- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/11/15 at 7:17 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
“Very bright” individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals (with IQs below 75).
Sounds to me like the "bright" people aren't so smart after all.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 7:22 pm to Bestbank Tiger
There are a lot of problems with this study, but here are the big ones.
First, the study says likely to consume. How do you test whether someone is likely to consume? In what manner did they gather this data? Who was the testing pool?
Second, again, it says likely to consume, not use habitually.
Last. 0.3 of a standard deviation is extremely small considering the size and scope of this "experiment". Just because they put it on a large bar graph doesn't mean it is a large gap in data points.
This "study" is shite just like the people who conducted it.
First, the study says likely to consume. How do you test whether someone is likely to consume? In what manner did they gather this data? Who was the testing pool?
Second, again, it says likely to consume, not use habitually.
Last. 0.3 of a standard deviation is extremely small considering the size and scope of this "experiment". Just because they put it on a large bar graph doesn't mean it is a large gap in data points.
This "study" is shite just like the people who conducted it.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 7:48 pm to The Third Leg
Good grief, where have you been? 
I'm not debating the "quality" of the test. The fact is, "random" drug tests are in more and more employment contracts.
Any tech company that does any government contracting, it's there.
I'm not debating the "quality" of the test. The fact is, "random" drug tests are in more and more employment contracts.
Any tech company that does any government contracting, it's there.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:03 pm to VetteGuy
Serious post: I could be mistaken but I believe a lot of companies in the private sector who get government contracts are required to have drug testing policies (engineers and the like), and some industries get tax breaks for having the same policies. Lots of white collar jobs have random pee tests. Which is unfortunate but there's money in testing facilities and they have lobbyists.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:06 pm to CoachChappy
quote:Every study has limitations; this doesn't make it a poor study.
There are a lot of problems with this study, but here are the big ones.
quote:It says it was based on consumption. The Y-axis is entitled "Latent factor for frequency of consumption." It is based on a national longitudinal study, just like many articles we see here in the US (NLYS is one).
First, the study says likely to consume. How do you test whether someone is likely to consume? In what manner did they gather this data? Who was the testing pool?
quote:Effect sizes--like Cohen's d, Hedges g, etc.--which are essentially the standardized mean effect are typically considered small at 0.2-0.5. So this is not an extremely small effect. Considering that this is based on a natural occurring, and stable explanatory variable (Intelligence). This a fairly surprising effect size.
Last. 0.3 of a standard deviation is extremely small considering the size and scope of this "experiment". Just because they put it on a large bar graph doesn't mean it is a large gap in data points.
quote:This seems unnecessary.
This "study" is shite just like the people who conducted it.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 8:07 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:22 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
I have used cannabis and alprazolam as PEDs while writing papers and it has done wonders for me
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:23 pm to buckeye_vol
On mobile so I cannot copy and quote well.
Yes every study has limitation, but the limitations here are gross in comparison to the limitations of others like it.
Pt2- Again the devil is in the details of consumption. The anti-tobacco people have "studies" that show that 1 in 4 males 12-16 have had a cigar. 1 in 3 have tried tobacco. This is based on an interview. People have no obligation toward honesty on these interviews or surveys. Hey, 15 year old, have you ever had a beer, sex, drugs, etc? 15year old- "sure I have" There is no way to reliably collect this data.
The data of the U.S. sample showed no significant variation, so the OP's assertion that more intelligent people use drugs is not corroborated by his own data.
Last, as another poster has already pointed out, these people are the same con artist that brought us the anti-vaccine "study" so while my point may be vulgar, I stand by it.
Yes every study has limitation, but the limitations here are gross in comparison to the limitations of others like it.
Pt2- Again the devil is in the details of consumption. The anti-tobacco people have "studies" that show that 1 in 4 males 12-16 have had a cigar. 1 in 3 have tried tobacco. This is based on an interview. People have no obligation toward honesty on these interviews or surveys. Hey, 15 year old, have you ever had a beer, sex, drugs, etc? 15year old- "sure I have" There is no way to reliably collect this data.
