So I moderate /r/foodforthought. I like to think it's one of the last bastions of Reddit worth bothering with.
This article came up today - be warned, it's Forbes, so don't check it on unpatched IE running unpatched Flash. Reddit discussion is here which brought up the point that since it's a longitudinal study, it may have been interpreted wrong.
So on the one hand,
Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife
But on the other hand,
SCIENCE FIGHT!
Figure 3 is a great illustration of why the p-value is not a useful metric in a poorly powered study like this: The confidence intervals overlap, indicating that the true average population IQ could be anywhere inbetween (to some degree of certainty) , yet one would think from the p-value of 0.03 that the effect would be confirmed and obvious. Past that easy criticism, I stay skeptical of most longitudinal studies because they usually fail to account for very likely biases in the data, as your link #2 seems to indicate. Show me a RCT and I'll reconsider their conclusion. Bonus challenge to other readers: I've yet to find any study that meaningfully convinces me that intelligence (above the norm) correlates with anything other than education. Convince me that the entire field of study isn't garbage. Edit: Erm, I am dumb: not correlates with education, is positively effected by education, a healthy lifestyle, and general socioeconomic factors.
This is all you need to know to know that the author of the Forbes piece doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. Or, rather, that he's trying really hard to sell his book about EQ. He says, "They didn't measure this, but it's very important, nonetheless." Really? Why? Because you say so? Higher cognition and emotional control have very different neural correlates. Affecting one (if there is an effect; the PNAS article isn't that convincing to begin with), doesn't say anything about the other. That would have to be a separate study. So in the end, I'm not sure about the IQ decline associated with marijuana (my guess is that it's a little of column A and a little of column B), but I'm damn sure that Forbes is a bunch of used car salesmen quality hacks.While the study didn’t measure the effects of marijuana upon teenagers’ emotional intelligence, it’s likely they are dire. Emotional intelligence (EQ) in teenagers lags behind their cognitive development. This explains why teenagers are so impulsive, emotional, and prone to risky behavior. Since teenagers’ EQ develops much later than their IQ, this area of the brain is even more susceptible to the negative influences of marijuana.
Just within the passage you've quoted: vs. He's literally just told us that he don't know whether or not marijuana effects EQ (and I find "EQ" a dubious concept in-and-of itself), but then three sentences later, asserts that EQ development is more susceptible to pot use than IQ because... ummm... teenagers are pretty immature, right guys? Am I right, or what?!? Also worth considering: The guy who smokes a bowl and works on coding vs. the guy sinking into the sofa sitting through SpongeBob re-runs. The latter is more common, and IQ tends to decline with age regardless of environment. Did they control for that? I don't read marijuana studies anymore, they're just too political.While the study didn’t measure the effects of marijuana upon teenagers’ emotional intelligence, it’s likely they are dire.
Since teenagers’ EQ develops much later than their IQ, this area of the brain is even more susceptible to the negative influences of marijuana.
Yeah, they mentioned looking at frequency of use (number of days), but not the context of use (before running vs. before couch-potatoing vs. before sleep) nor the amount per use (0.1 gram? 1 gram? A KILOGRAM!?) nor the method of use (bong? bowl? vape? edibles?).Also worth considering: The guy who smokes a bowl and works on coding vs. the guy sinking into the sofa sitting through SpongeBob re-runs. The latter is more common, and IQ tends to decline with age regardless of environment. Did they control for that?
Too many unknowns in general. We'll be teasing out the details for decades after legalization. I'll probably start reading meta-studies sometime around 2050. Of course, that's if I can still read by then, after all the pot I plan to smoke* in the meantime. So far, I'm the best lab rat for me. Haven't been able to conduct any double-blind studies with myself (still working on developing that schizophrenia), but single-blind studies are going well. I can distinguish between many jelly bean flavors, and between several mainstream psychedelics. *I've gotta get a vaporizer...
I think it's just a matter of fact that a greater amount of "stupid" people smoke pot than "smart" people. Notice the quotes because there are millions of stupid smart people as well as smart stupid people in this wonderful world we live in.
Why do you feel this way?I think it's just a matter of fact that a greater amount of "stupid" people smoke pot than "smart" people.
I would argue that a lot of good scientific discussion was put forth, which was the point of posting. I would also argue that if you would like to influence my behavior, phrases other than "poo fights" should perhaps be employed... particularly as the discussion I linked to was civil and informed.