Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs

Hugh Pickens writes "Science Daily reports on a study that has determined that young men who smoke are likely to have lower IQs than their non-smoking peers. In the study, conducted with 20,000 Israeli Army recruits and veterans, the average IQ for a non-smoker was about 101, while the smokers' average was more than seven IQ points lower at about 94, and the IQs of young men who smoked more than a pack a day were lower still, at about 90. (These IQs all fall within the normal range.) 'In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighborhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools,' says Prof. Mark Weiser of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychiatry, whose study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction. 'Because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor. The government might want to rethink how it allocates its educational resources on smoking.' Prof. Weiser says that the study illuminates a general trend in epidemiological studies. 'People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser. 'Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit, and can be targeted with special education and therapy to prevent them from starting or to break the habit after it sets in.'"

Comments

Duh

[rossdee]

Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

Re:Duh

[Lord Byron II]

Ah, but you're ignoring the big reason why people continue to smoke, once they start - it's addicting. All things being equal, a dumb person and a smart person should have similar addiction risks. Perhaps here we're seeing that smarter people are less likely to become addicts, or maybe their intelligence is able to override the addictive drive.

Re:Duh

[Zumbs]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates one of the points of the article: It isn't just a matter of intelligence whether or not you start to smoke. Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers. One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

Re:Duh

[nebulus4]

Or a combination of both?!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm.... some people smoke out of a desire for socially-acceptable self-destruction.

Re:Duh

[Bert64]

You misread the parent post tho, which states that smarter people are less likely to start smoking... It's not addictive if you've never done it.

Re:Duh

[gid]

In college I used to smoke at bars and parties to meet girls, but I never got addicted curiously enough. Eventually I found out that the only girls I met were other smokers, whom I usually deemed less than desirable so basically I stopped smoking.

It was a good ice breaker tho.

Re:Duh

[hedwards]

Smarter people also tend not to enlist in the military to begin with. I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value outside the military where they could be pressed into a job without much required aptitude.

How it is that people fall for the sorts of lies he was telling me is beyond me, but you do have to account for the biased sampling selection otherwise you get skewed results. Also people who tend to be more intelligent tend to have better opportunities than the military can provide anyways.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

Yes, I'm aware that it stinks. Yes, I'm aware that it is extremely horrible for my health. ::shrug:: What can I say, I still enjoy it.

Doing something you know is bad for you != low intelligence...it's possible that some people (like me) just enjoy it.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

addictive

Re:Duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would not expect intelligence to have any useful correlation, positive or negative, with the physiological aspects of addiction(cravings, feeling like shit when you haven't had any, improvement on next dose, etc, etc.)

However, one of the abilities that generally falls into the basket of "intelligence" is the ability to do pattern recognition, recognize correlations, and use them to your advantage. There has been some research suggesting that one of the difficulties that people have in quitting any addictive substance is that, when not subject to craving at that particular moment, they consistently underestimate how tempted they will be in the future. It wouldn't totally shock me if smarter people are better at allowing their rational evaluation("No, whenever I 'have just one at the pub', I end up not stopping") to override the consistent emotional underestimate than less smart people are.

There are, I suppose, a variety of other potential confounding variables. For instance, you'd expect that brighter people, in general, should have a modestly better effort/reward ratio than less smart ones. This could easily result in an upbringing that encourages greater obedience to rules and instructions from others that seem to have a realistic basis.(If your parents tell you that you should be sure to work hard in school, and you do, and get good results, this is encouraging. You obey the instructions, and receive praise and recognition. If you obey the instructions; but aren't sharp enough to garner the richest rewards, you are likely to be less encouraged to do so in the future.) In most contemporary societies, there are a variety of risk/reward tradeoffs available. If you are smart enough(and aren't a member of some particularly despised underclass/race/whatever), you have likely had greatest access to the high end of the "low risk/low reward" strategy pool(and the high end of which is basically the "low risk/medium to good reward" pool, pretty attractive). If you are less smart, you are more likely to be stuck with the "low reward" side of the pool if you choose the "low risk" strategy pool. You might, therefore, be induced to (rationally) choose the "high risk" strategy pool.

More generally, the specific cigarettes case aside, I'd be interested to see some mixture of economic and sociological analysis looking at that question. Are people, in fact, substantially irrational, choosing(if one can be so optimistic as to assume that they do in fact choose), courses of action that are just plain stupid as the emtional and instinctive heuristics of a hunter-gatherer collide with modernity? Or are they actually acting rationally(if not always how we'd like them to), if you look at the rewards on average of various strategies, as compared to their other options?

Re:Duh

[MrKaos]

All things being equal, a dumb person and a smart person should have similar addiction risks. Perhaps here we're seeing that smarter people are less likely to become addicts, or maybe their intelligence is able to override the addictive drive.

My brother, with a degree in Physics and Telecommunications engineering, smokes like a chimney, about a pack a day. Plus he wears patches and chew the nicotine gum. He is well aware of the damage that he is doing to himself. The problem is (I can't remember the slashdot story I reference here) is that it seems to alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia he suffers. Unfortunately for him smoking seems to be getting more and more of an anti-social practice and I doubt that help that condition.

I personally can't stand the habit, but I realise that marginalising smokers doesn't help them. Despite the fact that this appears to be based in good science I think that most smokers reaction to this news would be to light up so they can cope with the stress of the news. I would like to see smoking handled as a health issue, with incremental taxes on the products driving the prices higher and directly funding health budgets. Those who can afford it could treat the purchase of cigarettes like a good bottle of scotch and those who cannot can have them prescribed by a doctor.

The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.

Re:Duh

[Bloopie]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

Yeah, but you can't even get to the end of a sentence without gasping. I think I'll stay away from smoking, thank you.

Re:Duh

[mcgrew]

I'd almost be willing to bet that the smart people you know who smoke aren't young. Back in the day, 3/4 of adults smoked, as opposed to today, and the health risks weren't as clear to most back then. Hell, when I went to college you could smoke in class; most of my professors smoked, as well as most of the students. nowdays you can't even smoke in a bar.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

They should print on cigarette packs things like.

Smoking makes you stink
Smoking makes you ugly
Smoking is for ass-holes

Would people buy cigarettes then?

-- a non-smoking-coward

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how GP is forgetting that smokers enjoy smoking. Obviously, if you didn't enjoy smoking, then you wouldn't be addicted to it.

Re:Duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In a country with essentially universal(except for a particular sect of religious nutjobs, who sponge off the government, breed, and study Torah, while the rest of the citizenry serves in the army, pays taxes, and generally isn't too happy about them) compulsory military service, I don't expect that that is a confounding variable of much concern....

In countries without such, that'd be a major confound(or, perhaps more likely, give you a fairly strongly bimodal distribution. A subset of the military is extremely bright, kid with the highest SAT scores in my class went to West Point, patriotism or family history of military activity can have a strong influence as well. On the other hand, it isn't exactly news that "volunteer" recruitment tends to be easier in poor economic times, and in small, somewhat depressed, towns where there is fuck-all in the way of alternatives.)

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

In Israel the army enlists you

Re:Duh

[iotaborg]

Of course you enjoy it, that's why it's so damn addictive. You have to enjoy it, otherwise how is the Tobacco company going to make money off of you?

Re:Duh

[Jedi Alec]

And, is it a direct correlation, or is it because people get divided into different schools and hence social circles partly based on intelligence?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that military service in Israel is mandatory - so your argument does not apply here.

Re:Duh

[Stradivarius]

The study was comparing smokers and nonsmokers, all of whom were in the military. So whatever sampling bias may exist would seem to apply equally to smoking and nonsmoking members.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Israel has conscription for both males and females.

I do not know about the specifics however: in the USSR (and maybe Russia too?) the well-connected/Party members/etc were able to "grease the wheels" and somehow get their sons out of it or get softer assignments. Israel may actually have a watertight conscription system, in which case conscripts are the entire youth of the country.

Re:Duh

[Pharmboy]

When I was young, I always found girls that smoke to be more desirable, ie: if she smokes, she pokes. The friend that originally explained this to me (when I was 18) noticed that girls that smoked had lower self-esteem, and girls with lower self-esteem were more likely to "do things" to get your acceptance. This isn't to say that all girls that smoke will have sex with you, it just says the odds are better, and you spend less time looking and more time doing.

So, if you are looking for a WIFE, then avoid smokers, but if you are looking for a good time, then girls that smoke are a better bet.

Re:Duh

[Rob the Bold]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

That's probably why, statistically speaking, there are more smokers than say, auto-finger-smasher-with-hammerers -- the former gets more enjoyment. So I doubt the point was missed.

Re:Duh

[macshit]

Smarter people also tend not to enlist in the military to begin with. I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value outside the military where they could be pressed into a job without much required aptitude.

This study was done in the Israeli military, which is a conscript force.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

That isn't true at all...how many people do you know who sit there saying they have to quit, it's disgusting, etc while they have a cig in their mouth? I have personally known a number of people like that (all of whom smoked more than a pack a day, btw)

Re:Duh

[Bakkster]

One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

I'd like to see a study with two test groups: smokers, and smokers who are smoking while taking the IQ test.

Nicotine increases neurotransmitter activity, but the effect is most pronounced while smoking. The biggest IQ-related effects are increases in concentration, alertness, and memory. However, nicotine is also physically addictive, and the withdrawl symptoms could result in reductions in those same traits.

I expect that while smoking, the subjects will have an equivalent or slightly higher IQ score, while those not smoking will continue to have a lower score.

Re:Duh

[Erikderzweite]

Well, I thik, rossdee meant that smart people are more aware of dangers of smoking and therefore less likely to start smoking at all. And if you don't pick up smoking, you'll never get addicted.

Re:Duh

[Dragonslicer]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

Yeah, in the medical field that's called "addiction".

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarter people also tend not to enlist in the military to begin with. I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value outside the military where they could be pressed into a job without much required aptitude.

How it is that people fall for the sorts of lies he was telling me is beyond me, but you do have to account for the biased sampling selection otherwise you get skewed results. Also people who tend to be more intelligent tend to have better opportunities than the military can provide anyways.

I thought service in the Israeli Military was mandatory, at least in most cases....

Re:Duh

[an unsound mind]

Enjoyment and addiction have little to nothing to do with each other.

You can enjoy something and not be addicted; conversely you can be addicted to something and not enjoy it.

Actually, most of the enjoyment from smoking is gone by the time the addiction sets in. By that time you need a smoke just to feel normal.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but the brain needs oxygen. If I smoked 10 cigarettes a day, thats 100 minutes where I'm severely depriving my brain of much needed oxygen, instead feeding it nicotine and other chemicals. And that's only half a pack a day. There are some people out there smoking 3 packs a day (600 minutes of oxygen deprivation). I can't imagine their brains developing as fully as someone who doesn't smoke.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You are forgetting that a lot of addicts think they enjoy their addiction because they are in the denial phase.

Re:Duh

[brian_tanner]

I used to think that too. I suggest you read Allen Carr's book. It's an easy read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Carr

The book has helped myself and several others in our Ph.D program quit smoking. I think you may find that you don't enjoy smoking, but rather you enjoy relieving the physical and psychological symptoms of Nicotine withdrawal. Each cigarette returns you to neutral, and after about an hour your Nicotine levels have dropped and your addicted body makes you uncomfortable so you enjoy having another cigarette and returning back to neutral. The truth is you like having an absence of withdrawal symptoms, ie, of being a nonsmoker.

Probably. So far everyone I know that has read the book has easily quit and has come to understand this perspective. We're not exactly a low IQ bunch. But I could be wrong of course. Couldn't hurt to find out though: at least you'd have a reason to ditch the stink and health problems...

Re:Duh

[betterunixthanunix]

And you are ignoring the fact that nicotine has pleasant effects, which is why people smoke at all. This is what always gets me about the anti-smoking crowd -- yes, smoking is bad for your health, but nobody ever bothers to raise the issue of why people smoke. It is not as cut and dry as "you try a cigarette and you are hooked for life," which is how most youth education seems to frame it. It is also not as simple as "no matter how often you smoke, it will lead to cancer, amputations, and heart attacks" -- smoking one cigarette a month is not a high enough level of exposure to pose a danger, whereas smoking a pack or more per day certainly is.

The problem, at least where I am (America), is that anti-smoking programs dumb everything down and treat people like idiots. Why not be honest with people, acknowledge that smoking has pleasant effects, and remind them that exposure to tobacco smoke is dangerous and that frequent exposure is very likely to cause severe health problems?

Really, you can substitute any drug in the above argument -- American anti-drug rhetoric is based on stirring up hysteria, and not on respecting anyone's intellect.

Re:Duh

[endymion.nz]

I have to deal with a lot of ugly, stinky, non smoking assholes every day so I think it's fair.