The data of the U.S. sample showed no significant variation, so the OP's assertion that more intelligent people use drugs is not corroborated by his own data.
Last, as another poster has already pointed out, these people are the same con artist that brought us the anti-vaccine "study" so while my point may be vulgar, I stand by it.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:24 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
Drugs cost money... sometimes a lot of money... smart people generally make more money...
It's simple economics.
It's simple economics.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:26 pm to LucasP
No, you're spot on. The language will be in the contract language from the government to the contractor. It may or may not make it into the employment contract, but it usually does. This includes SW developement, application support, even BPA's for hardware and software purchasing. It is a lot more prevalent than people realize.
And that'll be enough of the serious stuff, LucasP alter.
And that'll be enough of the serious stuff, LucasP alter.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:33 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
Smart people tend to explore more, always have always will.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:36 pm to TheCaterpillar
Mental and physically exploration have the same motive: the burning desire to learn more about something you know little.
Clear sign of intelligence.
Clear sign of intelligence.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:36 pm to VetteGuy
quote:
IDK, a lot of high-salaried jobs, in IT, banking, and the public sector, are subject to random testing.
banking/finance, no.
coke doing jobs as long as you are making money for your boss
Posted on 3/11/15 at 8:42 pm to VetteGuy
quote:
IDK, a lot of high-salaried jobs, in IT, banking, and the public sector, are subject to random testing.
Anything with any kind of clearance, testing is there.
Yet the FBI just said last year that they were looking at revising their stance on drug testing for marijuana because they are having difficulty finding people who don't smoke it.
quote:
Congress has authorized the FBI to add 2,000 personnel to its rolls this year, and many of those new recruits will be assigned to tackle cyber crimes, a growing priority for the agency. And that’s a problem, Mr. Comey told the White Collar Crime Institute, an annual conference held at the New York City Bar Association in Manhattan. A lot of the nation’s top computer programmers and hacking gurus are also fond of marijuana.
“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Mr. Comey said.
Mr. Comey said that the agency was “grappling with the question right now” of how to amend the agency’s marijuana policies, which excludes from consideration anyone who has smoked marijuana in the previous three years, according to the FBI’s Web site. One conference goer asked Mr. Comey about a friend who had shied away from applying because of the policy. “He should go ahead and apply,” despite the marijuana use, Mr. Comey said.
LINK /
Posted on 3/11/15 at 9:19 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
There's no statistical significance with respect to Americans, while the British data fit perfectly. This proves what, exactly? Do Americans lie about drug use? Do British researchers doctor their data?
Posted on 3/11/15 at 10:15 pm to CoachChappy
quote:Of course there are flaws in self-reported collection of behaviors. There are whole lines of research dedicated to this. That being said, it is not unreliable. Furthermore, even if there is under or over-reporting, this error should be reasonably distributed throughout the population. So the absolute numbers may more unreliable than the comparisons.
People have no obligation toward honesty on these interviews or surveys. Hey, 15 year old, have you ever had a beer, sex, drugs, etc? 15year old- "sure I have" There is no way to reliably collect this data.
quote:That poster admitted he was joking; he was connecting the two because they were both British.
Last, as another poster has already pointed out, these people are the same con artist that brought us the anti-vaccine "study" so while my point may be vulgar, I stand by it.
The vaccine researchers were completely different and in completely different fields altogether. I can't imagine how you would even think the two studies have any relation at all.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 10:32 pm to Deactived
quote:
Some of the smartest people I knew growing up used those drugs the most. I think them being completely bored in school and not having to put any effort into it caused some of it.
This has been my experience as well.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 11:04 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
I saw the thread title and knew you started this 
Posted on 3/12/15 at 12:24 am to GreatLakesTiger24
Makes sense. I've used drugs for years to dumb myself down so I could be on the level of the rest of the population. Otherwise, dealing with the stupidity out there would have made me crazy years ago.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:06 am to VetteGuy
quote:
Good grief, where have you been?
Nowhere good; just a lot of shite going on in all phases with little free time.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News