Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - High IQ linked to drug use

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

High IQ linked to drug use
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

everything-is-everything

Joined: 06 Jun 2011

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:25 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

How am I anti-drug? I support legalization of pot. I think the drug wars are ridiculous. I support NORML. I've read Jack Herer's Emperor and agree with much of what it has to say.

I stand corrected.

But you're saying you....errr, your buddy learned nothing from these experiences?

If not, are you open to the fact that perhaps in controlled and safe settings these drugs could have a positive effect on those who use them?

Quote:

I've meet to many great human beings who have never done drugs to buy into the nonsense that doing drugs makes you a better person or makes you smarter. Rubbish.

I've never said they inherently make you smarter.

But certain drugs (i.e. psychedelics and to a lesser extent marijuana) have the ability to transform one's perspective on the world and in turn alter behavior.

Whether this alteration is positive or negative is relative.

Controlled studies however, have shown positive improvements:

Quote:

Writing in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, the Johns Hopkins researchers note that most of the 36 volunteer subjects given psilocybin, under controlled conditions in a Hopkins study published in 2006, continued to say 14 months later that the experience increased their sense of well-being or life satisfaction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083522.htm

Furthermore, there's been several respected scientific studies out there that suggest that these alterations in personality are measurable.

Researchers from John Hopkins....

Quote:

A single high dose of the hallucinogen psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called "magic mushrooms," was enough to bring about a measurable personality change lasting at least a year in nearly 60 percent of the 51 participants in a new study, according to the Johns Hopkins researchers who conducted it.

Quote:

Lasting change was found in the part of the personality known as openness, which includes traits related to imagination, aesthetics, feelings, abstract ideas and general broad-mindedness.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929074205.htm

Now imagaine millions of people taking these drugs in America alone during the 1960s and 70s.

You don't think this became a major factor in the cultural and social revolution of that time?

You've alredy stated that you beleive that these drugs had an influecne on art and especially music.

But why not a generation of millions during the couterculture?

Or what about in Silicon Valley where these drugs are much more widely used than in the general population?

This is where are debate started on that other thread.

So if psychedelic drugs are shown to have not only an impact on altering one's personality and perspective of the world, but a positive one at that, then why don't beleive that these drugs are a powerful tool for transforming much larger groups?

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

So if psychedelic drugs are shown to have not only an impact on altering one's personality and perspective of the world, but a positive one at that, then why don't beleive that these drugs are a powerful tool for transforming much larger groups?

I think drugs, much like say, books, are not intrinsically good or will lead to good. Some books do uplift the human condition. Others spawn movements that give madmen powers.

The thing with drugs is that when legalized we certainly can't have any government program that would encourage their use for "uplifting their condition" purposes as that would violate the Establishment Clause. Likewise, then you get corporations pitching them the same way they do their pharmaceuticals and probably tampering with them.

If individuals want to try them, fine, and for many of them it will be a positive experience. Anything more than that I would be deeply suspicious and skeptical of.

alljokingaside

Joined: 17 Feb 2010

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:46 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

alljokingaside wrote:

then, what's my excuse? or was. Stupid Korea with its stupid laws on apparently smart drugs.

You know what's stupid? Confusing correlation and causation.

As a previous poster said, that's more ignorant than stupid. What is stupid as as general rule, however, is arrogance. And it is arrogant to pounce on a casual poster's silly, self-deprecatory remarks, communicating frustration with international "drug" law by feigning to clarify a somewhat common mistake made by laymen- something possibly picked up in the recesses of any Psych 101 lecture hall, possibly while doodling the curls of that cute blonde two rows ahead. You've been to college or have read the C section of the dictionary, perhaps have read some pop psych article somewhere online. Congratulations. You should feel proud of yourself as an emphatic human being. Thanks for calling me out on the error I made in my utter ignorance. Pat yourself on the back.

Dumber is feeding a sense of superiority, evinced by your choice to eschew grammar and speak in fragments, not even bothering to bestow onto us ig'nant folkspeople propa grammar with your resplendent insights into the depths of the human psyche. Or at least that area of knowledge.

Anyhow, depressives (not necessarily folk with major depression) generally have a more realistic outlook on life. This is CORRELATED with their inability or diminished ability to inflate self-esteem. An aggrandized sense of self is how most people cope with the daily grind, the dissonance between desire and reality, etc. If you need citations, please refer to pubmed or any peer-review psych journal.

Since people who generally realize how crappy this world is and can be- already evinced here- have analyzed, have obsessed about how and in what ways the world, people, clashing ideas and ideals impinge and squeezes on the nerve's fray- since a major symptom of depression is a solipsism- depressives tend to be a bit smarter than their non-depressed counterparts. Depressives also have tendencies to say yes to drugs.

Additionally, some become "smarter" from drugs in the sense that drugs do have the ability to alter perception, have the ability to dissociate the mind from their usual selves, even if momentary, leading the user to realize that other perspectives, other objects exist aside from the flotsam of your own tumescent bay. This can be causative or correlative, depending on the user's basal levels of empathy. This also depends on the user's definition of empathy, which, again, can shift from drugs. This also depends on the drugs. E.g. Coke is likely not to have this effect, along with other uppers. Downers, too.

