drug and people without ADD who are just not taking the drug. They gain an advantage beyond everyone else taking the test.

And even past that, what makes this different from the breakfast objection is that, while everyone can be fed breakfast to gain that advantage, someone with ADD will never be able to gain the advantage gained by the non-ADD user because of the disadvantage they already suffer from that forces them to take the drug in the first place. If, hypothetically, SuperAdderall gives a noticable advantage in focus, people with ADD will eternally be locked out of gaining that advantage, which in essence is the same as if we did not allow them to take the drug at all.

edit: Just making it less wall-of-texty.