Re:Duh

[jeremyp]

Doing something you know is bad for you != low intelligence.

I'm not aware that anybody is claiming that doing things that are bad for you is equal to low intelligence (although, this being Slashdot, I'm sure somebody has made that claim here somewhere). The only factual statement I have seen is that on average young men who smoke have lower IQs than young men who don't smoke. I bet in both groups the distribution of IQs is fairly wide.

Incidentally, "young men who smoke have lower IQs" is not equivalent to "young men with low IQs are more likely to take up smoking". What if there is a causal link? What if smoking depresses your IQ?

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to enjoy something without being addicted to it? No wonder the rehab thing is so popular nowadays...people are addicted to everything!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

This study used Israeli army recruits as soldiers. Military service is compulsory for Israeli citizens (both male and female, fwiw).

Re:Duh

[3247]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

No.

You talk yourself into believing that you enjoy it because you know it's bad and don't want to accept that you're an addict.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

Again, I smoke at most half a pack a day, and it isn't uncommon for me to go for days without smoking at all (a good example being when we went to visit my fiancee's sister two weeks ago...didn't have a single cig for a week, nor did I ever feel the need for one)

Cigs are one of those things where if I have them, that's great...if I don't, I'm not going to go out of my way to get more.

Re:Duh

[DurendalMac]

Except that kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray.

Re:Duh

[Dragonslicer]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to enjoy something without being addicted to it?

Some biochemists might say so, since "enjoying" something is because of the neurochemicals released. Many addictive substances cause the production of those same chemicals. This is why cigarettes are addictive. The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?" If the tests were not designed with only that question in mind, the whole thing is an egotistical farce. Along with isolating class bigotry, acknowledging basic motivations of the test subjects is important too. Is an unmotivated person more likely to smoke? Is motivation a factor of intelligence or is it another manifestation of things like sibling rivalry. Face it. The eldest children get the opportunities. The youngest children are expected to play nurse for their dying parents. I doubt that this study has much merit. Slashdot has too many articles of this type.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

So, if you are looking for a WIFE, then avoid smokers, but if you are looking for a good time, then girls that smoke are a better bet.

Shouldn't you be busy getting ready for the Masters' Tournament, Mr. Woods?

And just for the record, that Erin you married looks like a total pain in the ass.

Seriously, though, the thing about girls who smoke is true. As disgusting as it sounds, the faint taste of cigarettes and alcohol on a woman's breath is quite arousing. Intellectually, I wouldn't want a girl who smokes (and my wife is a non-smoker) and I never really cared for drunk women, but still...

However, that does NOT mean I'd do Amy Winehouse.

Re:Duh

[Lumpy]

Wierd how you guys want wifes that dont poke. I personally went looking for a woman with a high sex drive instead of a prude that hates to put out.

I want a good time the ENTIRE time I am married, What kind of nutjob wants the opposite?

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

Interesting you say that, because we roll our own cigs with loose tobacco, usually with American Spirit or some other "organic" tobacco.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

licking an ashtray

Is that code for something?

I couldn't find any references to "licking the ashtray" at Urban Dictionary.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

"Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking."

Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite. While I admit freely that the entirety of my social circle does not amount to a representative sample of the population, most of the nicotine addicts I know (myself included) got started smoking in similar ways.

For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who smoked, and would always offer me one, but for the longest time I turned down the offer. It was after coming out of a bad relationship, having far more to drink than was either healthy or reasonable, and then running into the other half of said bad relationship at the same party... Well, I'll spare the details, but it was rather upsetting. Anyways, me being upset and intoxicated (nice combination there!), I was offered a cigarette. This time, I took it- didn't really give a shit at the time. Found that I rather enjoyed the experience.

Roll the clock forward a year. I'm in the habit of having a smoke now and then when I'm drinking. My line of thinking was something to the effect of: "I know this is bad for me, but I'm doing it so infrequently that the cumulative damage should be minimal if even measurable. I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that. And damn it, it feels good!"

Roll the clock forward another year, and I'm a pack a day smoker. Somewhere over the summer between sophomore and junior year, My drinking and partying became frequent enough that I started getting cigarette cravings when sober. Those of you who have never been addicted to anything can understand addiction only in an objective, clinical way- the subjective experience of it, however, is something you need to experience to understand- though I highly recommend against it.

That's the falling that most of the smokers I know have had- overconfidence. You think that you're an intelligent person, mind over matter, and all that jazz, but the reality of it is far more difficult than you can comprehend, and you don't really understand it until you're hooked. It's a song and dance that I've seen and taken part in time and time again.

As an aside, I think that's the major failing with education regarding drugs, both legal and otherwise- I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand. You can preach about the negative effects all day long, but since when has the average high school/college aged kid been afraid to take a few risks? The legal repercussions? Please, like the average kid's that worried. I believe that the dangers and nature of addiction need to be stressed a LOT more, but as I said, I don't know of any way to explain it in terms that can be understood by someone who's never been addicted to anything.

Re:Duh

[thrawn_aj]

I agree, but for a different reason. I'm a non-smoker, teetotaler and never did drugs either but I still call bs on this study for the simple reason that IQ is another one of those metrics that have some value but is nowhere near as sharp as people would have us believe. The differences (while statistically significant), are only as meaningful as the metric itself. In other words, the study proves that a certain metric that is measured in a certain way (IQ) is correlated with smoking behavior. The uncertainty in mapping that metric to 'actual' intelligence' probably far outweighs the tiny differences observed.

You should keep in mind though that your 'health' is usually taken to mean the state of your body, which includes the brain. It is quite plausible that the physiological effects of smoking extend to the brain. In any case, that's a risk you take.

Doing something you know is bad for you != low intelligence

That's why I distinguish between 'potential intelligence' and 'kinetic intelligence' (especially when judging myself - my kinetic intelligence is rather poor for instance :p). I trust the distinction is clear?

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

Not only is smoking enjoyable, but it's manly and patriotic.

If not for tobacco, it's quite possible that the USA would not exist today and we'd all still be speaking English.

Re:Duh

[tomhudson]

Ah, but you're ignoring the big reason why people continue to smoke, once they start - it's addicting. All things being equal, a dumb person and a smart person should have similar addiction risks. Perhaps here we're seeing that smarter people are less likely to become addicts, or maybe their intelligence is able to override the addictive drive.

You can't fix stupid.

And don't argue addiction - it sounds too much like the Pope trying to justify hiding pedophiles for decades - we KNOW smoking is bad for you, and we KNOW sexually abusing kids is bad for them. Both are stupid.

What next - excuse these pedophile priests because are addicted to sexually molesting and otherwise abusing kids? Only a low-IQ smoker would buy into that.

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Who is interested in kissing her?

Re:Duh

[Lumpy]

Crack heads smoke crack because they enjoy it. why do we stop their enjoyment..... Ahhh flavor country......

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be unpopular Im sure I will get marked troll for this one but... here is a different view from me a non smoker.

Another anti smoking thing. I personally do not smoke because I do not like the taste (never have never will). But I find it quite abhorrent the way people treat smokers.

Take lighting up at a restaurant. Pretty much verboten these days. But try it and the lady across from you will wig the hell out about second hand smoke. Meanwhile her precious snowflake is throwing food and yelling at the top of their lungs. She will start yelling at the people who work there and at the guy who lit up.

Seriously you are not going to die from a few puffs from 1 second hand smoke cig. Or even a little here and there. You get more pollutants driving down the interstate at rush hour.

They have been pushed out of all public places even outside. Including the ones they considered their 'own' bars.

Had one lady totally melt down on me because she was near me and I had just been in a bar and smelled from smoke. I was sitting in the non-smoking (as I do not smoke) section of a restaurant and she got her waiter to come over and she bitched him out for 5 mins for seating her in a 'smoking' section until he pointed out the sign on the table.

There was a time in the country when if you went over to someones house as a guest they would ask 'would you like an ashtray'. Now they say go 'go outside'. Some host...

I used to be one of the 'get the hell away from me' non smokers. Then one day I was just sitting around and saw one of my fellow non-smokers acting a damn fool. I thought maybe I shouldn't act that way. But seriously LOOK at yourselves. You treat people who smoke with contempt and are downright rude to them. Then turn around and say 'dont be racist'.

I predict this thread will be full of people stating how cool they are that they do not smoke. Then give examples of how they went off on some smoker. This will only prove my point that perhaps as non smokers we should shut the hell up. We 'won' we got what we wanted. Smokers are confined to their homes (out of sight and mind and all). They are taxed more and more to pay for some stupid project that will be underfunded (because smoking taxes are never enough). If you seriously think that tax money is going towards healthcare you do not know how government works. They cant even go to a smoke filled bar anymore and hang out with other smokers because we non smokers might want to go into that bar.

Perhaps we non smokers need to stop dancing and realize we have infringed upon the rights of our fellow humans?

Re:Duh

[thrawn_aj]

That isn't true at all...how many people do you know who sit there saying they have to quit, it's disgusting, etc while they have a cig in their mouth? I have personally known a number of people like that (all of whom smoked more than a pack a day, btw)

I wouldn't take that too seriously. That's just the socially acceptable way of indulging in a vice. Call it a ritual self-punishment if you will as payment for continuing the vice.

Re:Duh

[Nadaka]

Not all of use are proctologists you know.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

"You know who the worst kind of non-smoker is? You're just sitting there smoking, and they walk up to you and start coughing. ::cough cough COUGH COUGH RRRRRRRRR:: Well that's not very nice...you walk up to cripple people and start dancing too, you fuck?" -Bill Hicks

Re:Duh

[rubycodez]

there will be in a day or so

Re:Duh

[Zumbs]

They are in their 20s or early 30s, which I consider being reasonably young. Most started smoking before they turned 16, and some never managed to quit. Others did, but being able to quit seems to be more about willpower (can you ignore the desire to take a smoke) and biology (how bad are the withdrawal symptoms) than smarts. But as I wrote, this is entirely anecdotal evidence.

Re:Duh

[flanders123]

Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

...And thus "dumber" people die off faster. I know this is harsh, but this is Darwinism at work.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else say that the study was conducted in Israel?

Not that your post had anything to do with Israel or the study. Hey folks, maybe you should wake up before posting!

Re:Duh

[julesh]

One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

Actually it can answer it. The study looked at two groups: fresh recruits and vets. We can assume an age difference of at least a few years between them, and the recruits are likely to be young enough that they've only been smoking for a couple of years on average. Therefore if the smoking were causing damage, we'd expect the recruits to show a less pronounced effect than the vets. As the article mentions no difference between the two groups, we can assume no significant such difference exists, and therefore (at least) no evidence for the latter proposition, and potentially evidence against it.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

I do believe you're mistaken about this. People first start smoking for different reasons, but they continue smoking because they enjoy it. They become addicted because they enjoyed it and thus began smoking more regularly after their first few experiences with it.

I'm a former smoker and I can guarantee you that I wasn't addicted at my first puff, or even my first few packs. I found I enjoyed it though through more experiences and I began to increase the regularity with which I smoked, yet I still wasn't addicted. I became physically addicted after I kept on smoking for a period of time. And, even after I knew I was addicted I still enjoyed smoking. It took a major paradigm shift in my life to get me to want to stop smoking, and want to break all of my addictions.

If I had not enjoyed smoking, I would never have become addicted. I would also say that most smokers I know enjoy smoking long after they are addicted to it. Why? Most people are addicted long before they realize they have an addiction. What's more, I knew a man who smoked himself to death--he died of emphysema. Long after he knew he was addicted, and knew his emphysema would kill him, he kept on smoking because he liked to smoke, because he got pleasure from smoking. To him that pleasure was worth more than his own life.

The same principles apply with alcoholism. You enjoy the effects of your first few drinks, and so you drink more. Pretty soon you depend on it to feel good. But, the dependence would not have occurred if enjoyment/pleasure from drinking had not preceded it. Once again, the voice of experience as I'm an alcoholic. One that hasn't had a drink in almost 20 years, but one still the same.

What is the conclusion? You cannot deny the correlation between enjoyment and addiction as the pleasure/enjoyment derived from the addictive behavior and/or substance is what keeps the person on the same path until addiction is the result.

Re:Duh

[moosesocks]

I know tons of "smart" people who smoke. Most of them do it to cope with stress and anxiety.

Despite the fact that it kills you, it's apparently a surprisingly effective antidepressant with very few neurological side-effects. Don't forget the cultural aspect too -- everyone smokes down South.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't want a wife that is frigid, but one who can be satisfied by one man.

If you want to get laid, find a woman who wants it and doesn't care who.
If you want to get married, find a woman who only wants it from you.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarter people know that smoking is addicting, that's one of the reasons they're less likely to start.