The official reason and the common sensical reason that many drugs should be banned is addiction. F that libertarian nonsense about everyone for themselves and if they screw up, they're on their own. Some drugs, like H, have the ability to hook your body rocks to the feel good roll and push and inject or inhale. After becoming destitute, the fiend may become desperate and see how well that goes for society. Ask anyone in a meth town the horrors of living with the fiends. Or at least the utter annoyance. Let's not even talk about rock or H. Now Mary- she shouldn't illegal because it only has the potential, like any and every dammed thing, to become addictive psychologically. Like TV or Pop Rocks. The negative health effects are no worse than cigs, if not less detrimental due to the lack of over 300 potential additives. The cognitive effects transitory. This has been tested. She shouldn't because we're adults and, in the US, the idea's that we can make our own decisions about recreation and self-care as long as it doesn't screw your neighbor over.

This can go on and on, but y'all get the drift. Damn, I need some reef. Kelp, I mean. Seaweed. Seaweed rocks. Because I would never and have never done drugs. Mr. Kim, internet censor, read my lips, or imagine reading my lips- I have never done drugs in my life. Ever. Oknow bubye.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:12 am Post subject:

Quote:

Anyhow, depressives (not necessarily folk with major depression) generally have a more realistic outlook on life. This is CORRELATED with their inability or diminished ability to inflate self-esteem. An aggrandized sense of self is how most people cope with the daily grind, the dissonance between desire and reality, etc. If you need citations, please refer to pubmed or any peer-review psych journal.

I won't argue that depressed people might have a more realistic outlook on life.

The general state of the world is towards success for few, failure for others, and mediocrity for many.

Quote:

Additionally, some become "smarter" from drugs in the sense that drugs do have the ability to alter perception, have the ability to dissociate the mind from their usual selves, even if momentary, leading the user to realize that other perspectives, other objects exist aside from the flotsam of your own tumescent bay.

Isn't it also possible that people become "dumber" on drugs because as you said, it does alter their sense of perception. Is their sense necessarily going to be altered positively?

Quote:

Now Mary- she shouldn't illegal because it only has the potential, like any and every dammed thing, to become addictive psychologically. Like TV or Pop Rocks. The negative health effects are no worse than cigs, if not less detrimental due to the lack of over 300 potential additives. The cognitive effects transitory. This has been tested. She shouldn't because we're adults and, in the US, the idea's that we can make our own decisions about recreation and self-care as long as it doesn't screw your neighbor over.

Where have I ever claimed that Marijuana should be illegal?

I am only taking exception to the view that drugs are beneficial on a societal level, that drugs make people "better".

That doesn't make me anti-drug, that makes me, well, a little depressed about how much they can do and how likely they are to change the human condition.

I've seen people who had been smoking pot draw guns on each other. Guess the herb wasn't making them see the big picture, man.

Does that mean marijuana made them violent? Rubbish! But does that mean marijuana makes someone a better person as well? I've seen people become chilled out on Marijuana and them turn from being a real pain to be around into being chill. I've also seen people become utter retards as they become a high-on. Because of this I am unwilling to support the notion that people should smoke pot, that it would make people better. I do support the idea that people should be free to find out and choose for themselves if they think marijuana improves their condition.

But that choice should be made through the democratic process. If a society does not want legalized marijuana, then that society is free to choose such a path, for better or worse.

I also agree with Lou Reed's view, not necessarily on a policy level, but on a philosophical one, that if you make it to 50, you should be allowed to take whatever drugs you please. You've made it to 50, smoke crack for all I care. Who am I to tell you no?

everything-is-everything

Joined: 06 Jun 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:13 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Does that mean marijuana made them violent? Rubbish! But does that mean marijuana makes someone a better person as well? I've seen people become chilled out on Marijuana and them turn from being a real pain to be around into being chill. I've also seen people become utter retards as they become a high-on. Because of this I am unwilling to support the notion that people should smoke pot, that it would make people better. I do support the idea that people should be free to find out and choose for themselves if they think marijuana improves their condition.

Society (A) smokes weed

Sciety (B) drinks alcohol

Society (C) does nothing

Which society would you rather live in? Laughing

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:38 pm Post subject:

everything-is-everything wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

Society (A) smokes weed

Sciety (B) drinks alcohol

Society (C) does nothing

Which society would you rather live in? Laughing

How about, D) Any of them?

Makes no difference to me.

I've been in social groups consisting of each of the three types. Each had their good parts and bad, and were thoroughly enjoyable.

travel zen

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:50 am Post subject:

IQ markers? Intelligence???? Do these people reall think they can judge that? I look around and see barbarism in our society, we haven't the IQ to judge IQ yet

The Floating World

Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:07 am Post subject:

Society B, without even a second's hesitation.

alljokingaside

Joined: 17 Feb 2010

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:08 am Post subject:

[quote="Steelrails"]

Quote:

Isn't it also possible that people become "dumber" on drugs because as you said, it does alter their sense of perception. Is their sense necessarily going to be altered positively?

