Slashdot Mirror
Bad Reporting, Not Email, Worse Than Marijuana
MoNickels writes "Turns out, those endless news reports and blog entries in April about "texting makes you stupid" were inaccurate. As linguist Mark Liberman at LanguageLog now reports by way of apologizing to Wilson, it wasn't Wilson's fault, but that of "rotten science journalism." Psychologist Glenn Wilson was reported to have done a study said that chat and email, as the Guardian put it, "are a greater threat to IQ and concentration than taking cannabis." But Wilson says, "This...is a temporary distraction effect—not a permanent loss of IQ. The equivalences with smoking pot and losing sleep were made by others, against my counsel, and 8 [subjects] somehow became '80 clinical trials.'" The original Slashdot story was covered back in April."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5179038412 705987877
/. admits they made a mistake...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
The reason that such things occur i because I think that we can not do much about media sensationalism or the scientific ignorance of many journalists. On the other hand , there's no reason why better information about science and technology should not also be available to the public.
+1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
Media don't sell news, they sell eyeballs. When you buy a paper, you're the product and not the client.
... And aye dont feal any more stupider.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
But the real question is whether causal marijuana usage really has a lasting effect on your IQ.
It seems that regardless of how many mistakes are made in scientific journalism that the root cause of the problem will never be addressed.
As long as money is the motivation for making and reporting discoveries, we will have skewed results (actual and/or reported) and our efforts may, more often than not, be focused in the wrong directions.
Are the days of curiosity forcing advances in science and eagerness to discover and learn promoting good journalism and sharing over with?
It is a non-issue to realize that most of the modern day losses in productivity come from distracted workers using the internet for personal pleasure rather than company projects. This distraction effort splits the focus of the individual and causes a decrease in the finite amount of cognitive processing ability given to any one task. Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction. Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts. I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work.
-----
Wow... just Wow
From Wiki "Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never publicly admitted it during his life. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X," he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, whose editor was Lester Grinspoon. In the essay, Sagan commented that marijuana encouraged some of his works and enhanced experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention."
Billions and billions of stars... whoa man far out.
I was having this discussion with a co-worker just the I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
This is why undergraduate degrees in journalism shuold be abolished. Aspiring journalists need to get a background in something, anything, so that they have a better grasp of specific subjects and general critical thought.
News media also need to not be profit-driven, but I also want a pony.
I blame the man for lowering my IQ and for takin my stash...
At least being stoned all the time makes dupes more tolerable when I don't remember reading them the first time.
"Progress comes from the intelligent use of experience."
Article title is definitely true! With pot I'm only disoriented for an hour or two, but sucky reporting leaves me in a confused daze forever...
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Honestly, I doubt his report would have gotten around quite as much if it would have been reported correctly. And now that the correct info is getting out, he's getting even more publicity. In the end, I think that Wilson probably is going to benefit from this.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
marijuana reporting, er, not bad email, is better than..
er..
toast! I want toast!
Obviously those people at the Guardian have not yet read Slashdot.
Welcome to our information age crack house.
If you spend all day emailing jokes and images, then it should be pretty obvious you are going to take a hit to the IQ. Not all people discuss stupid sh*t though email/im/irc.
The original article, despite its unfortunate lack of correctness, did give me pause to question whether permitting and accepting distraction with the sort of ease and frequency that is now present between cellphones and e-mail and fax and the Internet is actually causing long-term damage to our ability to think critically and plan the most efficient use of our time -- instead, the immediacy of a phone call or e-mail adds priority from proximity to matters that may be better left till tonight or tomorrow.
I've been noticing a sharp increase of people with brain-fry over the last decade, and it can't all be from drugs.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Pot, and almost all other drugs, were illegalized for racist reasons. For cocaine it was blacks, for opium it was Chinese, and for pot it was Mexicans. Cigarettes and alcohol aren't banned because white people used them back in the old days, it wasn't just minorities. Yes, it's completely stupid. But then again, so is racism in the first place.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It's flash dude, flash has had a built in movie player for some time now. I'd much rather have flash used for movies like this than stupid media player plug-ins, shame not everyone uses it.
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
You can't trust wikipedia! Trust the mass media!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Richard Feynman was an out user of recreational Marijuana, and he was one of America's leading physicists.
Of course, the burn out down the street who does nothing with his life except collect welfare is also an out user of marijuana. Bottom line? Everyone's different. Bottomer line? The burnout down the street might not want to do anything with his life, whereas Richard Feynman dug physics and math. Pot tends to lead you to do what you want, as opposed to what you should. Maybe if he didn't smoke, Feynman would have been some kind of accountant helping people get rich instead of contributing to the world of physics. Which would have been better? Who knows.
Anyone who's ever gone to a scientific conference can tell you that marijuana might not actually have any effect on IQ. Many, many scientists are pot heads, especially the especially bright ones.
Well I never!
http://www.joejag.com/pics/cnn_columbia.jpg
Pot, and almost all other drugs, were illegalized for racist reasons. For cocaine it was blacks, for opium it was Chinese, and for pot it was Mexicans. Cigarettes and alcohol aren't banned because white people used them back in the old days, it wasn't just minorities. Yes, it's completely stupid. But then again, so is racism in the first place.
Tobacco was introduced to Europeans via Native Americans and then brought back to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#History), and alcohol originated in ancient Sumeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#History). There goes your theory about it being racist.
The difference is that alcohol and tobacco are very old, socially accepted institutions, whereas crack cocaine and the like are relatively new to society at large. It's reasonable to assume that after enough time, these drugs may be socially acceptable as well.
"Thanks to crack, I can get a blowjob for a buck!" -S.O.D.
This website, while not too reliable-looking, lists several surprising names, including notable politicians (but we're discussing IQ here, so ignore those) and cites Bill Gates as a possible pothead. Most of the names listed are musicians (like Bob Marley-- duh!) and actors and writers, and if you're going to talk about them, you can just go ahead and list about every musician since the 50's :)
"Pot tends to lead you to do what you want, as opposed to what you should."
Empirical evidence please? It seems to me that, as you put out, we're actually talking about "proof by the exception" (look! I can point out a few famous people who used pot!) rather than "proof by the rule" (the majority of pot users are non-famous random joes, and it seems to have a very small, temporary impact on their ability to judge the world in a reasonable matter).
"Many, many scientists are pot heads, especially the especially bright ones."
And many more scientists, the bright ones, aren't. Promise. Although I'm not accusing you of it, this is, essentially, the fallacy of ignoring base rates.
Surely you're toking, Mr. Feynman?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
a great summary of the history of drugs. I remember specificly why for opium, its because the chinese were able to work insane hours taking jobs away from whites. Given most are very harmfull, but as it was said by someone else commenting... it depends on who does the study. there is only one study that says pot smoking reduces intelegence... I speculate that its just the way the person is REGARDLESS of weather they smoke pot or not
BTW I don't do any drugs, but I hate misinformation
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
Yes, because I trust a site named cannabis news to give me unbiased reporting of the effects of cannabis.
I also trust cigarette companies to tell me all the negative side effects of smoking tobacco.
a study involving repeated IQ tests of nearly 1400 participants over a time period of 12 years showed absolutely no statistical correlation between marijuana use and cognitive ability.
All the scientific studies show this same thing. All the studies showing that marijuana use does permanant damage always turn out to be bullshit. OK, saying "all the studies" might sound like a generalization--but actually try to find one that uses any kind of scientific method and shows that marijuana is bad for you. It's suprisingly hard considering what a great evil people claim it to be. It's truly evil that very sick people aren't allowed to use this cheap, easily produced drug to help them through their illnesses. It's illegal for no good reason.
BTW, if you sit around the house and smoke pot incessantly, it's true that you're probably not going to accomplish much with your life. Don't think that just because pot isn't inherently bad for you that you can't abuse it.
Or how about, "Reading Slashdot, Worse Than Marijuana".
Bradley Holt
There's no way that casual...wait, what was I saying? Could you repeat the question?
What you want it to say? 'Site of Republican and Facist lies about drug use'? That's like saying; "That article is from NYT, I refuse to believe a hurricane killed thousands of people, but when Fox News says it it's ok.". The information in that article is true. If you have a problem believing it, then try a little investigative reporting and look it up. Stop dismissing things just because you don't trust the source of the information. Think.
google.slashdot
It'd be a lot easier to check their claims about the studies they cite if, well, they had cited any studies. Otherwise, it's just pothead optimism.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Marijuana wasn't made illegal because of Mexicans. It was made illegal because the president who passed the bill to make it illegal was endorsed by companies that manufactured paper and harvested cotton. At the time, hemp products were in a position to take the market away from the cotton and paper industries.
Don't have any links to verify, because I read it in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. But here's another link for you ( don't know how acurate it is ): http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_2.shtml
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Nice conspiracy theory. I highly doubt the govt makes certain drugs illegal for the sole purpose of planting them on people, especially when there are better things to plant (like kiddie porn).
More likely drugs other than tobacco and alcohol were banned because they come primarily from outside the US. I don't quite know the economic incentive for doing this but I'm sure there's a good one related possibly to mercantilism. Also you need to remember how much lobbying the tobacco industry does and how much of a hit their profits would take if pot was legalized.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
One thing is the legalization and banning of drugs.
A VERY DIFFERENT thing is whether the drugs effectively are harmful or not.
Just because there are interests in keeping the drugs illegal, doesn't mean they're harmless. After all, if people with power don't care about suing 13yo's and single mothers, and tobacco companies don't care about lying and making addictive stuff, do you think druglords will care if their drugs are harmful or not? No, they just want the money.
And this is another reason to make MORE studies about the effects of marijuana. So we can know the TRUTH even if people from both sides oppose it. If some components of pot are good as medicine, let the people know it. If some other components are lethal, let also the people know it.
The point is not going to the extremes of saying "anything related to pot is poison!" and "pot is not harmful at all!"
Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's clearly racism, your incredibly narrow view and failure to consider other cultures history makes you sound like one of those government anti-drug propaganda people, whose flimsy arguments against drugs embarass them everytime they debate people who've bothered to study the topic with a neutral, open mind.
It's well-known through research that memory is best for things which you experienced when in a similar state. So you remember sad things better when you're sad, happy when you're happy, stoned when you're stoned, straight when you're straight, tired when you're tired, and so on. This makes biological sense: You're most likely to have use for the lessons of a part of the past when you're next in a most similar situation.
It's also part of how we are able to key our personalities for different functions: That morning cup of coffee; the happy hour drink after work.
This is a separate effect from that which can be occassioned by heavy drinking or (perhaps) really heavy pot smoking, where the circuits for laying down long-term memory appear to be interrupted so that even going back to a similar state won't retrieve the memories. But it's a confounding factor in reports about pot. Someone who's normally a bit depressed, but becomes happy when stoned, will remember things from the time when stoned just fine -- when they're stoned again. However, in their accustomed depressive state, not so much.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
On the one hand, this realization flies in the face of contemporary linguistic thought. On the other hand, OMFG U GOT SO PWNX0RZD!!@!~!~!
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
The Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use "No subject reported any adverse effects from smoking. The subjects were generally able to conduct their usual daily activities including jobs. However, they reported they did not function completely up to par during the several hour duration of the acute drug effect. There were no effects which persisted for more than three to five hours and cumulative effects were not noted day to day. No persistent decrements were seen in behavior, mental status, EEG, heart, rate, short-term memory, or psychomotor function tests. In sum, daily marihuana smoking for 21 days was well tolerated by well-adjusted graduate students." "No abstinence syndrome or physical dependence was observed after abrupt termination of smoking. Signs of mild to moderate psychological dependence. were possibly seen in the heavy [users] group but no evidence of psychological dependence was seen in the casual users." "Urinalysis, complete blood counts, cell morphologies and differentials, and blood chemistry determinations (calcium, phosphorous, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, cholesterol, total protein, albumen, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase) were unaffected." "Normal body temperature was not altered. No significant change, in pulmonary function (decreased. vital capacity or acute broncho spasm) was observed during the marihuana smoking period." "No signs of neurological abnormality were observed. No cumulative effect of marihuana to cause, impairment of cognitive function was noted on a battery of tests sensitive to organic brain function." "Both groups [heavy and light users] became progressively more convivial and less task-oriented in group discussions. They offered less suggestions in problem-solving tasks but continued to efficiently solve the problem." "Finally, repeated use of marihuana over the 21day period did not decrease motivation to engage in a variety of social and goal-directed behaviors. Almost without exception, every subject earned the maximum number of points every day throughout all non-drug and drug periods. No consistent alteration in pattern of work could be related to repeated marihuana use. Subjects often performed very high work output while they were smoking marihuana and experiencing the maximum drug effects. Repeated marihuana use, did not decrease subject's motivation to complete the study. Nor was any noticeable effect observed on interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as, writing, reading literature, keeping up with current national and world events, and participation in both athletic and esthetic endeavors." Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use "Psychosomatic abstinence syndromes often reported were physical weakness, intellectual apathy, loss of appetite, flatulence, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, abdominal cramps and nervousness, restlessness, and headache. For most heavy users the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seem to be comparable to that observed when a, heavy tobacco smoking American attempts to quit smoking. However, the psychological dependence appears to be severe as evidenced by the f act that one group of subjects were unable to cease their habitual use although the frequency of use, was only eight to 12 times per month (Soueif, 1967). This psychological dependence may have made some users claim physical dependence so that the government did not terminate dispensing them their drug. Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946)." "Mann et a]. (1970, 1971) and Finley (1971) studied the effect
Coca leaves and Cocaine are not the same thing. Coca Leaves are a very mild drug - the South American Indian words for "tea" often come from their name for "Coca Leaf Tea," because of their comparable effect. It just isn't absorbed by the body in a way that gets one high like Cocaine. Cocaine is an organic chemical derived (but not extracted) from these coca leaves. Claiming the two are equivalent is BS.
Cocaine is illegal in Africa. Marijuana is illegal in Mexico. Opium is illegal in China. Is it because China is racist against Chinese people? Mexico is racist against Mexicans? It must be comforting for people to believe that all the evil forces of the world unite to fight pet issues - greedy anti-hemp lobbyists, racist Southern sheriffs, etc. But holding these views up to even the lighest analysis shows both history and obvious contradictions being willfully ignored.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.