Re:Duh

[Bigbutt]

My wife smoked and poked when she was younger. She's since given up both :(

[John]

Re:Duh

[anonymousbob22]

If not for tobacco, it's quite possible that the USA would not exist today and we'd all still be speaking English.

Umm...hate to tell you this, but we don't exactly speak german in the US...

Re:Duh

[Faerunner]

It wouldn't surprise me if either the chemicals in cigarettes or the sheer amount of oxygen denied to your bloodstream by your blackened, tar-filled lungs actually kill off or otherwise damage your neural connections.

Re:Duh

[addsalt]

I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value

At least you figured out why he was after you.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Military service is mandatory in Israel.

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Some people enjoy sniffing glue and I would definitely say that is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Not necessarily low intelligence. Remember everyone in their test fell within a normal intelligence range.

It's just saying you're more likely to not be as smart as a non-smoker and I think that is a fair assumption when you enjoy inhaling some of the worst chemicals known to man. No one is calling you retarded, just not as smart as someone who would avoid that.

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Which is of course why virtually all smokers have tried quitting and would like to quit.

Re:Duh

[HungryHobo]

what the fuck????
you're comparing smoking- a mildly unpleasant vice which damages your own health to raping children

Re:Duh

[charlesr44403]

No code, it is literally true.

Re:Duh

[bwintx]

"England and America are two countries divided by a common language." - George Bernard Shaw.

Or, as we would say today:
WHOOSH.

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

I enjoy reading books and therefore don't try to quit reading books. I can't think of one smoker that I've met that hasn't tried giving up at least once. Sure you get some enjoyment from the smoking as it's satisfying your body's urges and therefore your brain will quit nagging you.

The test would be that I can quit reading books this very second for a year where as a smoker is very unlikely to be able to do that.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains my friends in college that were in med school. All the ones with the worst grades smoked. No, wait, that doesn't fit. Some of the absolutely brilliant ones (the ones that, the year before had their pick of schools) smoked too.

Addiction ignores intelligence.

Re:Duh

[Stradivarius]

Incidentally, "young men who smoke have lower IQs" is not equivalent to "young men with low IQs are more likely to take up smoking". What if there is a causal link? What if smoking depresses your IQ?

Could be a confounding variable too.

Low self-control causes difficulty learning (if you can't suppress your desire to be playing while you should be studying, listening to the teacher, etc.) which will probably show itself on IQ tests.

Low self-control also probably makes you more likely to smoke, and to keep smoking after you've tried it.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a link in the other direction too (smoking causing further problems).

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Not everyone gets addicted but the vast majority do and won't go days without smoking. Likewise the fact that some people have fallen out of an airplane without a parachute and have survived doesn't mean everyone should give it a go.

Re:Duh

[operagost]

I only ever dated one smoker, but that wasn't my experience. I guess it depends on how much you smoke.

Re:Duh

[thetoadwarrior]

Which isn't very useful since this isn't the 50's can you can't smoke in most places let alone while doing your job and being smarter on your cigarette break isn't really a benefit to the company.

Re:Duh

[jellomizer]

Smarter people have more options then dumb people after they leave high school.

The following are available with a high school deploma.
Low paying job where you will be struggling for the rest of your life.
Military where you probably still won't get paid well but at least you get room and board.
Religious vocation (But still for most major religions you still need to go threw serious schooling (equivalent to a 4 year degree))
Speciality training where you can get a decent job at a good rate but you are first to go when the economy goes down.
Start your own company. (But without chances are if you are unwilling to work for an education you may not be too successful at you own job)

The military option isn't that bad of a choice if you don't have what it takes to go threw school.

Now the smarter kids have more options... First they can get a college degree and if they do choose to go to the military they can be an officer which is much better position, as well as many more jobs.

You bet the recruiter is going off of the ones who weren't too bright. If they were on top of things they would know that going to college there would be better options later on. But these kids probably will end up with hum drum lousy life and the military is a better place for them, and give them the kick in the butt they need when they get out.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

faint taste of cigarettes and alcohol on a woman's breath is quite arousing

Speak for yourself, dude. Those are major turn-offs as far as I am concerned, especially the cigarette taste. It's the olfactory equivalent of a tramp stamp.

Re:Duh

[ignavus]

My daughter reports that smoking is common at her university.

Smarter people are still susceptible to stupid fashions.

And averages are only an indication of tendencies, not absolute differences - there are plenty of people with above average IQs who smoke. Smoking is simply a _bit less_ common among the more intelligent than it is among the less intelligent.

It also varies considerably by nationality.

Re:Duh

[TheLink]

There other places to kiss :).

Re:Duh

[Antiocheian]

Umm... hate to tell you

Though not exactly English either...

Re:Duh

[Scrameustache]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke.

Are they young? I think the point of the article I didn't read was that young people with low IQs are more likely to ignore all the evidence that starting to smoke would be a bad idea. If they got addicted before being well-informed as to why it would be a bad idea to put yourself in that situation, then it's not about their smarts, it's about their environment.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Are you sure you don't smoke, you seem like you fit the demographic. Did it occur to you that maybe people treat smokers poorly because they don't want to smell like a vagrant? When I get up in the morning, I shower so I don't smell (as) bad. Why should I accept having to walk through some idiots' cloud of stink just because they can't be considerate enough to take their disgusting habit where it won't affect other people? They are the ones who are being abhorrently rude, by making all those around them stink like them. Some non smokers do go over the edge, but that doesn't invalidate anti-smoking measures or attitudes. I'll say it again- smokers smell bad, other people don't want to share. As for your 'rude host' comment below, what world are you living in? Why should a smoker expect to have the right to stink up their friends house? Would I visit a friend and expect to be allowed to pee on their rug? What if I'm addicted to painting, should I be offended if they don't let me draw all over their walls? WTF are you thinking? And why is the rest of your post an almost incoherent rant? Had you used up all your brainpower on the preceding barely coherent rant? Seriously, you might as well go light up.

This will be unpopular Im sure I will get marked troll for this one but... here is a different view from me a non smoker.

Another anti smoking thing. I personally do not smoke because I do not like the taste (never have never will). But I find it quite abhorrent the way people treat smokers.

Take lighting up at a restaurant. Pretty much verboten these days. But try it and the lady across from you will wig the hell out about second hand smoke. Meanwhile her precious snowflake is throwing food and yelling at the top of their lungs. She will start yelling at the people who work there and at the guy who lit up.

Seriously you are not going to die from a few puffs from 1 second hand smoke cig. Or even a little here and there. You get more pollutants driving down the interstate at rush hour.

They have been pushed out of all public places even outside. Including the ones they considered their 'own' bars.

Had one lady totally melt down on me because she was near me and I had just been in a bar and smelled from smoke. I was sitting in the non-smoking (as I do not smoke) section of a restaurant and she got her waiter to come over and she bitched him out for 5 mins for seating her in a 'smoking' section until he pointed out the sign on the table.

There was a time in the country when if you went over to someones house as a guest they would ask 'would you like an ashtray'. Now they say go 'go outside'. Some host...

I used to be one of the 'get the hell away from me' non smokers. Then one day I was just sitting around and saw one of my fellow non-smokers acting a damn fool. I thought maybe I shouldn't act that way. But seriously LOOK at yourselves. You treat people who smoke with contempt and are downright rude to them. Then turn around and say 'dont be racist'.

I predict this thread will be full of people stating how cool they are that they do not smoke. Then give examples of how they went off on some smoker. This will only prove my point that perhaps as non smokers we should shut the hell up. We 'won' we got what we wanted. Smokers are confined to their homes (out of sight and mind and all). They are taxed more and more to pay for some stupid project that will be underfunded (because smoking taxes are never enough). If you seriously think that tax money is going towards healthcare you do not know how government works. They cant even go to a smoke filled bar anymore and hang out with other smokers because we non smokers might want to go into that bar.

Perhaps we non smokers need to stop dancing and realize we have infringed upon the rights of our fellow humans?

Re:Duh

[Hurricane78]

There is no such thing, as a general “smart”. Those people are likely very smart in their logical thinking, and very weak in their abilities to process emotions. It’s typical for smart geeks to smoke, when they got problems. Since they are not experts in processing them. Or else they would perhaps be liberal arts majors. (Although those don’t seem to handle it better, since they don’t have the systematic behavior to achieve that plan.) ^^ (Warning: When I generalize, I am talking about majorities. I aware that not everyone is like that. :)

Smoking is something that I call a “repression-helper”. Just like Prozac. (Which is used exactly where it never should be used: To repress problems that you should PROCESS, and hence to never heal from it.)
Alcohol on the other hand usually makes it harder, to repress things. People can become all emotional on it.

I bet, that most people would have a much easier time, getting rid of smoking, when they would face their problems, and process them, instead of repressing them.
But of course, with over 600 additives in a normal cigarette, they are as addictive as heroine. (That information is based on a study, and on the personal experience of two friends of mine.) So you still have to overcome that. Which is really *really* hard for normal people. That’s why I stopped telling people to “just get rid of it”. It’s not “just” that simple.

Also: No, smoking does not “taste great”. First of all, it does not have a taste. It has a smell. And while you may like the smell of tobacco, you wouldn’t just use the aromas like in a perfume, would you? Plus, non-addicted people don’t think it smells great. What you like, is the good feeling it gives you. You have learned that association.
But of course, for non newbie smokers, you don’t get a good feeling when smoking, but you get the normal feeling back again. Because now you feel always worse without the tobacco(+additives).
The problem is, that to get that feeling back as normal, you have to pay back all the good feelings you got when you started. With pain. Lots of it. (Yes, emotional pain is indistinguishable from injury pain for the human brain. No it’t de-facto real pain. [Yes, this is also true for losing a loved one.])
But most people just go even deeper into debt, just to get a better-than-the-original-normal feeling again. :/

Re:Duh

[Pharmboy]

Except that kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray.

Who's talking about kissing her? I was talking about having sex, not falling in love. And most single guys will tell you that most of the time, it is better to have sex with a fun girl that smells like an ashtray than to have sex with your own hand.

Re:Duh

[huckamania]

Still, I think the study is flawed. It is more likely that smokers answered enough questions to "pass", filled in the rest as quickly as possible and left to go have a cigarette. I remember taking the pre-enlistment test and the week of testing during boot camp. Both are a pain and are a test of patience as much as anything. The phrase 'hurry up and wait' comes to mind and the too close face of a drill sgt screaming at recruits to stay off his grass. Fun times.

Don't know what it says about my IQ, but I had the highest score for my entire Company, including the Major.

Re:Duh

[Maxo-Texas]

A lot of smart people don't smoke cigarettes. And a lot of smart people do smoke pot (and do other drugs).

So the risk/fun is better there as long as you are not in the 5-10% who can't handle it.

I worked in an office full of smart, highly compensated contract programmers who all had stories about doing plenty of coke back in the 80's too.

Plus, commercial cigarettes taste really bad these days.

Have a good $10-$12 cigar (I have one a year- would like to have more and recently bought a pipe). Get one recommended by the humidor. Then you understand why everyone is crazy about tobacco in history. It tastes good. Really good.

I concur with the above "girls who smoke poke" and "girls who poke a lot could be bad wife risks" and "kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray". Dated one lady (went to vegas with her) and my tongue tingled from the nicotine in her mouth. We had a blast while there but not something for long term.

Re:Duh

[Creepy]

I know plenty of smart people that smoke, but less than dumb people that smoke.

    I have a different theory - in the 1970s-1980s some jobs gave employees extra "smoke breaks" if they smoked. Since these were mostly nonsalaried workers, we can assume most have lower IQs. Since children of smokers tend to be smokers, this could be heredity and a product of 1970s era job practices.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

I believe you're mistaking self-destructiveness for lack of intelligence. Emotions often over-ride the thought process.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke.

Smoking, drink and drugs can form the basis of self medication. I suffer from some degree of social anxiety and I smoked when I was younger to disguise it. I began smoking again (quit for 5 years) after the UK government decided to ban smoking in workplaces and indoor public spaces. We can attribute to the "ban" that the focal point for social activity has shifted away from the bar to open top roof terraces and the like. At a certain restaurant I frequent, the roof terrace is like some post-modern take on a victorian era smoking room.

My emperical observation if that smoking is not so good an indicator of IQ as it is of socialisation... I'll get my jacket -- it's the comically disgusting maroon velvet smoking jacket with paisley collar.

Re:Duh

[NotVeryOriginal]

Uh oh! I guess I shouldn't bug my wife about the smoking then! Thanks for the tip!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

And being the super nerdy geek that you are you don't need to be sterile because noone will do anything to you without payment up front.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke.

No you don't. If they smoke, then by definition they can't be very smart.

Re:Duh

[JDmetro]

Wow you are a moron.
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-50.asp

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

licking an ashtray

Is that code for something?