While altering senses doesn't necessitate positivity in any way, expansion generally has positive connotations. Unless it leave them confused or insipid or inane. But that's a whole other story. Expanding your perceptions doesn't necessarily mean that you'll expand your mind (not to sound like a 60's wash out) , but it does create potential for it. Actually, perception was a poor choice of words. Cognition is better. But anyway, whether or not someone'll take choose to benefit from an altered mode of cognition is up to them. Though drugs can make you dumber for other reasons (and depending on the drug), though some drugs can just magnify any tendencies to idiocy latent in some poor schmuck, stepping out of your usual, mundane patterns of thought- momentarily derailing those cognitive gears that perpetually grind throughout mechanized behavior- isn't something that will. Not in most scenarios that I envision.

Quote:

Yeah- some people become utterly useless and/or obnoxious while under Mary's winking grin. Some folk just get all gaga for a girl

But in all honestly, I seriously think that a mandated toke session once in their life would do wonders for most places. If only to shove a pin in the speech bubble of anti-drug windbags of hypocrites, either on the suppliers' side (eg folk who only assume because of the associations- the same type of folk that'd typecast a motorcycle as an vehicle of intrinsic evil and societal destruction) or the demand side (eg folk who readily fall victim to propaganda [e.g. ref. Reefer Madness]). It's not for nothing that the Chinese once considered the herb a gift of the gods.

But, otherwise yeah- drugs, intrinsically, wouldn't do society any good. It won't necessarily alter personality. If it does, it doesn't necessarily yield a positive outcome. It can, however, do harm, again, depending on the drug. People, as a whole, also don't always conform to the dictates of common sense (e.g. driving while intoxicated). Tther drugs, like heroin, have massive physiological addictive factors and should be banned, due to the effects that can be wrought by the resulting dependency. Again, ref. meth town madness. So laws do need to be established banning certain behaviors/substances, in my opinion.

I never said you were anti-drug; just routing any anti-drug arguments in advance by any observers.

Also, given the choices- Society (A) anyday. Little might get done, but at least, everyone'd be chill, theoretically. Society (B)'d just be obnoxious. (where am I again? HA Suppose it doesn't help that I'm not the biggest fan of booze) Society (C)'d be wound wayy too tight for my liking.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:35 pm Post subject:

Alwaysgood wrote:

Smart people make more money on average, have fewer children (expenses)

That kind of goes against the logic of evolution which suggests that the intelligent dominate and proliferate.

In reality Intelligent people are less likely to breed. They're more interested in creating and living a certain life, than simply sacrificing their independence to the cause of reproduction. They're more likely to see an alternative viewpoint than simply follow the herd. They're more likely to experiment.

Quote:

and therefore have a larger disposable income with which to buy drugs and alcohol.

Maybe they're just more likely to go to college. Wink

World Traveler

Joined: 29 May 2009

Posted: Sun May 18, 2014 5:15 am Post subject:

Quote:

English researchers recently discovered that students at prestigious schools like Oxford and Cambridge spend much more time having sex, smoking weed and staying up later than their peers at less reputable institutions.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/smarter-people-sex-drugs-stay-later-smarter-thing/

Quote:

Many previous studies have found that people with higher IQs, better jobs, or degrees from top-notch universities are more likely to smoke weed or even snort a few lines here and there.

yodanole

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida

Posted: Sun May 18, 2014 10:44 am Post subject:

Intelligent folks probably become bored more quickly and easily with the more mundane moments of life. They would then perhaps seek some form of relief ......

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 4:21 am Post subject:

What I want to know is why Westerners are obsessed with science and "a newly published study in the journal of bla bla bla showed that farts from people who eat potatoes smell better than farts from people who eat beans". Who cares, shut up with the studies and "science".

drcrazy

Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Location: Pusan. Yes, that's right. Pusan NOT Busan. I ain't never been to no place called Busan

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 2:51 am Post subject:

I found this information to be quite interesting the first time I learned about it. That would have been in my little farming town High School in Indiana my freshman year in Health Class in 1977. Now, with the magic of the internet, you can see how much of this NEW STUFF was already done a long time ago.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 2:39 am Post subject:

travel zen wrote:

IQ markers? Intelligence???? Do these people reall think they can judge that?

Intelligence is just pattern recognition, and IQ tests adequately measure pattern recognition ability.

I can accurately guess a person's IQ within a few minutes of talking to them; easy to tell an 85 vs 100, vs 115, vs 130. In fact I can guess IQ even down to approximately 1/2 of a standard deviation (8pts), done it many times. So if it can't be measured how am I guessing it without even using a test?

travel zen wrote:

I look around and see barbarism in our society, we haven't the IQ to judge IQ yet

What you are actually saying with the word "we" is the mean IQ is too low in homo sapiens, thus the average person does stupid stuff, and the average person does not have the IQ to judge IQ. But it's the high IQ people who are able to recognize the patterns in IQ, not the avg IQ people.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe