Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
339 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Contag;37448684]What methodology did they use to account for those variables?[/QUOTE]
Seriously did you even read the study?
I bet you fucking didn't. You came in here, read the article, and went "wah wah I don't agree with that." Guess what buddy: 30 years of empirical evidence trumps your ignorance.
Here's some graphs for you, since I can't be assed to pull the relevant quotes:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/4aBAc.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rAQAj.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/DFl4e.png[/img]
You don't even HAVE ACCESS TO the study, though. Come back when you have read it.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441662]Well yes, when you try to include a bullshit science in your reasoning, you tend to be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
I bet sociology is a bullshit science to you too, right
I mean because these elections thing they just *happen* with no rhyme nor reason hahaha. You think political science isn't a real science? Go take it up with the board of education. I don't think CLIMATE STUDY is a real science, hurr. I don't think statistics is a real science, so I'm just going to ignore all the numbers presented by this study, hurr.
Your anti-intellectualism drivel is astounding
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441662]
I said that this study needs to be performed more than once, in more than one area, and with more than just one team. By doing this, most of the extraneous factors can be accounted for. But good job by taking the extreme, really puts your point across. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Heyo! "I do not understand what a scientific sample is"
I would be more than glad to demonstrate their sample, but I know you haven't even read the study! You post a page from the study and I'll take it seriously that you even read it
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441662]
No, I just happened to find quotes randomly that, by coincidence, were related to what I was saying. :downs:
The illegal-ness has nothing to do with it. I don't know you at all, a fact I'm actually proud of, but even a closet nerd would know that many drinkers will lie about the amount they actually drink.
[/QUOTE]
Can you back it up with empirical evidence that contradicts this study? No, wait, you're not a scientist that spent 30 years researching this. Hah. Silly me.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441662]
I'm going to make a guess and say that the source of your uptightness originates from a lack of social life/having fun, and I urgently suggest you do something to reverse that. It's your life though, after all.[/QUOTE]
Why thank you yes clearly I have no life because I think you're wrong. Oh hey, speaking of which. I think the source of your ignorance is a lack of social life. Hey how about that. Look I can make dumb ad-hom attacks too!
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449070]
I just remembered something else that this study definitely didn't account for. Certainly the weed used was not standardized, so people must have consumed weed with a higher THC content than those who consumed low quality marijuana. Which means everyone was affected differently. This is something that is impossible to account for unless the study is performed uniformly, like I said.[/QUOTE]
you know what the best part is
"Prove it"
You've never even read the study!
[QUOTE=scout1;37449108]
I bet sociology is a bullshit science to you too, right [/QUOTE]
Actually no, sociology is a widely accepted science. Political "science" is not.
[QUOTE=scout1;37449108]
I mean because these elections thing they just *happen* with no rhyme nor reason hahaha. You think political science isn't a real science? Go take it up with the board of education. I don't think CLIMATE STUDY is a real science, hurr. I don't think statistics is a real science, so I'm just going to ignore all the numbers presented by this study, hurr.
[/QUOTE]
Way to go again, taking what I said to the extreme without listening actually reading my post at all. You compared political science to something that has a scientific basis. I corrected what you did wrong. I imagine you wasted your time learning about this science, hence why you're supporting it so strongly despite it having zero real importance in this thread.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you said, for a few reasons. The major one: you basically repeated the same sentence over and over again "hurr durr, you haven't read the study! i am the super debator!!!!"
You have also failed multiple times to actually read what I said.
Being uptight and acting like a total jackass in this thread for some particular reason, henceforth showing to all you are having problems socially and need to vent them by posting [B]does NOT[/B] equate to you having problems socially due to you having a different opinion than mine. If we shared the same opinion, I would still be saying the exact same thing about you.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449288]Actually no, sociology is a widely accepted science. Political "science" is not.
Way to go again, taking what I said to the extreme without listening actually reading my post at all. You compared political science to something that has a scientific basis. I corrected what you did wrong. I imagine you wasted your time learning about this science, hence why you're supporting it so strongly despite it having zero real importance in this thread.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you said, for a few reasons. The major one: you basically repeated the same sentence over and over again "hurr durr, you haven't read the study! i am the super debator!!!!"
You have also failed multiple times to actually read what I said.
Being uptight and acting like a total jackass in this thread for some particular reason, henceforth showing to all you are having problems socially and need to vent them by posting [B]does NOT[/B] equate to you having problems socially due to you having a different opinion than mine. If we shared the same opinion, I would still be saying the exact same thing about you.[/QUOTE]
You haven't read the study
That is a simple fact.
You have not read the study.
I know you haven't. If you did or could, you would be able to prove it.
You haven't even read the study and you're trying to argue with it.
[QUOTE=scout1;37449304]You haven't read the study
That is a simple fact.
You have not read the study.
I know you haven't. If you did or could, you would be able to prove it.
You haven't even read the study and you're trying to argue with it.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/y3Yxr.gif[/IMG]
Keep it up, you got even farther with that post! Which is to say, nowhere.
To add on to what I said before, the THC content is a major problem with this study. People could be smoking something that has 0% THC or CMB, i.e. a placebo, and still think they were smoking weed. The negative sterotype of marijuana use is dumbness; one could easily think they were dumber simply by the act of smoking it. Which is why uniform testing is required; a placebo group would remove this possibility. High, medium, and low THC content testing could be performed to understand fully its effects, without leaving it ambiguous as seen in this study.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449070][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/c9X6n.gif[/IMG]
I just remembered something else that this study definitely didn't account for. Certainly the weed used was not standardized, so people must have consumed weed with a higher THC content than those who consumed low quality marijuana. Which means everyone was affected differently. This is something that is impossible to account for unless the study is performed uniformly, like I said.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much all weed in nz is real good so There wouldnt be that much diversity
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449391]
Keep it up, you got even farther with that post! Which is to say, nowhere.
To add on to what I said before, the THC content is a major problem with this study. People could be smoking something that has 0% THC or CMB, i.e. a placebo, and still think they were smoking weed. The negative sterotype of marijuana use is dumbness; one could easily think they were dumber simply by the act of smoking it. Which is why uniform testing is required; a placebo group would remove this possibility. High, medium, and low THC content testing could be performed to understand fully its effects, without leaving it ambiguous as seen in this study.[/QUOTE]
Let me put it this way
The study accounted for it
Prove me wrong.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37449393]Pretty much all weed in nz is real good so There wouldnt be that much diversity[/QUOTE]
Not everyone is going to be smoking the good herb; even in Amsterdam or Vancouver somebody is going to get reggy shit.
One person, not scout1 I'd imagine as it'd take him a few milennia to actually come out with a well-thought out response to me, might say "Wait a minute, if the weed was standarized, how would that conform to the weed that everyone in the real world smokes? Certainly the variability in THC represents the variability of street/clinical weed that the everyday man would be able to acquire." Except not, because the weed in New Zealand certainly isn't going to represent the weed in America/Europe/etc, and without knowing the actual content you have no idea if it's actually marijuana's fault for the IQ drop, or if it's a placebo caused by smoking weed in general and falling into the common sterotype of "dur, all weed smokers are dumb."
[QUOTE=scout1;37449406]Let me put it this way
The study accounted for it
Prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Except I don't have to, because the study didn't account for it. I, and hopefully anyone else who stepped back for a second in thought, would know this, even without looking at the study, because it's impossible to account for this as I said (again, you seem to have ignored this). You can keep lying to yourself and us by saying that it did somehow magically account for it, but it won't change what actually occurred at all. You're wasting bandwidth trying to speak different.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449442]Not everyone is going to be smoking the good herb; even in Amsterdam or Vancouver somebody is going to get reggy shit.
One person, not scout1 I'd imagine as it'd take him a few milennia to actually come out with a well-thought out response to me, might say "Wait a minute, if the weed was standarized, how would that conform to the weed that everyone in the real world smokes? Certainly the variability in THC represents the variability of street/clinical weed that the everyday man would be able to acquire." Except not, because the weed in New Zealand certainly isn't going to represent the weed in America/Europe/etc, and without knowing the actual content you have no idea if it's actually marijuana's fault for the IQ drop, or if it's a placebo caused by smoking weed in general and falling into the common sterotype of "dur, all weed smokers are dumb."
Except I don't have to, because the study didn't account for it. I, and hopefully anyone else who stepped back for a second in thought, would know this, even without looking at the study, because it's impossible to account for this as I said (again, you seem to have ignored this). You can keep lying to yourself and us by saying that it did somehow magically account for it, but it won't change what actually occurred at all. You're wasting bandwidth trying to speak different.[/QUOTE]
The study consists of two lines
"weed is bad for you
when do we get paid?"
You don't even know if it does or doesn't. You're blindly arguing against something you haven't even read. Maybe it did try to. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it tried and failed hard. Maybe it says "WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW." You don't know. You don't know one bit. You're conjecturing. You're guessing.
[QUOTE=scout1;37449512]The study consists of two lines
"weed is bad for you
when do we get paid?"
You don't even know if it does or doesn't. You're blindly arguing against something you haven't even read. Maybe it did try to. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it tried and failed hard. Maybe it says "WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW." You don't know. You don't know one bit. You're conjecturing. You're guessing.[/QUOTE]
And how do you even know that I haven't read it? Because I didn't tell you outright that I did? You don't know anything that I've done; the only person here conjecturing is [I][B]you.
[/B][/I]AS I SAID BEFORE, I would [B]NOT[/B] have to read the study in the first place to know that it DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT. [B]AT ALL. It's common fucking sense.[/B]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449539]And how do you even know that I haven't read it? Because I didn't tell you outright that I didn't? You don't know anything that I've done; the only person here conjecturing is [I][B]you.
[/B][/I]AS I SAID BEFORE, I would [B]NOT[/B] have to read the study in the first place to know that it DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT. [B]AT ALL. It's common fucking sense.[/B][/QUOTE]
See here's the thing
If you read the study
One of the first things any study does is tell you exactly what its procedure was, how they accounted for variables, the group, the factors, everything
and you're going "huh well maybe they didn't do this"
You don't know
You demonstrably don't know. It is the first thing in the study.
You didn't read the study.
far out you's are having a pointless argument. obviously it's not 100% factual because there's no such thing as a 100% factual study, but it does show that weed CAN have negative impacts on developing minds, something i'm fairly sure we all knew anyway? and scout1 still gonna say you should calm down far out you're just as hostile today you're gonna give yourself a hernia or somethin
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37449574]far out you's are having a pointless argument. obviously it's not 100% factual because there's no such thing as a 100% factual study, but it does show that weed CAN have negative impacts on developing minds, something i'm fairly sure we all knew anyway? and scout1 still gonna say you should calm down far out you're just as hostile today you're gonna give yourself a hernia or somethin[/QUOTE]
I am honestly laughing my ass off over here. I had *assumed* I was talking to people who were blind but had read the study. Now that I have realized the simple, silly truth, I can just laugh at you all day.
[QUOTE=scout1;37449585]I am honestly laughing my ass off over here. I had *assumed* I was talking to people who were blind but had read the study. Now that I have realized the simple, silly truth, I can just laugh at you all day.[/QUOTE]
how can u read if ur blind.... but yeah what? why are you laughing at me i'm agreeing with you just not your spastic psycho way of putting your point across
[QUOTE=scout1;37449562]See here's the thing
If you read the study
One of the first things any study does is tell you exactly what its procedure was, how they accounted for variables, the group, the factors, everything
and you're going "huh well maybe they didn't do this"
You don't know
You demonstrably don't know. It is the first thing in the study.
You didn't read the study.[/QUOTE]
Except I'm not going "huh well maybe they didn't do this". They didn't do it. Stop lying to me, and stop lying to yourself.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8lsg2.gif[/IMG]
Anyway, if no one else is going to contribute to this thread, then I'm done. Clearly my attempt of trying to help an ignorant jack ass get a self-revelation has gone unnoticed, so I bid you adieu.
Oh, and for good measure. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9gdyd.gif[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro / threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449599]Except I'm not going "huh well maybe they didn't do this". They didn't do it. Stop lying to me, and stop lying to yourself.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know I'm lying to you?
I'm looking at the study. Page 6, bout 2/3rds down. It starts listing procedure for mitigating different content in Marijuana. Go read the study if you can (you can't). Tell me how I'm lying to you.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37449599]Except I'm not going "huh well maybe they didn't do this". They didn't do it. Stop lying to me, and stop lying to yourself.
*image macros*[/QUOTE]
So Is Pat4ever proof of the study's findings?
I dunno but I can tell you I'll be having an actual scientist posting in a moment who actually knows what the fuck statistics are
This seems like a fun topic to join in on. Like Scout showed in his screencaps, there are four pieces of supplemental information available from the study that can be obtained without purchasing the paper itself. They are [url=http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109/suppl/DCSupplemental]here[/url].
First is a PDF outlining the [B]changes[/B] in IQ between those who used cannabis weekly before age 18, and those who used cannabis weekly after age 18. Measurements were only made when an individual was diagnosed with cannabis dependence, and the graph makes comparisons in the 1, 2, and 3 or more diagnosis brackets. Each bracket indicates that those who used cannabis weekly prior to age 18 had a [B]more negative change in IQ[/B] than those who used it weekly after age 18. This addresses the issue of whether smoking cannabis regularly at a young age is more harmful than smoking it regularly when one is older (it is more harmful).
Second is a word document containing how changes in IQ are dependent upon regularity of cannabis consumption. It states the results of the entire test, as well as the results of each individual IQ test. Again, regular cannabis use results in a [B]more negative[/B] change in IQ, and using cannabis regularly over longer periods of time further magnifies the loss. Only two exceptions to this trend exist in the pool of individuals who used cannabis regularly for the longest period of time: they performed better on the arithmetic subtest by a statistically insignificant margin, and better on the picture completion subtest by a statistically significant margin. Definitions for small (0.20), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) margins are given at the bottom of the document.
The third supplement addresses the [B]influence of external factors on the IQ tests[/B], i.e., factors besides cannabis consumption that could impair one's performance on an IQ test, in order to [B]rule out alternative explanations[/B]. It again lists the change in IQ for individuals who never used cannabis, used it but weren't diagnosed with cannabis dependence, and those with one, two, or three or more diagnoses. It then lists the same change in IQ, this time excluding those who had used cannabis in the [B]past 24 hours[/B], used cannabis in the [B]past week[/B], were [B]tobacco dependent[/B], were [B]hard-drug dependent[/B], were [B]alcohol dependent[/B], or who had [B]schizophrenia[/B]. In short, they account for many of the factors that previous posters have claimed were unaddressed. In all cases, [B]no statistically significant change existed[/B] between the complete group and the group that remained after eliminating individuals who were influenced by an external factor.
The last piece of supplementary information lists the different tests used to evaluate the IQ of the participants. This isn't a "match the pictures to test your IQ" ad from the internet; a test that addressed each subset of IQ was administered to the participants at the start of the study, and [B]five[/B] tests were administered to the adults of the study by [B]ten different psychologists[/B] who were kept [B]uninformed[/B] of each participant's previous results.
In summation, from just the supplemental information from the report, we can conclude that beginning to consume cannabis prior to age 18 will cause a greater negative change in IQ than beginning to consume it after age 18; that those who consume cannabis regularly and for longer periods of time have a more negative change in IQ than those who don't; that accounting for external factors such as tobacco, alcohol, or other drug consumption, and even schizophrenia do not skew the results in a statistically meaningful way; and that the IQ tests in their entirety were administered in an environment that was kept as free from bias as can be accomplished in a study of humans that is executed by humans.
So. Anyone who still thinks the report was horribly biased, poorly done, or based off of faux information, please stand up for all to see and present evidence and reasoning to support your claim.
[QUOTE=Nightsure;37448244]If you don't make weed your life then you wont get stupid, anyone who isn't 420 get blazed erry'day knows this.
No one would really be bothered if you drunk a lot, it's because weed isn't as socially acceptable as alcohol, despite being arguably less harmful to your body.[/QUOTE]
I really hope this is sarcasm, but there are people who think exactly like this; "Alcohol is socially acceptable so it must be good for you!".
And I laughed heartily when you said "despite being [B]arguably[/B] less harmful to your body", as if anyone could pose any sort of valid argument of alcohol vs weed given the KDR.
[EDIT]
Oh, never mind, I might have misread what you were saying.
[QUOTE=Fyhlen;37449846]This seems like a fun topic to join in on. Like Scout showed in his screencaps, there are four pieces of supplemental information available from the study that can be obtained without purchasing the paper itself. They are [url=http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109/suppl/DCSupplemental]here[/url].
First is a PDF outlining the [B]changes[/B] in IQ between those who used cannabis weekly before age 18, and those who used cannabis weekly after age 18. Measurements were only made when an individual was diagnosed with cannabis dependence, and the graph makes comparisons in the 1, 2, and 3 or more diagnosis brackets. Each bracket indicates that those who used cannabis weekly prior to age 18 had a [B]more negative change in IQ[/B] than those who used it weekly after age 18. This addresses the issue of whether smoking cannabis regularly at a young age is more harmful than smoking it regularly when one is older (it is more harmful).
Second is a word document containing how changes in IQ are dependent upon regularity of cannabis consumption. It states the results of the entire test, as well as the results of each individual IQ test. Again, regular cannabis use results in a [B]more negative[/B] change in IQ, and using cannabis regularly over longer periods of time further magnifies the loss. Only two exceptions to this trend exist in the pool of individuals who used cannabis regularly for the longest period of time: they performed better on the arithmetic subtest by a statistically insignificant margin, and better on the picture completion subtest by a statistically significant margin. Definitions for small (0.20), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) margins are given at the bottom of the document.
The third supplement addresses the [B]influence of external factors on the IQ tests[/B], i.e., factors besides cannabis consumption that could impair one's performance on an IQ test, in order to [B]rule out alternative explanations[/B]. It again lists the change in IQ for individuals who never used cannabis, used it but weren't diagnosed with cannabis dependence, and those with one, two, or three or more diagnoses. It then lists the same change in IQ, this time excluding those who had used cannabis in the [B]past 24 hours[/B], used cannabis in the [B]past week[/B], were [B]tobacco dependent[/B], were [B]hard-drug dependent[/B], were [B]alcohol dependent[/B], or who had [B]schizophrenia[/B]. In short, they account for many of the factors that previous posters have claimed were unaddressed. In all cases, [B]no statistically significant change existed[/B] between the complete group and the group that remained after eliminating individuals who were influenced by an external factor.
The last piece of supplementary information lists the different tests used to evaluate the IQ of the participants. This isn't a "match the pictures to test your IQ" ad from the internet; a test that addressed each subset of IQ was administered to the participants at the start of the study, and [B]five[/B] tests were administered to the adults of the study by [B]ten different psychologists[/B] who were kept [B]uninformed[/B] of each participant's previous results.
In summation, from just the supplemental information from the report, we can conclude that beginning to consume cannabis prior to age 18 will cause a greater negative change in IQ than beginning to consume it after age 18; that those who consume cannabis regularly and for longer periods of time have a more negative change in IQ than those who don't; that accounting for external factors such as tobacco, alcohol, or other drug consumption, and even schizophrenia do not skew the results in a statistically meaningful way; and that the IQ tests in their entirety were administered in an environment that was kept as free from bias as can be accomplished in a study of humans that is executed by humans.
So. Anyone who still thinks the report was horribly biased, poorly done, or based off of faux information, please stand up for all to see and present evidence and reasoning to support your claim.[/QUOTE]
listen 'scientist' i went from 113 IQ to 137 since i started smoking 'cannabis' explain THAT with your 'statistics'
[QUOTE=scout1;37449108]post[/QUOTE]
I haven't read the study, I've seen a few snippets. I'll address it later. Much of criticism is in regards to assigning long term epidemiological studies a bit more significant than they're worth. This is a worthwhile study, but not enough to draw direct conclusions from.
Of course, don't let that lessen your belligerence. I've come into this conversation pretty late, and I'd like to stress that I'm not just regurgitating Pat4ever, who, let's face it, is pretty out there on the fringes.
e.g. 'Political "science" is not.'.. etc.
I'll read through all this later, and give the answers that are deserved.
So what is up with THC stimulating neuron growth rate?
hey scout1 I agree with what you're saying but you don't have to be so bloody belligerent
[sub][sub]neither sociology nor political science are real sciences btw[/sub][/sub]
There was this women's discussion (over privileged D4 housewives) group talking about on midday TV today, Christ it was horrible, then came the "callers comments" which included a very dubious old woman exclaiming how her son overdosed and died on hash. It's just the kind of thing that makes you just hang your head in disbelief.
I thought that was the point of weed? I mean I guess on the long run it can kind become kind of an issue but one of the things cannabis does accomplish on the short run would be making you a slowpoke.
[QUOTE=Nightsure;37448244]If you don't make weed your life then you wont get stupid, anyone who isn't 420 get blazed erry'day knows this.
No one would really be bothered if you drunk a lot, it's because weed isn't as socially acceptable as alcohol, despite being arguably less harmful to your body.[/QUOTE]
People are bothered if you drink a lot. The 'disease' is called 'alcoholism' and there is a great volume of information about it. Alcoholism has support groups, recognized treatment methods, etc because generally speaking, [I]people understand the risks and are not afraid to talk about them.[/I] Weed however has a stigma around it that no one wants to touch. After all this time of guessing on both sides, we JUST found out that it can permanently reduce the IQ of adolescent users? Just a month or two ago we found out that concentrated cannabis can help fight cancer. We know so little about the drug despite the fact that its use is so prevalent.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37448691]I'll do better than that. I'll quote my post that I made in response to yours, that you seem to have ignored. I recommend you give it a good read.
Oh and please do supply what Contag asks. We say the study is invalid; we provide evidence for it. You say it was performed accurately; now it's your time to provide the reasoning for that.[/QUOTE]
You never gave any evidence. Your "proofs" weren't even valid as arguments, let alone actual proofs. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of statistics was having a laugh at your expense.
[QUOTE=Mabus;37453832]There was this women's discussion (over privileged D4 housewives) group talking about on midday TV today, Christ it was horrible, then came the "callers comments" which included a very dubious old woman exclaiming how her son overdosed and died on hash. It's just the kind of thing that makes you just hang your head in disbelief.[/QUOTE]
The real shame about weed is that there is so much misinformation on both sides of the debate. People will tell you that weed is a gateway drug (lolwut), and the guys on the opposite side of the room will say it is 100% harmless, despite its demonstrated capacity to trigger paranoia and (rarely) schizophrenia. If we're going to legalize weed, people need to understand the risks, just like they understand the risks attached to the use of alcohol, cigarettes, trans fats, etc.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37450615]listen 'scientist' i went from 113 IQ to 137 since i started smoking 'cannabis' explain THAT with your 'statistics'[/QUOTE]
Which IQ test(s) did you use to obtain those numbers, and at what dates? Did you further your education over this time period? Were the tests administered by a degree holding psychologist? With what regularity and over what period of time did you consume cannabis? Can you yourself provide a list of other factors that may have impacted the IQ scores, and would you be willing to do so?
And even after all that, statistics is based around probabilities and how to describe them. Outliers will always exist.
What if I smoke it once per month?
[QUOTE=Fyhlen;37474594]Which IQ test(s) did you use to obtain those numbers, and at what dates? Did you further your education over this time period? Were the tests administered by a degree holding psychologist? With what regularity and over what period of time did you consume cannabis? Can you yourself provide a list of other factors that may have impacted the IQ scores, and would you be willing to do so?
And even after all that, statistics is based around probabilities and how to describe them. Outliers will always exist.[/QUOTE]
I know you're new here so I'm just going to say I'm pretty sure he's joking, judging by the tone used. Could be wrong though.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;37434834]Smoking cannabis four times is not going to do anything to you significant[/QUOTE]
I can still feel my brain rotting away.
also. who the hell smokes 4 joints a day? I remember the last time I had one. I was blazed for hours, no wonder they're scores decreased.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.