Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
339 replies, posted
Yeah, it is really hard to get accurate drug studies. You can't just conclude, "oh its neurophysical decay." A person's teenage years to early adulthood are the most important years of life that determine most of how a someone's going to turn out. There are a lot of social implications.
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37440994]Who said I was denying anything? I know people who heavily use it and are noticeably declining in intelligence and sanity, and I also know those who regularly use it (among other drugs) and are performing better and better in school.
Thank you very much.[/QUOTE]
But how often do the none declining people use it and for how long have they been using it.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37441028]because general intelligence is an objective factor in the conditioned mind right[/QUOTE]
what are you talking about
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37441052]what are you talking about[/QUOTE]
I GUESS MY IQ IS TOO HIGH FOR YOU PEONS
[QUOTE=Bobie;37441065]I GUESS MY IQ IS TOO HIGH FOR YOU PEONS[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37441052]what are you talking about[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37441041]But how often do the none declining people use it and for how long have they been using it.[/QUOTE]Some of them were using it longer and more often than others. The observations are inconsistent because one of them, who uses all sorts of narcotics, is doing well in school, while the other, who isn't doing as many (but still a lot) is a lazy stoner shithead who believes in grey aliens and reptilians.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37441034]Yeah, it is really hard to get accurate drug studies. You can't just conclude, "oh its neurophysical decay." A person's teenage years to early adulthood are the most important years of life that determine most of how a someone's going to turn out. There are a lot of social implications.[/QUOTE]They take that into account, but still, you have a valid point - they can't simply conclude that every teenager in the world is in danger of permanent IQ decrease.
as I said in DD
one thing to take into consideration bro, I was in dunedin for a week the other month and its a student town and the drinking culture there is ridiculous, People are drunk as shit almost every night because there are always insane parties and shit, I got free ritalin there and e was flying round like a mother fucker and noone was ever sober past 8pm
And thats where the study took place
so like
probably not a good place to conduct a study considering you can walk into an apartment in the student area and people will give you booze, you could be 15 and people would still give you booze so take that study with a pinch of salt bro, dunedin is the binge drinking capital of new zealand.
But I still stand by the fact its better to smoke regulary once you are 18+
i smoke, party and i get good grades.
my iq was rated at 91 on the WAIS IV test. which is on the border of average for this test, but still in average range.
strong points: abstract reasoning, fast brain processing speed
weak points: short term memory
[QUOTE=scout1;37440041]
The normal margin of error on political polls is 3-3.5% and everybody flips their shit over a 1% change day-to-day.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep contradicting yourself? You're the one who said this was science; why compare that, to all other things to compare, [B][I]politics[/I][/B]?
I'd like to see more than one study, and in more than one singular place, before anyone can fairly say they can come to a conclusion.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441175]Why do you keep contradicting yourself? You're the one who said this was science; why compare that, to all other things to compare, [B][I]politics[/I][/B]?
I'd like to see more than one study, and in more than one singular place, before anyone can fairly say they can come to a conclusion.[/QUOTE]
This may shock you but there's science in politics too
Surprisingly all those ads are carefully calculated and stuff so they don't waste money!!!
Odd, huh?
BTW:
[url]http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.long[/url]
[QUOTE=scout1;37441211]This may shock you but there's science in politics too
Surprisingly all those ads are carefully calculated and stuff so they don't waste money!!!
Odd, huh? [/QUOTE]
I hope, for your sake, that you're not referring to political science, also known colloquially as the biggest bullshit anyone can ever waste their time/money on.
[QUOTE=scout1;37441211]
BTW:
[url]http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.long[/url][/QUOTE]
I can cite articles that say the exact opposite. What's your point? Until we get uniform, thorough testing of marijuana these reports mean nothing and only act as ammunition in debates like this.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37440962]no one claimed they are, but when you have a large sample size like this and rigorous statistical analysis, they're [I]pretty darn accurate[/I]. unless you have a specific reason why you think it's wrong, you'd best just go with what it says instead of aimlessly conjecturing[/QUOTE]I was simply stating my own opinion on the matter. The article did not explicitly provide any raw data (except that around 1,000 people were studied), and the article itself was full of opinion and bias. I was stating my opinion on the article - I thought that, perhaps, marijuana has a heavy impact on the user's desire to learn and work, which in turn has an impact on their IQ rather than "marijuana has direct impact on the user's IQ and it makes your dumb". I cannot see how that is an invalid opinion, since, even with the raw results at hand, it can be a factor.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441314]I hope, for your sake, that you're not referring to political science, also known colloquially as the biggest bullshit anyone can ever waste their time/money on.
I can cite articles that say the exact opposite. What's your point? Until we get uniform, thorough testing of marijuana these reports mean nothing and only act as ammunition in debates like this.[/QUOTE]
1) Yes I am
2) The study this thread is about IS a uniform, thorough test. Do you just discount anything that you don't agree with, or what??
[QUOTE=scout1;37441374]2) The study this thread is about IS a uniform, thorough test. Do you just discount anything that you don't agree with, or what??[/QUOTE]This might have been a thorough test, but to be accurate, such a test would have to be done all over the world with many more subjects. 1,000 people who live in the same city somewhere in New Zealand is definitely not a representation of people living in the USA, Canada, China, Japan and many other countries, not to mention specific cities and areas of those countries where the population is generally more intelligent/wealthy/etcetera.
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37441390]This might have been a thorough test, but to be accurate, such a test would have to be done all over the world with many more subjects. 1,000 people who live in the same city somewhere in New Zealand is definitely not a representation of people living in the USA, Canada, China, Japan and many other countries, not to mention specific cities and areas of those countries where the population is generally more intelligent/wealthy/etcetera.[/QUOTE]
Seriously do you still not know what a sample is
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)[/url]
Please read this before posting any more
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37441390]This might have been a thorough test, but to be accurate, such a test would have to be done all over the world with many more subjects. 1,000 people who live in the same city somewhere in New Zealand is definitely not a representation of people living in the USA, Canada, China, Japan and many other countries, not to mention specific cities and areas of those countries where the population is generally more intelligent/wealthy/etcetera.[/QUOTE]
Uh, that's not really what a sample for such a study as this is about.
And are you honestly telling me that drugs would affect the mental capacity of humans differently, based upon where they live?
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
No doubt that this will need to be tested several more times, but there is nothing inaccurate or misleading about the study.
[QUOTE=scout1;37441374]1) Yes I am
2) The study this thread is about IS a uniform, thorough test. Do you just discount anything that you don't agree with, or what??[/QUOTE]
1. Then congratulations, your argument is invalid.
2. Right, because a test done in New Zealand applies worldwide, right? :downs: The study, not a test by the way, was performed in a manner that any number of extraneous factors could have effected the results. They say that "alcohol or tobacco dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in education" were taken into account. Even if this was true, which I somehow doubt given prior studies performed in the same manner, that only brushes the surface of possible variables.
You don't know me, so don't make any assumptions about me. And you can quit with the attitude, it's not going to get you anywhere.
of course my post gets ignored
[QUOTE=gman_freeman;37434956]I know it's probably been said before, but this could easily be fixed by regulating it like Alcohol or Cigarettes. Although, I'm really not surprised...[/QUOTE]
yes, nobody under the age of 18/21 ever consumes alcohol or smokes cigarettes.
i am baffled to why they haven't thought of this before.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37441479]of course my post gets ignored[/QUOTE]
I noticed what you said, but apparently alcohol was taken into account in the study. As I said, I doubt this was accurately performed for various reasons, including the frequency that people lie about their drinking.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441457]1. Then congratulations, your argument is invalid.
2. Right, because a test done in New Zealand applies worldwide, right? :downs: The study, not a test by the way, was performed in a manner that any number of extraneous factors could have effected the results. They say that "alcohol or tobacco dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in education" were taken into account. Even if this was true, which I somehow doubt given prior studies performed in the same manner, that only brushes the surface of possible variables.
You don't know me, so don't make any assumptions about me. And you can quit with the attitude, it's not going to get you anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Oh my argument is invalid because I talked about political science, how nice
Well I guess I'll just go home and cry about how wrong I am, then
I do like how you are harping on the study, though. "Well I don't think they did it right." Yeah, professional researchers with actual experience in the field did it wrong. What is your qualification, exactly? High school diploma? Some college? And these professionals got it wrong because you [b]feel[/b] they didn't take things into account properly.
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441496]I noticed what you said, but apparently alcohol was taken into account in the study. As I said, I doubt this was accurately performed for various reasons, including the frequency that people lie about their drinking.[/QUOTE]
but they told the truth about their illegal drug use right
Did you even read the article
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37441496]I noticed what you said, but apparently alcohol was taken into account in the study. As I said, I doubt this was accurately performed for various reasons, including the frequency that people lie about their drinking.[/QUOTE]
I dont understand how alcohol could be taken into account though, like seriously people would be binge drinking every single night, I wish the study was taken anywhere but dunedin and then I would take it more seriously than I do now but it seriously is ridiculous there
[QUOTE=scout1;37441416]Seriously do you still not know what a sample is
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)[/url]
Please read this before posting any more[/QUOTE]Sampling is not a good way of doing such a study and making such conclusions. Sure, they took in account other addictions and drug use, as well as studying habits, etcetera, but you can't simply pick 1,000 people (no matter how close you think they represent the general population), because this is a psychological matter, and that is also affected by the climate, social environment and many other factors. No matter how closely the individuals represent the general population, such a delicate study should not be concluded this way - there are simply too many factors to take in account, and those factors change very quickly.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;37441445]No doubt that this will need to be tested several more times, but there is nothing inaccurate or misleading about the study.[/QUOTE]
I never said that there is anything inaccurate or misleading about the study. I was trying to say that the article is heavily biased. And yes, the effects of drugs on an individual also depend on his or her location, environment, etcetera.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37441479]of course my post gets ignored[/QUOTE]
because your personal experience is entirely irrelevant in the context of the study
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37434223]I thought weed cured cancer and could be turned into diamond, steel cable, nuclear fuel rods and roast chicken?[/QUOTE]
no, you've got weed mixed up with those carbon nanotubes
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37441523]Sampling is not a good way of doing such a study and making such conclusions. Sure, they took in account other addictions and drug use, as well as studying habits, etcetera, but you can't simply pick 1,000 people (no matter how close you think they represent the general population), because this is a psychological matter, and that is also affected by the climate, social environment and many other factors. No matter how closely the individuals represent the general population, such a delicate study should not be concluded this way - there are simply too many factors to take in account, and those factors change very quickly.[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't even worry about scout1, bro
this argument is literally just
"THE STUDY IS INACCURATE!"
"WELL UR MORE INACCURATE >:("
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;37441524]because your personal experience is entirely irrelevant in the context of the study[/QUOTE]
but bro honestly, its ridiculous over there, there are streets and streets of student apartments with beer cans outsdie and smashed windows, parties going everynight, its the party capital of my country you would think it would be better if the study was taken somewhere else right?
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
Anyone from dunedin will say the same
[QUOTE=Bumbanut;37441523]Sampling is not a good way of doing such a study and making such conclusions. Sure, they took in account other addictions and drug use, as well as studying habits, etcetera, but you can't simply pick 1,000 people (no matter how close you think they represent the general population), because this is a psychological matter, and that is also affected by the climate, social environment and many other factors. No matter how closely the individuals represent the general population, such a delicate study should not be concluded this way - there are simply too many factors to take in account, and those factors change very quickly.[/QUOTE]
You're kidding right
Sampling is 100% scientifically approved. It is the basis for the vast majority of human studies.
That is what you are disavowing right now - All of modern science
[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37441536]i wouldn't even worry about scout1, bro
this argument is literally just
"THE STUDY IS INACCURATE!"
"WELL UR MORE INACCURATE >:("[/QUOTE]
Well excuse me as I explain basic scientific method to the ignorant masses by demonstrating why their concerns disavow it
But hey yeah I'm sticking by the scientific method that is a perfect caricature of me
It seems that a lot of people here are blindly defending cannabis and claiming it's the purest thing that has ever existed on the planet.
[QUOTE=scout1;37441554]You're kidding right
Sampling is 100% scientifically approved. It is the basis for the vast majority of human studies.
That is what you are disavowing right now - All of modern science[/QUOTE]
you do understand that most psychological studies are based off of correlation and are usually 100% theory
would that not imply that, oh i dunno, they might be inaccurate? i wouldn't go as far as to say that 'all modern science' is based off of loose correlative data from 1000 people.
however, if you were to bring neurobiology into the subject and an objective understanding of that then it could very easily sway the argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.