Marijuana lowers IQ permanently study says

[modestninja]

The mere fact of 20 years going by, pot smoking or otherwise, would affect one's IQ score, too. Fail study is fail.

With a large enough sample you can control most of that with statistical analysis. That being said, the initial group of people is self-selected (which greatly reduces the accuracy of any study) and even if that wasn't a factor, correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

[PokerGuy]

People are different, and do different actions and feel different under different situations.

Doesn't count.

Uh, are you completely unfamiliar with statistics and sampling? Of course people are different, that doesn't mean you can't come up with statistically significant conclusions across populations, provided your sampling is done correctly. I have no idea how the sampling was done for this study, but the fact that people are different means nothing in terms of this study.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The mere fact of 20 years going by, pot smoking or otherwise, would affect one's IQ score, too. Fail study is fail.

Yea, no kidding.

 

[PokerGuy]

The mere fact of 20 years going by, pot smoking or otherwise, would affect one's IQ score, too. Fail study is fail.

Are you also completely unfamiliar with sampling and studies? You have a control group. The control group would see the same random noise (environmental factors, aging etc) as the study group. You can then use the control group to see if there was a significant difference between the population studied and the control group.

Don't you guys learn anything in school these days?

 

[modestninja]

So you won't type it for me...

Addicted to lazyness eh?

😎

If you've ever seen someone who drinks a ton of coffee, mountain dew, etc.. every day try to stop cold turkey you'd know that there was definitely a physical addiction. I had a physic's teacher in high school who tried it for one day. In first period he was white as a sheet, had the shakes and was super irritable. By 3rd period he'd gone back to coffee and was much better. I do think he eventually, slowly tapered down his intake and now hardly drinks the stuff...

 

[TechBoyJK]

Are you also completely unfamiliar with sampling and studies? You have a control group. The control group would see the same random noise (environmental factors, aging etc) as the study group. You can then use the control group to see if there was a significant difference between the population studied and the control group.

Don't you guys learn anything in school these days?

Is every post you type condescending?

 

[modestninja]

Are you also completely unfamiliar with sampling and studies? You have a control group. The control group would see the same random noise (environmental factors, aging etc) as the study group. You can then use the control group to see if there was a significant difference between the population studied and the control group.

Don't you guys learn anything in school these days?

What about the self-selected population of the study? From what it says in the study it doesn't say that the population was selected randomly.... Also, even if that were all done properly, correlation doesn't imply causation. You may be able to say that people that smoked marijuana as teenagers are more likely to have lower IQs as adults, but that doesn't imply that smoking marijuana is the cause.

 

[shortylickens]

Are they mutually exclusive?

Not necessarily, but I'm smart enough to know you cant always have everything you want.
And having been miserable so much in my life, and watching dumb people (or ignorant people) coast by so gleefully, I wouldnt mind making that work for me instead.

 

[actuarial]

I don't think it does anything, in Europe it's been standard practice to have wine with a meal for hundreds of years for people of all ages.

Fine. To clarify: what do you think would happen if someone drank to get drunk 4 times a week from their teens into adulthood?

 

[cybrsage]

They would get liver damage. Depending on how long that time period is, it may be reversable and it may not be.

 

[monovillage]

One of the reasons I made this thread is that in California the growing and use of medical marijuana is legal. It's still illegal on a Federal level, but my County is having meetings to determine what restrictions, if any, to put on growing it. Most of the pro-marijuana growers/users/profiteers claim that marijuana isn't harmful in any way, has never been shown to be harmful and if you say it's harmful in any way you're a right-wing dictator fascist. I just thought this study was interesting even if it's flawed and yes, I did e-mail it to my County supervisors.

 

[PokerGuy]

What about the self-selected population of the study? From what it says in the study it doesn't say that the population was selected randomly....

Those are valid questions about the study methodology. I haven't seen the details of the study myself so I don't know the answers for sure, but since the study was conducted by Kings College in London and Duke University, I have some confidence that there wouldn't be such obvious issues with the study. The study was also published for peer review.

The participants were followed since birth, I don't think they were self selected, but I'm not sure.

Also, even if that were all done properly, correlation doesn't imply causation. You may be able to say that people that smoked marijuana as teenagers are more likely to have lower IQs as adults, but that doesn't imply that smoking marijuana is the cause.

If your sample is set up correctly, then the control group accounts for the other variables, leaving the variable you're testing for (cannabis use) as the determinant. That's how they get past correlation =/= causation.

 

[xj0hnx]

Fine. To clarify: what do you think would happen if someone drank to get drunk 4 times a week from their teens into adulthood?

They will wreck four cars, get two DUI's, divorce their first two wives, somehow make it through 6 years of college and wind up with a job in a lab, oh and have cirrhosis. My sample group of one however drank to get drunk 7 days a week, and has since stopped drinking, well only beer and wine four, or five days a week, probably so he doesn't have to go through detox. Personally I don't see how he did it, I hate drinking.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not necessarily, but I'm smart enough to know you cant always have everything you want.
And having been miserable so much in my life, and watching dumb people (or ignorant people) coast by so gleefully, I wouldnt mind making that work for me instead.

Using a chemical hammer to induce some temporary "happiness" is not going to fix the underlying issues that cause misery. Temporarily relieve stress etc, yes, but not fix anything.

 

[actuarial]

One thing that isn't sitting well with me with respect to the article is the way they reference 'declining' IQ.

The information they give seems much more to say that pot smokers' IQ < the rest of the population, but that is not technically a decline.

A decline would be an IQ of 100 at age 18 and an IQ of 92 20 years later. While they did reference that example, it always seems to be in the pot smoker vs population manner, not pot smoker vs themselves.