I couldn't find any references to "licking the ashtray" at Urban Dictionary.

If really you think that's some sort of metaphor or something, then you've obviously never kissed a heavy smoker.

Oh wait. I forgot where I was. Scratch the "heavy smoker" part.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"down South"

You must be a smoker.

Re:Duh

[nelsonal]

I think it's that lower IQ people tend to have very high discount rates (in otherwords pleasure now is very preferrable to more pleasure in the future). You can see this in smoking rates, use of credit, rent to own contracts. Etc. As a result, most of society's status indicators require forgoing immediate benefits sometimes for a very long period of time. This tends to shift status toward high IQ folks (to a point, once it gets high enough men especially tend to signal by cease to play).

Re:Duh

[physburn]

Until a pretty girl I knew offers me one. My Brains fall out to pretty girls.

Re:Duh

[amaupin]

As disgusting as it sounds, the faint taste of cigarettes and alcohol on a woman's breath is quite arousing.

Wow, -1 for poor taste.

(If I had mod points.)

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigbutt, maybe a clue right there? ;)

Re:Duh

[Bakkster]

Right, but it does better explain the cause-and-effect relationship. It would also prove (assuming IQ was not raised while smoking for habitual smokers) that there was no net benefit to IQ by smoking. It would just mean that while smoking you were as sharp and focused as before you began smoking, and while not smoking you were less so. A good argument against tobacco if I've ever heard one.

Re:Duh

[koxkoxkox]

The test would be that I can quit reading books this very second for a year where as a smoker is very unlikely to be able to do that.

I doubt it. At least I would not be able to.

Re:Duh

[ztransform]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke.

... you mean smarter than you right?

Re:Duh

[ztransform]

I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand.

Clearly you're a moron. And you couldn't understand why smoking was bad, so of course you have no idea how to explain addiction in terms a kid like you would understand.

Smarter kids hear what people like you have to say about your habit and they just don't want to be like you.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have that experience. Never in my life have I tried licking an ashtray :-)

Re:Duh

[jim_v2000]

You could know a million "very smart" people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that ON AVERAGE, more stupid people are smoking than smart people. God damn...learn something about statistics. Nothing in the article said "ALL SMOKERS ARE STUPID, LOL". It simply said that smokers tend to be less intelligent than non-smokers, on average.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the "one question" that this study doesn't answer is:

"Why do people still think IQ tests mean anything?"

An IQ test is like a trigonometry test, it proves only one thing: you are not good at a particular skill set.

The PhD in English literature or Biochemistry may be terrible at trigonometry. Hell, a PhD in Mathematics may focus entirely on non-trig related subjects in his career and complete his math PhD while still struggling with advanced trig concepts.

In none of these cases would we say the person who did poorly on the trig test is unintelligent. We might say he's bad at trigonometry, and we'd be correct, but it doesn't me he isn't smart.

The only thing getting a low score on an IQ test means is that you are bad atIQ tests (and given the differences between them, probably that you are only bad at this particular type...).

Re:Duh

[jim_v2000]

>For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot.

You have automatically disqualified yourself as a smart person with this quote. Smart kids don't get invited to parties!

Re:Duh

[Runaway1956]

As usual, one needs to examine the IQ test. Yeah, we know that smoking is stupid. What a simple thing to ask, "Do you smoke?" and deduct a point or six if the answer is yes. "Do you smoke more than a pack a day?" Deduct another point or 20.

IQ tests ALWAYS test for specific things, and if you've an agenda to prove that smokers are dumb, it's no big deal to rig the test to prove it.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

Oh, so you think you can explain addiction in terms that others can understand? You can convey the subjective experience that one could expect without any frame of reference for comparison?

I suppose you believe you can explain color to someone who was blind since birth person as well?

Don't say they are two separate things. We all know that. That doesn't change the fact that there is literally no way to communicate what addiction is like to someone who has never experienced it. I dare you to try.

Even describing it as an overriding compulsion that undermines ones will is merely an objective description. It doesn't communicate anything about what it is like, and does nothing to alleviate the 'I'm smart, I won't get addicted even if I try it, and I can resist it if I do happen to get addicted' mindset that so many have.

But go ahead, tell me what addiction is like and why it's so dangerous, and I'll tell you what you're missing, why you're wrong, and why people aren't going to take your explanation seriously.

I'm waiting.

Re:Duh

[FalleStar]

If this study is in fact correct, then I would imagine part of the reason for the lower IQ could have to do with what else is typical of smokers in the 18-21 age group, partying. I'm not saying that non-smokers don't party but these are the years when many first experience frequent alcohol use, with which usually comes cigarettes since they go so great with a beer. I would say that the cause has to be this, I would imagine that if you were to examine a group of smokers and compare their IQs to that of non-smokers at an older age you would see the gap close or even show no difference. Anecdotal, but I smoked between the ages of 14 and 20, consumption was about a pack a day when I started and had grown to around 2.75 packs a day by the end of it last year. Even as a heavy smoker (but non-party goer) I had a 130 IQ and was pulling all A's in my tech courses at university.

Re:Duh

[Mikkeles]

'Oh, so you think you can explain addiction in terms that others can understand?'

Try holding your breath for 20 minutes and note how good it feels when you do breathe again.

Re:Duh

[MarkvW]

I read an addict describing fighting an addiction craving as something akin to resisting diarhhea. That scares me.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I now realize I smoke for simply one reason, and that is spite. I hate you non-smokers with all of my little black fucking heart, you obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks. My biggest fear, if I quit smoking, is that I'll become one of you.

Said Bill Hicks and died of a smoking-related condition.

Re:Duh

[KritonK]

I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand.

While I don't believe I am addicted to any substance, from what I've seen in people who smoke, it's the same as with food. When you are hungry, it is very hard not to eat something, if food is available. And, if it isn't, finding something to eat is all you can think of.

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

Or go a day without food and see how that feels.

The idea that you can't convey the sensation of addiction is a little silly. The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does, and in this way, it's no different than any other high-risk behaviour, be it unprotected sex, driving at dangerously high speeds, etc.

Re:Duh

[CohibaVancouver]

virtually all smokers have tried quitting and would like to quit.

A lot of smokers I know enjoy smoking - What they don't like is the fact that it's addictive. They'd like to be able to have a smoke after a good meal, or after sex, without suffering terribly on a 4 hour plane ride or having to go outside at work every 90 minutes...

Re:Duh

[calibre-not-output]

You would think that this particular causal relationship would be common sense... and of course you'd be wrong.

By the way, congratulations on becoming and staying clean.

Re:Duh

[g4b]

Actually, Alan Carr states in his "stop smoking" books, especially the second thick one, that smart people tend to be harder to cure from smoking.

I think, a lot of well educated houses with deep religious roots hate smoking. Growing up in these families you are likely to marry in the same level of society, creating smart little kiddos finding smoking disgusting. In these families mostly the critical persons with more IQ tend to start smoking. So funny, that sentence alone would explain to myself those numbers.

I also want to point out, that Israel is a very exotic place in terms of society. If you ever were in the middle east, you know that they smoke a LOT and have very cheap cigs. In Israel however, you get a mix of middle east like'a'smokes, religious nonsmokers, and western liberal party people and tourists, so it is not the most representative place to conduct a study like this. Because growing up in a very clustered society with very harsh boundaries does not mix up the numbers enough. You would have to cluster the studies itself (well they did only test military, which rules out the arab population, still...)

Alan Carr was clearly not Uber IQd, however what he got right was to point out, that smoking is an addiction, therefore an illness, which you get tricked in by society, and you can't/hardly can really escape it by pure will power. Even worse, trying hard to stop smoking, even with all the arguments, horrible videos in the world, the lack of money, and so on, it only gets harder to give it up. Since pure willpower to stop something makes it even more precious in your mind, and the psychical addiction even works stronger then, your craving is immense. You feel as if giving up smoking is a sacrifice, like giving up sex.

So, if the society and friend circles you live in smoke, you are more in danger to start it. If you start it, having a high IQ might make stopping harder. Especially, because you KNOW it is stupid and you still do it, you develop ignorance or worse, self hatred.

Thinking about stopping to smoke is a battle in the head, which itself leads to smoking a cigarette - if your brain is faster, you will light it faster.

So, nice study, but I think it was made to make a valid claim to the government: smoking has nothing to do with social status. However, it does not have anything to do with intelligence, either.

They could conduct a study tho' that smokers at universities tend to talk more about stopping to smoke while smoking, or conduct a study, which counts all the oncologists and lungdoctors who smoke, because to me it always seems, the heaviest smokers in medical schools were always the ones who cured (well, mostly tried to) the diseases resulting from smoking (just like the highest suicide rate in medical personal is from psychiatry)

I need a smoke.
I will stop. Soon.

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.

Got a citation for that? I mean, it's basically incontrovertible that nicotine is physiologically addictive, but I'd be curious to see evidence for this supposed catalytic effect created by other compounds added to the tobacco.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember getting my hands on this book.

I read the first 55~~ pages on the first go, threw it on my wall and went to the local pub to have a beer and smoke a few cigarettes while I still could (a habit that I THROUGHOUTLY ENJOYED and still miss it a bit).

What was said about girls and smoking holds true, too.

Life becomes less reckless once you quit (if you do it for the right reasons, beign in prime shape while still in prime age was my cue - can't get these years back afterwards and I want to see how healthy I can look and feel).

Re:Duh

[LordSkippy]

Except that kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray.

Which is a good tip, if you're lonely.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that headline read "Young men with low IQs are more likely to smoke"?

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.

Re:Duh

[Snarf You]

In Israel the army enlists you

Your post haS an Odd and Very familIar aspEcT to it. HoweveR, I gUeSS I cAn't reMEMbEr why.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

(copied partially from another reply)
"Or go a day without food and see how that feels."

It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.

"The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does..."

This is kind of what I'm getting at- that belief arises from a lack of experience. If you tell them that driving at 120MPH down a back road is stupidly dangerous, kids think "It's fine for me, I'm a good driver, I can handle the vehicle..."
If you tell them that unprotected sex leads to unwanted children and STDs, kids think "Oh, I can just pull out, and I trust my girl [who happens to have inherited something from her parents, or a random encounter that was deemed not to 'count']"
And if you tell them the dangers of addiction, they think "Oh, he's just [weak minded/stupid], I'm strong enough to beat addiction..."

If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.

Yeah, see, and I just don't buy that conclusion. No kid would tell you that getting into an accident wouldn't be horribly painful and life threatening. The problem is *they don't believe it will happen to them in the first place*. ie, it's not that they don't comprehend the consequences, it's that the underestimate the risk.

Similarly, even if you could convey to someone the experience of addiction, they'd still suffer from the delusion that they are immune, simply because, well, people are stupid, and kids doubly so. :)

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

This is actually probably the closest thing I've read to describing it. The timeframes, sense of urgency, and mental disturbance are all very similar.

That could work with a little more detail. I'd describe nicotine addiction as similar to chronic diarrhea. It's ubiquitous. You relieve yourself first thing in the morning, feel ok for a little bit, then feel the discomfort, anxiety, and urgency build and build. Soon enough, you start snapping at people, and it dominates your thoughts. Then, the meeting ends and you get a chance to relieve yourself. The cycle repeats until lunchtime rolls around. Again in the afternoon, throughout the evening, until you go to sleep, then wake up again and head straight for the restroom. Trying to avoid it or repress it only makes it worse.

I don't think I need to spell out literally which parts are an allegory to smoking- the only upside here is it ultimately is possible to resist the urge to smoke, whereas with diarrhea you've got to get to the restroom eventually.

Re:Duh

[hawkfish]

I find it hard to have "a good time" when it tastes like I'm licking an ashtray...

Re:Duh

[geminidomino]

>

Said Bill Hicks and died of a smoking-related condition.

Metastatic pancreatic cancer isn't a "smoking-related condition", unless he was smoking with his fucking pancreas.

Geez, has the anti-smoking "Gets Lung cancer <-> smokes" canard actually become so prevalent that anyone sees the word "Cancer" and thinks "smoking-related?"

I like to think that Bill died of Pancreatic Cancer as one final "Fuck you!" to the aforementioned "obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks".

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

The difference though is that regular smoking will inevitably lead to addiction. Regular reckless driving, on the other hand, will not.

A driver can get by on luck, or even skill, and get away with driving recklessly for years without incident, but addiction is far more inevitable and insidious.

But I'll concede that you're probably right- and that's really my point. To properly convey addiction would include the inevitability of it, which these kids can't grasp. Conveying information isn't just about saying the right thing- for an idea to be conveyed, it has to be understood by the recipient. Hence my point that there isn't really a way to convey the subjective experience and dangers of addiction; if the message is not understood or is ignored, it has not been properly conveyed.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

you talk too much and say too little.
self esteem.

who smokes and why?
what leads to self esteem?
what leads to self neglect?

IQ is a less influential factor,
it is a factor, but don't dwell.

all those television commercials do try to lower our
iq's but they meet with limited success.

the real blood money comes from self esteem....

Kill self esteem, Take over host, Profit.
the endless cycle. Just watch 1 random commercial
for any product service or anything. case closed.

btw go to hell you lot of elitist slashdot iq'r than thou
sycophants.

Re:Duh

[Creepy]

Nicotine is an addictive stimulant, but is hardly the reason cigarettes are bad. Tobacco products often contain thousands of chemicals and some of them are poisonous and/or carcinogenic. Certainly your argument holds for why people smoke - they enjoy the drug's effect - but would you inhale asbestos if it was also an upper or downer?

As for the ads, Anti smoking and anti-drug campaigns are actually poor in the US in my opinion - kids are told smoking is bad and pot is bad, then they smoke either or both and think the ads are stupid, then try something much worse, like heroin (which is the latest epidemic, replacing Meth, if you haven't heard). Heroin is a horrifically addictive and destructive drug that doesn't impair motor skills so it is very easy to hide. More potent varieties are snorted, not injected, so "railroad tracks" aren't even a telltale sign like they once were.

I can understand not wanting to cite pleasant effects - an ex heroin addict I know said "heroin was the best high I've ever had and I crave it every day." Sounds great, right? Just skip the ruined lives, common overdoses, bodies ravaged before their time, an addiction rate that is basically 100%, and permanent cravings. But hey - you lose weight, right (since you choose the drug over eating), so we really should focus on the diet capabilities of heroin, right?

Note that I personally feel all drugs should be decriminalized (maybe with limits before age 18), but to buy any particular one you want for recreational use would require an education class on that drug. You would then sign a legal form that says you will not give it away to anyone that has not also attended the class. That would include all regulated drugs like alcohol and tobacco. All would have proportional health fees attached to the cost.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

Sorry to say, but the views of your social circle aren't necessarily representative of those of society as a whole.

Even if they are in fact representative, there are outliers to most averages.

Re:Duh

[apoc.famine]

Not quite...I'm not a smoker, but after a month of being cooped up with smokers, I started having withdrawal symptoms. I had inhaled enough second hand smoke that I started desiring cigarettes, despite hating the smell but a month prior.

It was truly weird - I was in the summer between my sophomore and junior years of a physics degree, doing hard manual labor for the summer because I wanted to have more cash in my pocket. I was pulling 12+ hour days, with 2-4hrs often in a truck with smokers, driving to and from job sites. I was smart enough to know not to smoke, but being forced to suck in second-hand smoke all the time caused cravings. I wonder how many people start smoking because of that?

Re:Duh

[onefriedrice]

Cigs are one of those things where if I have them, that's great...if I don't, I'm not going to go out of my way to get more.

Yet, you regularly buy them. That's an act of going out of your way to have them.

Re:Duh

[fahrbot-bot]

If I had not enjoyed smoking, I would never have become addicted.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The "enjoyment" is the psychological manifestation of the physical nicotine addiction. In other words, the mind invents the rational for the biology. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Case in point. I just saw a show on the Discovery Channel called, "The Science of Sex Appeal". Apparently people generally find more symmetrical faces more attractive. Symmetry is a biological indication of fewer genetic flaws and development abnormalities and the brain can recognize this subconsciously.

In one experiment, people were shown pairs of photos of several people, told the pairs were photos of twins and asked to pick the more attractive one and *why*. Each pair of photos was actually of the same person, one using a mirror image of one side of the face - to make it symmetrical - and the other with some of the asymmetries exaggerated.

People always chose the symmetrical photo, but the reasons for selection were: looks smarter, looks more neat and organized, looks more athletic, etc. The fact is, they didn't really know *why* they (subconsciously) liked the photo better so their conscience mind made up a reason.

Re:Duh

[geminidomino]

You could know a million "very smart" people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that ON AVERAGE, more stupid people are smoking than smart people. God damn...learn something about statistics. Nothing in the article said "ALL SMOKERS ARE STUPID, LOL". It simply said that smokers tend to be less intelligent than non-smokers, on average.

Wow, the irony. Actually, the entire POINT of the article was apparently to say just that (first paragraph), however erroneously.

It doesn't change the fact that ON AVERAGE, more stupid people are smoking than smart people.

Nothing in the article said THAT either. "God damn, learn something about statistics".

(Hint: Without knowing more than just n and bar-x_[1,2,3], you cannot draw the conclusion you did either)

Re:Duh

[RJFerret]

...it's apparently a surprisingly effective antidepressant with very few neurological side-effects.

Huh? Other than the fact that it alters brain chemistry and ultimately makes it literally impossible to experience pleasure? (Without an external chemical stimulant.)

You might want to research what happens to dopamine receptors due to smoking.

After stopping smoking, it can take six years for brain chemistry to return to normal.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

If you consider "regularly buying them" to be "buying two packs every time I fill my car with gas on saturdays", then yes I go out of my way to get them...although most people wouldn't consider walking 10 feet into the gas station store while gas is still pumping into my car to be "going out of my way".

But hey, everyone is different.

Re:Duh

[sonnejw0]

I'm a neurobiologist, let me explain. The brain requires the nutrients in the blood to work properly and to maintain its network. Smoking causes atherosclerosis, hardening of the blood vessels, which allows less blood to flow into the brain, meaning less nutrients available for the most nutrient hungry organ in the body. Viz. you brain will have a lower capacity and a delayed response time. In the water-shed regions of the brain, between two arteries, these regions will receive decreasing levels of blood-nutrients, meaning those regions eventually die off. Some of the most critical watershed regions are in the dorsolateral frontal cortex, which is a critical functional area for working memory, basically the region that IQ measures, and executive function or the ability to make the best decision based on the information available.

Sure, there might also be a correlation that lower economic class individuals are more likely to be smokers and also more likely to be less educated. However, I know many high class individuals that smoke leisurely. Ever hear of cigars?

Re:Duh

[Intron]

Andy Kaufman died May 16, 1984 (age 35)
Sam Kinison died April 10, 1992 (age 38)
Bill Hicks died February 26, 1994 (age 32)
Mitch Hedberg died March 29, 2005 (age 37)
Jason Wood died 20 February 2010 (age 38)

Who has this vendetta against comics?

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

That is to say, regular driving will not inevitably lead to an accident- it just greatly increases your risks. Whereas smoking regularly will inevitably lead to addiction. It's not a question of 'if,' its a question of 'when,' and it's not immediately apparent when it occurs. I don't know of any smoker who can point to a specific point and say 'this is when I became addicted.' Some, like myself, can narrow it down to a timeframe, but even then who's to say thats accurate? I attribute my addiction to a smoking when drinking habit, and my drinking becoming too frequent, but its entirely possible I was already mildly addicted before that, and was just drinking often enough that I wasn't experiencing withdrawal.

There are only two ways to avoid nicotine addiction. The first, and the only sure way, is to never imbibe. The second is to quit outright before addiction sets in- and I don't believe there's a workable way to assess that ahead of time.

Re:Duh

[lorenlal]

However, that does NOT mean I'd do Amy Winehouse.

You'd have to smoke something else entirely to hang out with her anyway. I don't think she wastes any time with tobacco.

Re:Duh

[ztransform]

which these kids can't grasp

Exactly. Moronic kids. Smart kids can actually grasp concepts, even if you can't comprehend such comprehension!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife smoked and poked when she was younger. She's since given up both :(

[John]

Hey by broadcasting it here don't expect the latter for a long while!

[Rita]

Re:Duh

[Ltap]

I agree. Saying "well, all the people I know who smoke are smart" is just saying that you know a lot of smart people rather than a wide variety of smokers.

Re:Duh

[Creepy]

I'm not sure of the particulars, but during US drafts some particular religious sects were conscientious objectors - for instance, Mennonites and Amish, and that may apply to some group in Israel, as well. In fact, during WW1 the US sent 45 Mennonites to Leavenworth and basically stripped them naked beat them, and left them in a cell with only a uniform to wear - some refused and died over it (including some ancestors of mine). Because of this religious persecution in the United States, several groups moved to Canada.

Re:Duh

[rrohbeck]

Agreed. However, I think that people with a higher IQ might be more interested in staying current on news, so they should see more of the frequent results on what smoking does to the body.
On and really smart kids get by well without doing anything for school so your reward theory doesn't work for them.

Re:Duh

[rrohbeck]

I'm sure other addicts enjoy their line of coke or shot in the arm just as much.

Don't forget what Ozzie said (paraphrasing): "I've been addicted to every drug known to mankind, but giving up smoking was the hardest of all."

Re:Duh

[cayenne8]

Hmm...I guess this low IQ and smoking thing doesn't speak terribly well for our current president.

Re:Duh

[Nursie]

IQ 153, smoker, in total agreement with the parent.

I enjoy it. I'll probably quit sometime, maybe, but it's my choice and I know the risks.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I know my comment deviates from the actual subject of the story about the correlation between smoking and intelligence, but it seems to be a recurring thread in the comments.

I smoked on and off through high school and college. I quit some time after graduating, and haven't had a cigarette in 8-10 years.

I used to say that quitting smoking was easy, I did it all the time. It's the 'not starting again' part that is difficult. Good luck to all of you who are trying.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that."

Remind me why you think you're smart?

Re:Duh

[KarlIsNotMyName]

I always thought that smoking was the one of the worst things a girl could do for her attractiveness.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

Where did I say enjoyment was a cause of addiction?

Re:Duh

[lgw]

IQ is a very good measure (below about 120). It's quite repeatable, across time, across testers, and across populations (but only in the case where the test is in the native language of the test taker). Does it measure "intelligence"? Who knows! No one can define intelligence - it's not a scientific measure. IQ is.

But remeber that IQ was originally dsigned to quantify below-average functioning - to distinguish between mildly retarded and merely having a poor education, as IQ measures capacity, not knowledge. Above 120 or so IQ is less useful, as you start cobbling together different tests in order to extend the scale (I believe the standard IQ test doesn't read above 140 at all, and as you get close to answering all questions correctly, repeatablity goes way down, as simple mistakes are given too much weight).

Anyhow, the study showed that people who smoke have a lower IQ. Assume what you want about this squishey, subjective thing called "intelligence".

Re:Duh

[billcopc]

I think the issue is less about kids being kids, and more about people not being forward about these problems. If you know someone who is addicted to something, do you confront them with it (and deal with the defensive behavior that ensues), or do you talk behind their back to your mutual friends and say "someone really outta do something about him" ? People spiral out of control, it's natural to favor instant gratification over all else, so it takes someone outside of that bubble, a trusted friend to yank you out of the spiral. No amount of education can replace that human pillar of stability.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's not. It's about how well they take care of their mouth hygiene. If the girl brushes her teeth at least once a day, there isn't really a difference. That's at least to my experience.

Re:Duh

[Red Flayer]

Metastatic pancreatic cancer isn't a "smoking-related condition", unless he was smoking with his fucking pancreas.

Oh? Did you bother to look that up, or are you just spouting something that seems logical to you?

The truth>/b> is, smokers have an increased incidence of pancreatic cancer. So do people who use "smokeless" tobacco products like snus or chew or dip.

Whether or not we can directly attribute Bill Hicks' cancer to smoking is a different story... but smoking was likely a contributing factor.

Before you berate someone with your ignorant opinions, please check the facts. You might be surprised.

Re:Duh

[daem0n1x]

You may find it "mildly unpleasant". Yet, it's a very damaging act, not only for the smoker but the ones around him. Worse yet if he smokes at home and has children. Even not smoking in the presence of the children causes them lots of harm because the noxious substances from smoke stay around for weeks.

Still, the comparison is stupid. I can't understand the point tomhudson is trying to make with his post.

Re:Duh

[PitaBred]

That just means that you're one of those rare people without a terribly addictive personality. The fact remains that 99% of people who smoke are completely unable to do things like you do.

Re:Duh

[daem0n1x]

I think most guys still have good times after marriage. Just not with their wives, though...

Re:Duh

[geminidomino]

Provide a citation, or you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

Re:Duh

[Alphathon]

Even that much is enough to get addicted. Not a heavy enough addiction to cause you any obvious discomfort, but enough to make you slightly down etc, so when you do smoke you feel good (assuming of course you do it fairly regularly, rather than once a month or so...if you can go days without one, but you still generally do it every day, you probably have at least some level of addiction). Of course there's bound to be some legitimately pleasant sensations associated with the smoking itself (it is a depressant after all, so will relax you can make you calmer etc), but it would be interesting to know how much of it is due to satiation of the withdrawal symptoms (will vary depending on the level of the symptoms) and how much is purely the effect of the chemicals. Regardless, why do you smoke? How can it possibly be worth it considering the health problems associated with it? Is it really that nice of a thing to do?

@brian_tanner: I did a double take there - read that link as Alan Carr...a slightly different person.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

What you're saying, then, is that since I liked my first puff of cigarette smoke I was addicted from the first puff. I think you will find a lot of resistance to that in the scientific community. Physical addiction can only come from the body having built up a need for a specific substance over a period of time. Now, psychological addiction is another matter. Cue the crack addicts. Hooked from the first puff.

I can personally attest to a similar response to what crack addicts have with my first usage of opiates. I liked opium so much the first time I used it that it scared me, and I was a pretty heavy drug user by that time. I knew if I used more than once I was dead as the opiate-type high was something I greatly craved.

One usage was almost enough to make me use it forever. However, that one usage wasn't a physical addiction. It was a psychological response to my body's physical reaction to the drug, but there is a vast difference between a single physiological response and a physical addiction. If there wasn't, I wouldn't be writing this. I'd be dead by now as if my first usage equaled physical addiction I would never have stopped. I would never have been strong enough to even have wanted to fight my body's cravings piled on top of my psychological desire to feel that high.

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

Even that much is enough to get addicted. Not a heavy enough addiction to cause you any obvious discomfort, but enough to make you slightly down etc, so when you do smoke you feel good (assuming of course you do it fairly regularly, rather than once a month or so...if you can go days without one, but you still generally do it every day, you probably have at least some level of addiction).

I would agree that I have a level of addiction, but it isn't to tobacco...it's to the mechanism of smoking. See below for more on that.

Regardless, why do you smoke? How can it possibly be worth it considering the health problems associated with it? Is it really that nice of a thing to do?

Honestly? Because I really, really enjoy the mechanism of smoking. It doesn't matter if it's hand-rolled Damiana (which we do occasionally use as an alternative just to change things up), shisha out of a hooka, or tobacco in a cig; the mechanism of inhaling smoke and exhaling it is just very enjoyable to me.

Re:Duh

[Big Smirk]

The question isn't "Why do you smoke?", The quest is "Why did you ever start to smoke?"

As you said:"Yes, I'm aware that it stinks. Yes, I'm aware that it is extremely horrible for my health." All the more reason to question why an intelligent person would start.

"::shrug:: What can I say, I still enjoy it."

Yes, the same result when I ask my 3yr old why he wrote on the hallway wall.

Re:Duh

[mcgrew]

Huh? Other than the fact that it alters brain chemistry and ultimately makes it literally impossible to experience pleasure?

Untrue; smoking does NOT make it even difficult, let alone impossible, to experience pleasure. Don't bother pointing to studies, because I started smoking in 1968 and quit in 1999; no matter how many studies you point to that say the sky is green, it isn't. If a study says that cigarettes make it impossible to experience pleasure, you're looking at a deeply flawed study. Keep in mind that anti-smoking zealots aren't any more above lying to you and falsifying data than the tobacco companies.

After stopping smoking, it can take six years for brain chemistry to return to normal.

Perhaps "up to" six years, but in my case it was more like a year, and that's probably closer to median than six. The habit part is worse than the physical addiction; long after I no longer needed or even wanted a cigarette, I found my hand groping my shirt pocket for that nonexistant cigarette. Old habits die hard.

Re:Duh

[bkr1_2k]

And for a heavy smoker you can still taste the difference... sucks but it's true.

Re:Duh

[bkr1_2k]

I will dare say your experience is limited, but I'll agree that it really isn't that bad unless someone has just had a cigarette or is a very heavy smoker.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, they are stupid, the article says so.
move along.

Re:Duh

[hairyfeet]

Notice how I got labeled flamebait? way too many nanny government lovers here on /. for my taste. do you REALLY want the government to dictate the foods you eat, the drinks you consume, etc etc? Because its coming, courtesy of fat taxes and sweet taxes.

Remember freedom includes the ability to choose how to live. if the only choices you have are to eat and drink what you are told or go bankrupt, is that really a choice? Remember folks, to nanny government types there is NO such thing as too much control, because ultimately they think you are too stupid to take care of yourself so they have to punish you like a child to make you behave. Of course the fact that it gives them more money to loot and pass off to their masters...errr... campaign contributors, is just a nice bonus.

So next time someone is picking on the smokers, or the fatties, or any other marginal group, maybe you better think about this: which groups could I be stuffed into?

Re:Duh

[RJFerret]

Nice quoting out of context, "...without external chemical stimulus" would be the follow up.

I've never seen any research that suggests what you claim, that "cigarettes make it impossible to experience pleasure".

I'd suggest a wild assertion such as you made would be beyond a "deeply flawed study". ;-)

I couldn't care less, but did suggest researching the matter per the claim it had few neurological side effects--gaining information is frequently of benefit. As one of my favorite quotes goes, "a man not improving himself, endlessly becomes himself".

Re:Duh

[bkr1_2k]

"Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers."

The article specifically states they drew their sample from all socio-economic backgrounds so they could specifically rule that out.

Re:Duh

[mpe]

One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

You'd need to find somewhere where several highly addictive drugs are legal to do such research.

Re:Duh

[calibre-not-output]

You didn't. The causal relations are between use and addiction and between enjoyment and continued use.

Re:Duh

[mpe]

Actually it can answer it. The study looked at two groups: fresh recruits and vets. We can assume an age difference of at least a few years between them, and the recruits are likely to be young enough that they've only been smoking for a couple of years on average.

How long does addiction typically take?

Therefore if the smoking were causing damage, we'd expect the recruits to show a less pronounced effect than the vets.

Only if this issue is "damage" as opposed to effects of the drug on brain function including addiction

As the article mentions no difference between the two groups, we can assume no significant such difference exists, and therefore (at least) no evidence for the latter proposition, and potentially evidence against it.

What might show something interesting is comparing the results for people who have either started or stopped smoking...

Re:Duh

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm not a smoker, but after a month of being cooped up with smokers,

So we're again back to the part where smarter people are less likely to be in that situation.

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

I think the issue is less about kids being kids, and more about people not being forward about these problems.

Yeah... no. The issue you're talking about is what to do about someone who already has a problem. What we're talking about is the issue of stopping people from developing said problem in the first place. Specifically, my comment is that most people who start smoking (or any other high-risk behaviour) do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences, but little sense of the actual risk (primarily because humans are piss poor at estimating risk in general).

If you know someone who is addicted to something, do you confront them with it (and deal with the defensive behavior that ensues), or do you talk behind their back to your mutual friends and say "someone really outta do something about him" ? People spiral out of control, it's natural to favor instant gratification over all else, so it takes someone outside of that bubble, a trusted friend to yank you out of the spiral. No amount of education can replace that human pillar of stability.

Though, on the topic you bring up, I can tell you this: most people who are addicted to, well, anything really (cigarettes, food, booze, etc) either know intellectually that they should quit, but either don't want to quit or don't feel they can, or they are people who are extremely defensive about their addiction, either claiming it's under control, or that it's not harmful.

As such, IMHO, actively confronting people about their addictions doesn't really accomplish that much unless they've already begun to confront it themselves (put another way, I think the "intervention" model is simplistic bullshit). Of course, once they've reached that point, the best thing friends or family can do is provide support and encouragement.

Re:Duh

[Red Flayer]

or you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

No, it's not the same thing. You posted a false deduction as fact without regard to veracity. I knew the *facts* before I posted, whether I gave a citation or not. What you thought to be an obvious fact (that the pancreas is not part of the respiratory system, therefore smoking cannot cause pancreatic cancer) is false, and you posted without bothering to check whether your deduction was, in fact, true. Not only is your deduction false, but it demonstrates your lack of knowledge about physiology -- otherwise you would have known that inhaled substances get into the bloodstream and can affect other systems. You are in no position to be making the kind of ridiculous scathing posts you made.

Since you're too fucking lazy to bother with a quick googling when called out on your ignorance and misplaced cavalierness,

here you go.

Seriously, it's been fairly common knowledge among everyone who is mildly interested in pancreatic cancer for at least ten years that cigarette smoking increases incidence of pancreatic cancer.

Re:Duh

[fahrbot-bot]

since I liked my first puff of cigarette smoke I was addicted from the first puff.

Not at all and you're correct that physical addiction takes some (variable) amount of time, depending on the substance. That said, I find it very hard to believe you actually liked/enjoyed your first N cigarettes. The motivators to take up smoking are varied, but "enjoy" in the common sense of the word isn't one of them. Thoughts to the contrary are, I suspect, rose-colored remembrances.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

Reality appears counter to your claims.

Re:Duh

[ztransform]

Reality appears counter to your claims.

Your reality; remember, you said it yourself, some people just can't comprehend some things, no matter how real or inevitable it may be.

It may be difficult for you to accept your own theories! After all, as a young child you couldn't accept basic realities as you've already pointed out!

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

I guess I'm just missing you're point, as I still do not understand what you're getting at.

I do not see a causal relationship between simple use and addiction from my own experience. I see a causal relationship between enjoyment which leads to continued use, and that continued use and addiction. If simple use was the cause of addiction anyone who used would be addicted.

By addiction I'm referring to physical addiction, not the total sense of addiction which includes both the psychological and physical aspects of addiction. And, by continued use I am referring to the everyday usage of the addictive substance that is actually abuse of the substance.

I split physical and psychological addiction into separate aspects of a whole as the psychological addiction to drugs that aren't physically addictive can be very powerful. My everyday drug of choice was pot. When I quit, after a decade of very heavy use, just walking past someone on whom I could smell pot smoke would cause me to have the physical symptoms of being stoned: a gritty feeling in my eyes, lowered eyelids, etc.... It took almost a year for that to stop.

Re:Duh

[ztransform]

Reality appears counter to your claims.

Your reality: remember, some people won't accept actual reality no matter how correct or inevitable it may be, you said it yourself!

Fortunately for the readers of this article you have managed to be one more proof: smart people just don't start smoking in the first place.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

I do not look back on those years with rose-colored glasses. I find them to be painful memories as they really affected my life very negatively. I talk about them in the hope that maybe someone will learn from my mistakes, not because I find them "romantic", or because I'm proud of them.

I did, however, like my first cigarette. It gave me a buzz, and I liked that buzz. I also liked the taste of the smoke. If I hadn't, peer pressure or not, I wouldn't have smoked the second, third, fourth, etc....

Re:Duh

[Chees0rz]

I remember my first day, of my first real summer job. I was working at the Christmas Tree Shops and during my break all I wanted was a fricking cigarette. (no, I've never smoked, but looking back, I remember how it felt)

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

"smart people just don't start smoking in the first place"

[citation needed]

Re:Duh

[fahrbot-bot]

It gave me a buzz, and I liked that buzz. I also liked the taste of the smoke.

The buzz I can understand. Nicotine is a strong stimulant - though it wears off very quickly, which is why some people say having a cigarette calms them down - and I'm sure other aspects of the smoke and Oxygen deprivation help. But, actually *liking* the taste of the smoke I find difficult to believe - perhaps the Menthol or other additive designed to facilitate easier smoking or "enjoyment".

I'm not trying to discount your experience, but I have tried cigarettes, cigars, and pipes at one time or another (or been around those that smoke), and didn't/don't find anything enjoyable about it at all -- smoke inhalation, coughing, etc (you know the drill). To each their own I guess.

P.S. I didn't mean rose-colored remembrances of your smoking years, just the first few smokes. You know, I remember that my first "fill-in-the-blank" experience was great... Still; to each their own.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

"Your reality; remember, you said it yourself, some people just can't comprehend some things, no matter how real or inevitable it may be.


It may be difficult for you to accept your own theories! After all, as a young child you couldn't accept basic realities as you've already pointed out!"


I think you're lacking some comprehension here. This isn't a question of my reality vs. your reality, or anything to that effect. The reality is that everyone makes poor decisions at times, ranging from slightly misguided to what you would call moronic. This is particularly the case in kids, regardless of intellect. While a higher IQ does seem to correlate overall to a reduction in the number and relative magnitude of poor decisions, there are still innumerable cases of intelligent, rational people making terrible decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, otherwise intelligent individuals becoming addicted to nicotine.

Certainly, more intelligent kids are less likely to start smoking, but labeling anyone and everyone who smokes as a moron is a pretty gross exaggeration and generalization.


Kudos on the dishonest debate tactics though.

Is there an actual defensible opinion somewhere in there? It's hard to see past all the straw man tactics and circular reasoning...

Re:Duh

[Monkey-Man2000]

If they come from a women's mouth, I like the taste of ashtrays you insensitive clod!

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

The same reason you do- despite the fact that you made dumb decisions (possibly influenced by alcohol) at a younger age that may or may not have had lasting repercussions.

Show me someone who never made a dumb decision in their youth and I'll show you either a liar or an amnesiac.

Re:Duh

[Monkey-Man2000]

Exactly, WHERE does she inhale the cigarette then? I think you may have bigger problems on your hands buddy.

Re:Duh

[Monkey-Man2000]

I can believe that with Patrick Swayze's recent death. He was a heavy smoker even after/during pancreatic cancer treatment. So, I don't think it's a fluke, and yes I'm a smoker that would rather die in his fifties than die in his 70s+. It's not always about the quantity of life but the quality. If smoking gets people through their humdrum life and makes it worth living, I can support these slow-motion suicidal tendencies. . .

Re:Duh

[canadian_right]

No you don't enjoy smoking, that is a common rationalization. What you enjoy is making the withdraw symptoms abate for a while until your next smoke. No one likes their first smoke. IT tastes bad, and likely makes you cough. Most smokers start young because they think it is cool or grown up. It is very addictive, and you continue because you are addicted.

Non-smokers feel as good as you do after a smoke all the time because they are not suffering from nicotine withdraw.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

But, actually *liking* the taste of the smoke I find difficult to believe

You know those ultra-sour candies advertised on TV? They're so sour I don't see how anyone could possibly like them, but a lot of kids eat them. and think they're great. Me? I wouldn't even think of eating one. The same goes for many other foods. Lot's of people like foods that just the thought of almost makes me puke, and most likely vice versa. So, is it really so surprising that someone would like a taste that you find distasteful?

Re:Duh

[canadian_right]

I'll believe that if you quit cold turkey today.

Re:Duh

[Monkey-Man2000]

Anyone who's watched Insomniac with Dave Attell can obviously see how comics often die in their 30's (or 40's). I think this is no longer a surprise. Comics are inherently suicidal (i.e., beating up their bodies to get public approval). And comedy clubs/bars aren't venues that make it easy to dissuade them from the routine they develop. . .

Re:Duh

[canadian_right]

I would consider walking ten feet to get something that has a 1 in 3 chance of killing me a sure sign of addiction.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you also smoke, duh.

Re:Duh

[LurkerXXX]

Time for a biology lesson...

Pancreatic cancer can indeed be smoking-related.

Cigarette smoke contains a huge range of nasty chemicals. Those chemicals aren't blocked from the rest of your body your lungs. They seep in through your lungs. Although the chemicals are most likely to cause lung cancer because that tissue is heavily exposed, the carcinogens are quite free to do damage to other tissues in your body.

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/BasicCauses.php?area=ba

"Smoking doubles the risk of pancreatic cancer. Smoking is also associated with early age at diagnosis, and, very importantly, the risk of pancreatic cancer drops close to normal in people who quit smoking. Simply put, cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of pancreatic cancer. In fact, some scientists have estimated that one in four, or one in five cases of pancreatic cancer are caused by smoking cigarettes."

See : http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/cancerstats.htm for details about other types of cancer you are at increased risk of from smoking.

Re:Duh

[Alphathon]

In that case maybe you should try something else other than smoke. I'm not sure what, but I'd be surprised if there isn't some other, safer alternative (not steam, but some other gas/vapour).

Re:Duh

[Bigbutt]

LOL, that's funny right there :D

[John]

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right - nicotine indirectly stimulates the release of dopamine, the same substance that makes coke and meth addictive. And by virtue of how it's ingested (inhalation), it's faster acting than either of those two. The exact process doesn't involve "going back to neutral" as much as dopamine's ability to mark activities (such as drug taking) as important and rewarding.

As for nicotine et al's effect on IQ, it might actually be the opposite of what has been suggested. Substances which release or increase dopamine (and norepinephrine) levels do act as antidepressants, and Wellbutrin is an example of exactly that. Further, research has found that such drugs actually contribute to mental functioning rather than detract from it.

That said one's still better off with a cleaner drug as opposed to a dirty one. Smoking is definitely dirty here since you are inhaling much more than nicotine and none of it is healthy even if the cigarette is 'totally natural'.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"the IQs of young men who smoked more than a pack a day were lower still, at about 90."
"everyone smokes down South."
I don't think that shows what you want it to show...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not take mood-altering drugs which are safer than tobacco, like marijuana?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Your hypothesis "Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite." goes against the argument you present in the next 5 paragraphs...

Re:Duh

[Georules]

I'm not certain you can make the cultural causation claim for the south. I've lived in the south for 24 years and would not even think to assert that everyone smokes here, or nessicarily more tha.

Re:Duh

[drinkypoo]

My first smoke tasted like ass, didn't make me cough, and felt fantastic. Smoking tobacco makes you high, man. At least, if you smoke enough. Since you become resistant to nicotine over time, that amount tends to increase, like so many other drugs. The last kind of cigarette I smoked was self-rolled american spirits, that is some strong goddamn tobacco. Trust me, smoking it is enjoyable, really and truly. Not as enjoyable, though, as not being addicted to nicotine...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine increases dopamine production which has a depressive affect on cognitive function while stimulating other ares aof the brain. Social factors irregardless of relative intelligence is a greater contributory factor to the choice of addiction than weighing the pros and cons or for strategic social status gain as one would expect from smokers of higher IQ. In short, I can't prove it, but I'm seeing something that lends cogency to my theory that chronic elevated domamine levels due to nictotine lowers IQ by 10-15 pts. [+caffeine, -5-10pts post adrenal,]. Though 5 to 10 to all 15 points of loss may be the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood stream, making me a crack-pot theorist. Ever park at the summit and do math after a couple hours?

Re:Duh

[geminidomino]

No, it's not the same thing. You posted a false deduction as fact without regard to veracity. I knew the *facts* before I posted, whether I gave a citation or not.

And I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so why would I accept your facts to be any more valid than any I have heard to the contrary (which is none, but I've not heard any in support before now, either)

Since you're too fucking lazy to bother with a quick googling when called out on your ignorance and misplaced cavalierness,

This is the internet. If I went to verify every claim made by every stranger using a pseudonym online without any support whatsoever, I'd never do anything else. There's a reason that it's expected that the one making the claim be able to support it.

What you thought to be an obvious fact (that the pancreas is not part of the respiratory system, therefore smoking cannot cause pancreatic cancer) is false, and you posted without bothering to check whether your deduction was, in fact, true. Not only is your deduction false, but it demonstrates your lack of knowledge about physiology -- otherwise you would have known that inhaled substances get into the bloodstream and can affect other systems.

You're making the same mistake you accused me of. Nowhere in my though process did I ever approach "smoking only affects the the respiratory system," which I knew was false. Although physiology is indeed not my specialty, I do have enough of it to know better than that. A similar charge can be made towards you with regards to statistics, if you believe that the data, as presented in the linked article, supports your assertion (or even the article's own assertion) of causality.

The part about "smoking with his pancreas" was snark because the post I responded to was 3/4 down a page of similar snark. So admittedly, my knee may have jerked a bit in response, but for the last 15 years of being bombarded with links between smoking, heart disease, high blood pressure, all the way to crap like mental illness, I've never heard anything about a link to pancreatic cancer.

It may be "common knowledge among everyone who is interested in pancreatic cancer." Ignoring the obvious issue in conflating "common knowledge" with "correct knowledge", why in the hell would you assume that applies to everyone?

That said, I may have been wrong and even overly snarky, but you could have corrected me without being a douche, and I would have likely even thanked you for it.

I did read the article you linked, but I'm not certain it's as cut and dry as you seem to believe (or at least, as you would have me believe based on nothing more than your word), especially considering the bad science that has been thrown around on the subject for the past two generations.

For example, in the closing, they state "smoking is responsible for one-third of pancreatic cancer deaths". That seems like a fairly concrete statement of causality. But the first few paragraphs (that describe the actual data) are talking about a specific gene mutation that is a) weakly (their word) associated with heavy smoking over a long period (2+ packs/day for 20+ years) and b) present in 40% of non- cancerous pancreatic specimens, and completely absent in those who smoke less or not at all.

Now, granted, that the study is 10 years old now and more data may have come up since then (as I said, that particular link isn't made common knowledge among everyone else very often), but it seems to me that some data is missing for them to claim that 1/3 of pancreatic cancer deaths are due to smoking (that is what "responsible" means) with such a weak association.

Re:Duh

[geminidomino]

Time for a biology lesson...

Pancreatic cancer can indeed be smoking-related.

Can != is.

As a migraine sufferer, I am aware that the chemicals are not limited to the lungs. One of the weird things about migraines compared to many other types of headache is that vasoconstrictors like nicotine can actually help the pain.

The rest I spoke to in my other Wall O' Text so I won't repost it.

Re:Duh

[st0nes]

I suggest you read Allen Carr's book

I quit 9 months ago after reading Allan Carr's book. I had smoked for 39 years. I won't smoke again.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Doch, das tun wir!

Re:Duh

[thrawn_aj]

Considering that the term itself (which you were careful not to spell out) stands for "Intelligence Quotient", it is a bit disingenuous to try to distance it from intelligence. That aside, I see no problem with your explanation. It seems to be just another casualty (among thousands others) of the scientific naming process gone horribly wrong.

And by the way, it is not that we can't define intelligence. It is simply that once defined, there is a tendency to try to cram too much meaning and value judgments into that definition. This renders definitions of contentious subjects fluid and ultimately useless as they never settle into an equilibrium of consensus. I've had this sort of argument before about 'life'. Pragmatic, working definitions exist in biology (just as they do for 'intelligence') but people refuse to accept them because they want to imbue these (attractive) terms with every possible meaning they can - in most cases, compensating for abilities they don't have by appending said definitions with qualities they do have.

Sociologically reasonable, but wreaks havoc with any attempt at a rational and objective understanding of human ability. Rule of thumb - anytime a metric is used for something concrete (like a job or even mating acceptability), expect people to pull this kind of dirty trick. Have you ever met people (why is it usually women?) who claimed they were vegetarian and ate only fish and vegetables? Or the hangers-on in the so-called 'Green movement' sweeping the world these days? Hell, going back to my 'life' example, I wouldn't be surprised if when zombies finally starting coming out of their graves, the first thing they do is redefine 'life' so it includes them. And then yell "braaaaaaaains" but what can ya do? It's just their low IQ.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what she said.

Re:Duh

[mcgrew]

I've never seen any research that suggests what you claim, that "cigarettes make it impossible to experience pleasure".

I didn't claim that, I rebutted the claim that YOU made. YOU were the one who asserted that "it alters brain chemistry and ultimately makes it literally impossible to experience pleasure? (Without an external chemical stimulant.)" I repeat, it does not make it impossible to experience pleasure with or without external chemical stimulant. The claim that cigarettes make it impossible to experience pleasure, with or without external chemical stimulus, is false; bogus; untrue. The sky is NOT green.

Re:Duh

[Red Flayer]

And I don't know you from a hole in the ground, so why would I accept your facts to be any more valid than any I have heard to the contrary (which is none, but I've not heard any in support before now, either)

Because you could just fucking google it. 15 seconds of your time was all that you would have needed to figure out that you had no idea what you were talking about.

Nowhere in my though process did I ever approach "smoking only affects the the respiratory system," which I knew was false

Sure you did, here's the quote:

Metastatic pancreatic cancer isn't a "smoking-related condition", unless he was smoking with his fucking pancreas

You are indirectly claiming that a "smoking-related condition" can only arise in the organ or system which smokes, which would be the respiratory system. Don't try to backtrack and play games with your words... this assertion of yours can only be true if indeed, smoking can only affect the respiratory system.

but you could have corrected me without being a douche, and I would have likely even thanked you for it.

And why would I bother bother being polite when the post I was responding to (yours) was already vitriolic? Why would you expect some kind of courtesy from me when you don't bother with the same? Why the double standard?

Now, granted, that the study is 10 years old now and more data may have come up since then (as I said, that particular link isn't made common knowledge among everyone else very often), but it seems to me that some data is missing for them to claim that 1/3 of pancreatic cancer deaths are due to smoking (that is what "responsible" means) with such a weak association.

That was one article of dozens available online. And that article is about the possible means of causality -- the intent of the article isn't to prove causality, because that is already pretty well accepted among cancer researchers. The point of the study was to determine the mechanism of causality.

Go ahead. If you really want to play games and attempt to ignorantly pick apart that article, please educate yourself first. There are boatloads of articles out there. Google is your friend.

Re:Duh

[Phoghat]

Do they smoke because they're stupid, or stupid because they smoke?

Re:Duh

[calibre-not-output]

Sorry, it' my own fault for not being clear. I don't feel that "continued use" is a very good definition because the frequency and amount of use that might be enough to cause physical addiction varies wildly from person to person and from substance to substance. I used to smoke pot and cigarettes, and I smoked much more pot than cigarettes, but I was only ever addicted to the latter. When I decided to quit, I quit both at once and even though I both enjoyed and used pot more, quitting the cigarettes was harder.