This has a significant impact on determining causation.

For example, I'd wager money (I'll even give you odds Pokerguy) that WWE watchers have a lower IQ than the rest of the population, and that people who continued to watch it into their adult life had lower average IQ at 38 than the rest of the population. That would not show that watching WWE lowers IQ though.

Please note that I didn't intend to offend fans of Vince McMahon's wildly successful soap opera.

 

[actuarial]

If your sample is set up correctly, then the control group accounts for the other variables, leaving the variable you're testing for (cannabis use) as the determinant. That's how they get past correlation =/= causation.

Sample set up alone can't solve the correlation vs causation problem entirely.

The self selection he is referring to is that it could be the case that less intelligent people are more likely to smoke marijuana in the first place vs more intelligent people. You can't control for that unless you're doing a double blind study, which obviously they are not.

If anything this study favours the legalization of marijuana though, as the long term effects weren't present in those who began smoking weed as adults.

 

[shortylickens]

Using a chemical hammer to induce some temporary "happiness" is not going to fix the underlying issues that cause misery. Temporarily relieve stress etc, yes, but not fix anything.

See this is where my intelligence makes me angry. But my control will keep the discussion civil.

The Topic Title is: " Marijuana lowers IQ permanently study says".
Thats what we were talking about. Thats the subject. Thats what I was talking about.
What in the heck are you talking about?

 

[Phokus]

One of the reasons I made this thread is that in California the growing and use of medical marijuana is legal. It's still illegal on a Federal level, but my County is having meetings to determine what restrictions, if any, to put on growing it. Most of the pro-marijuana growers/users/profiteers claim that marijuana isn't harmful in any way, has never been shown to be harmful and if you say it's harmful in any way you're a right-wing dictator fascist. I just thought this study was interesting even if it's flawed and yes, I did e-mail it to my County supervisors.

Gonna ask again, but is MJ the reason why you're so stupid?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Gonna ask again, but is MJ the reason why you're so stupid?

I think he's anti-mj which is why he sent the article to his representatives.

He's also sending them articles saying how kids get diabetes from sugary snacks and they that should be banned for all adults too.

 

[modestninja]

Those are valid questions about the study methodology. I haven't seen the details of the study myself so I don't know the answers for sure, but since the study was conducted by Kings College in London and Duke University, I have some confidence that there wouldn't be such obvious issues with the study. The study was also published for peer review.

The participants were followed since birth, I don't think they were self selected, but I'm not sure.



If your sample is set up correctly, then the control group accounts for the other variables, leaving the variable you're testing for (cannabis use) as the determinant. That's how they get past correlation =/= causation.

Even if the study didn't have any flaws in terms of setup, the most this kind of study can get you is a correlation because there can be things like hidden variables that aren't controlled for. In order to imply causation you have to find some kind mechanism that causes the change that the correlation implies. This kind of study can give you a hint at what kind of follow up experiments to do, but you can't conclusively say that A is caused by B.

 

[monovillage]

Gonna ask again, but is MJ the reason why you're so stupid?

Is your drug use your reason for being such an asshole?

 

[wirednuts]

the tension in here is a direct result from lack of marijuana.

 

[diesbudt]

Right. Causation can only be determined if every variable but 1 (in this case marijuana) was removed.

This means all the people in the test have to have: Same DNA, look and act exactly the same, do the same thing from start to finish, given the same exact education, Be hit in the head the same amount of times (or lack of being hit in the head same amount of times), etc.

Then one group can be a control in which they do not smoke marijuana, but pretend harmless rolls of paper (to make sure same exact amount of time is used for "smoking" to keep all variables out), with one group being the test subjects. That being the ones actually smoking marijuana.

Then you have to test them once a year every year (after age 8 lets say) on IQ. To ensure that the IQ does drop to marijuana. So comparing to themselves and not to others.

On top of all this, this was one experiement. This has to be repeated a few times, especially by other researchers, to get a feel of what the results really are. Unless someone believes flipping a coin once and getting heads, means flipping it 11000 times you will always get heads because 1 experiment told you so.

Since (A) Other variables were not controlled that could also hamper/increase IQ, (B) The test was ot repeated, (C) The research was not checked continuously at smallish intervals (once a year) to see how IQ changed before last year, and then the people were not even compared to themselves but others of a population.

Also the test can't be done. What if their IQ returns and is even higher in than before in next few years? Study was even cut short it seems, as until they pass away who knows what will happen.

Because of all that, The study is a FAILED study. Even if the study wasn't bad to begin with, these kinds of studies will still be just a correlation, and not a casuation.

 

[modestninja]

Because of all that, The study is a FAILED study. Even if the study wasn't bad to begin with, these kinds of studies will still be just a correlation, and not a casuation.

It's not a failed study, it just points researchers in a direction for further study. Also, they would need all that stuff to be absolutely certain it is MJ that is causing the IQ loss, but using statistics you can find a statistically significant result without the impossible requirements you outlined in your study. If that weren't the case, we'd never be able to conclusively link any two variables given our current laws and technology.

 

[PokerGuy]

Even if the study didn't have any flaws in terms of setup, the most this kind of study can get you is a correlation because there can be things like hidden variables that aren't controlled for. In order to imply causation you have to find some kind mechanism that causes the change that the correlation implies. This kind of study can give you a hint at what kind of follow up experiments to do, but you can't conclusively say that A is caused by B.

That's plain wrong. With proper sampling and a control group you can control for variables, hidden or not, and you can indeed conclude causation versus correlation. Remember, the conclusions are done to a level of statistical significance and a certain level of confidence. Unless your sample is the entire population to be studied, you can never be 100% certain of any outcome. You certainly can come to conclusions about causation and correlation though.