That's why I said "use" and not "continued use". Of course using any substance a single time isn't enough to get anyone addicted, but it's hard to define when it is enough. Still, I don't think only "everyday usage", as you put it, qualifies - for a heavy addiction, yes, but you can drink every other day and be addicted, enough that if you go two straight days without a drink you get moody etc.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is more effective at treating ADD/ADHD than Ritalin. Many smokers may be self-medicating, without even knowing.

Re:Duh

[billcopc]

I'm with you on all points, but I agree that interventions are moronic at best, but the support I speak of is constant pressure, not a sudden blast.

Specifically with the smoking problem, I honestly believe that if we can get a significant number of people to quit, kids will be less exposed to the behavior and our ingrained "monkey see, monkey do" instincts will be spared. People don't get into smoking because they want to turn their lungs into tire rubber, they start smoking because half the people they know are smokers. Combine that with the media-fueled "cool factor" and it's more tempting than bacon-wrapped bacon.

How irritating is it to be the only non-smoker in a group ? Fuck man, I hate the smell. That kind of thing makes me want to avoid certain people, but I have zero interest in smoking. For a lot of people, it's the opposite that happens: they start smoking as a result of hanging around other smokers.

Flip it around: if you were the only smoker in a group on non-smokers, wouldn't you feel really awkward ? What if they all berated you, every time you lit one up ? Would you ditch the cancer stick, or your friends ?

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

Would you ditch the cancer stick, or your friends ?

Honestly? Probably my friends. I can't think of anything more annoying than a bunch of self-righteous dickholes telling me what I should and shouldn't do, and I suspect that's true of a lot of people.

While you may be right that reducing exposure to smoking young will discourage them from getting started, I see no reason to be assholes to people who choose not to kick the habit (assuming they're polite about it and don't inconvenience others with their smoking). People are already surrounded by a non-stop barrage of anti-smoking rhetoric... nasty pictures of cancerous lungs on the packs, not being allowed to smoke in bars and other public places, PSAs on TV, etc, etc, etc. Honestly, if none of that will stop a person from quitting, I really doubt a bunch of friends choosing to be dicks about their habit will do much else except piss them off and alienate them.

Re:Duh

[Abcd1234]

Honestly, if none of that will stop a person from quitting...

Err... "if none of that will get a person to quit". *sigh*

It's been a long day.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your opinion, but rather in the State of Indonesia in Malang there 4 year old child has been smoking. He was smoking at the age of 2 years. This is due to environmental influences and actions of parents who let alone the child. It was frightening for the future of the child.

Re:Duh

[badkarmadayaccount]

I wouldn't be able to kick either.

Re:Duh

[badkarmadayaccount]

That's a good question.

Re:Duh

[jpkunst]

I smoke about one cigarette every two days, and never more than one a day. I suppose I'm one of those rare people who is immune to nicotine addiction.

Re:Duh

[BlackPignouf]

Thanks a lot for mentioning this book.
I just read it & stopped smoking after 10 years of nicotine addiction.

+1000 insightful!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet nobody down south is "smart" - go figure!

But...

[blahplusplus]

... is the same true for women?

Re:But...

[roman_mir]

what are these 'women' you are talking about?

Re:But...

[Opportunist]

I think he means the people whose name end in ".jpg".

Re:But...

[natehoy]

I prefer the ones whose names end in ".avi" - they seem more... alive, somehow.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think that goatse guy ends in '.jpg' too. I am not willing to check, though.

Re:But...

[badkarmadayaccount]

You mean .ogg, right?

She always told me

[Zeros]

My mother always told me kids that smoke are not too smart...

Re:She always told me

[AP31R0N]

How smart is too smart? At what point does smartness become problematic?

Re:She always told me

[NotBornYesterday]

When you start asking questions like that.

Re:She always told me

[geminidomino]

I know you were being snarky (it was my first reflex too, so don't take that as a condemnation), but your question reminded me of something I've read:

It is best for man to be middle-wise,
Not over cunning and clever:
No man is able to know his future,
So let him sleep in peace.

--Havamal, verse 56

Can't read that without thinking "Welp, I'm fucked." At least I know I'm not alone in not having had a good night in 25 years.

I smoke...

[ircmaxell]

And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...

Re:I smoke...

[amiga3D]

There are exceptions to every rule. I'm sure some people who smoke are very smart. After all, smart people often do stupid things.

Re:I smoke...

[RulerOf]

I consume nicotine and high amounts of caffeine on a regular basis. I'm told that it's partially a self-medicating technique observed in people with ADHD.

Ironically, the medication for said condition makes me want to smoke more frequently...

Re:I smoke...

[catxk]

And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...

Yes, and in the morning, I don't wake up until I have had my cup of coffee. Funny how it wasn't so back when I didn't drink coffee...

Point: your smoking addiction lets you function normally when you smoke, but when you do not smoke, you will function worse. A non-smoker functions normally all the time.

Re:I smoke...

[LtGordon]

Cigarettes have provided you with an excuse to get away from everything and focus your mind. No offense, but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette. Grab a cup of tea instead.

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

But grabbing a cup of tea involves going to the break room which is always filled with cow-orkers who want to chat about their kids, favorite sports team or how they're having trouble getting the moss out of their lawn, hardly a good way to avoid distractions.

Re:I smoke...

[dkleinsc]

Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought.

Why do you need to smoke when you take your 5 minutes of contemplation time? Why not just grab some fresh air, or at least wander away from your desk for a bit?

Re:I smoke...

[Zumbs]

From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.

Re:I smoke...

[ircmaxell]

I don't take offense. I hate the habit, so why would I be offended by someone pointing out that it's bad (rhetorical question)?

but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette.

When I quit for a little over a year (last year), I did find it easier to think in general (as you imply), but I did find it harder to concentrate on abstract ideas. I've always been one to think about and formulate my own theories on everything (from philosophy to physics to math, etc). Most of them are complete and utter BS, but some of them I think have merit. In the year that I quit, I pretty much stopped thinking/working on these ideas (The exact reason, I don't know, but I suspect it has to do with the 5 minute regular breaks). Once I started smoking again, I started working on them again. Now I've got one of the theories to a stage where I'm starting to write a book/paper on it, and another where I'm going to friend who's a PHD in Math to help me with certain parts (I'm good at math, but not at the complex geometries that I need)... I could replace the nicotine with caffeine (tea/coffee/etc), but that wouldn't be a good idea. I have a veryaddictive personality. When I worked nights for an Ambulance company during college, I got hooked on coffee. I would go through 2 pots or so per night. So I don't want to replace one bad habit with another...

Re:I smoke...

[Bert64]

So it's not the smoking itself, rather the fact you take regular breaks... What's to stop you taking regular breaks for other reasons? I find that taking 5 minutes to stand outside in the sun helps me greatly.

Ironically, i used to work for a company where smokers were allowed regular breaks to go outside and smoke, but non smokers weren't allowed to take equivalent breaks...

Re:I smoke...

[fbjon]

Put a water boiler on your desk, problem solved. Seriously, a cup of quality tea can be a significant relaxant, effective within just a few minutes. I've started using white tea myself.

Re:I smoke...

[Bert64]

The smoking areas is likely to be filled with co-workers too, who will similarly want to chat about inane things as they smoke...

Re:I smoke...

[Bert64]

So take regular 5 minute breaks to do non addictive things... Drink fruit juice, or just go outside and stare into space. Emptying your mind completely and staring at the sky will probably do you good.

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, where I work it's considered ok to go out for five minutes to have a smoke, but if you just went out for five minutes it's highly likely some PHB would consider that "goofing off" since you're just going outside without doing anything (this is similar to why it's easier to gain favor with management by doing something, anything even if it's a bad thing to do instead of taking some extra time to figure out the cause of a problem).

Re:I smoke...

[fbjon]

Try tea instead of coffee. Less stimulating, more healthy.

Re:I smoke...

[Opportunist]

And here the problems of the work place set in: Your boss will not enjoy watching you sit there with your cup of tea and "do nothing", while he can well see how you must leave your work place to smoke a cigarette, simply due to health concerns for the other workers.

And then there's the social component. A little bit of anecdotical wisdom how I started smoking. I was working for a big corp a while ago. And every once in a while, meetings between the different branches that somehow had to cooperate happened. During these meetings, nothing of value was achived. Why? Because every branch delegate was too desperate to make sure that his cost center will not be burdened with anything, or at least not more than entirely necessary, and every word spoken was noted and would be used against you. And this of course also meant that nobody spoke his mind, because, hey, it's in the file if you do!

The real progress was made in the coffee breaks (i.e. cig breaks, every hour). People mingled and sat there with their plastic cup, the kitchenette was filled with smoke you could cut with a knife, NOT going in there was essentially the equivalent of NOT going to the meeting, because, as I said, that's where the real decisions were made. Part of the social mingling was the question who offers who a cigarette. No kidding. Offering someone a cig often meant that he's more amiable to your suggestion. You have something in common with the "evil guy from the other branch", you're both sitting there, enjoying a cigarette. He's getting relaxed, so are you, it's not a stressful environment, you're just sitting there, relaxing, discussing ways how to solve your problem. It happened fairly often, especially if no upper level managers who don't understand the way this worked were present, that the entire meeting was held in the kitchenette, because us techs knew that this is where the work is done. Which was no big deal because (again, if no upper echelons were present), the whole meeting protocol was a forgery anyway. Usually the question was, how will our cost center pay for your 50 hours of work because if we had to do it on our end, it would cost 500 hours of work...

That's how I started smoking. It was the only way to get work done.

Re:I smoke...

[sado196]

Take this from a 10 year smoker who's been cig free for 6 years now: You find it easier to think abstractly because when you smoke you are feeding your chemical dependence. That momentary buzz and great feeling when you smoke is you returning to a state just a little better than normal because you've been going through withdraw for the last hour or so between smokes. You think clearer, relax better, and are generally happier because you have just sated your cravings. I smoked for 10 years, and used to think each cigarette helped me feel better and gave me something that was better than everyone else. I'd have a smoke and think straighter, or relax and unwind after a hard day, or just have something to do with my hands. Until you realize that what you consider normal is actually worse than what non-smokers feel is normal, it makes sense to think you're entering a state where things are better than normal. I remember arguing with people who told me this for years until I realized the truth of it about a year after quitting. If you want to think better, try quitting. If you don't want to try or don't want to listen to this advice, you're probably addicted.

Re:I smoke...

[macshit]

Cigarettes have provided you with an excuse to get away from everything and focus your mind. No offense, but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette. Grab a cup of tea instead.

Indeed; I find that pretty much any activity that enforces a period away from attention-grabbing activities and sources of stimulation has this effect.

For instance, I've found I do a lot of very productive thinking when exercising, walking somewhere familiar (since the route-finding etc is all basically subconcious for familiar routes), taking a shower, riding a train, etc. These require your body to do something, but your mind is left free to reflect.

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us more about this theory...it sounds revolutionary.

Re:I smoke...

[ircmaxell]

Well, I did quit for a year last year. I did notice that I felt a lot better and could think clearer (after the first week or so after quitting at least). But what I also notice now, is that my drive for abstract thought went down considerably. I'm not saying anything about my ability, but more so my desire and motivation. When I go outside for the 5 minutes, I'm forced to think about something for 5 minutes that I otherwise wouldn't think about. Now, I'm sure I could do that without resorting to the death sticks, but they provide the excuse and motivation to go out and think away from it all (That sounds like a rationalization for smoking, but it isn't, it's more of a rationalization about why I have better abstract thoughts when smoking). But I do agree with everything that you said (and have experienced it first hand). With that said, I know that I am addicted... I know that I should quit, I just haven't... I even find myself rationalizing not quitting (work is stressful, etc, etc). I know that it's wrong, and I don't believe the rationalizations, but I just haven't done it yet...

Re:I smoke...

[Asclepius99]

You know, you might be on to something here. Depending on how long it took to that the test and whether or not people were allowed to smoke while taking it (it didn't see information about either in TFA but I just skimmed it), there could be a connection here. Perhaps non-smokers were able to more fully concentrate on the test while those that smoked over a pack a day ended up having a craving before the test was up and thus had a harder time concentrating (and achieved the lowest results).

Re:I smoke...

[Wizard Drongo]

Well caffeine isn't anywhere near as bad as nicotine, and that's putting aside the issue that you're not getting the nicotine in a nice way, you're getting it in a rape-your-lungs-to-death way. Speaking as a person of high-to-genius level IQ, who watched both my parents die at a young age (when I was young, that is) of obstructive pulmonary lung damage (ie. asthma & smoking fucking their lungs; yeah they were both asthmatics AND smokers!) I can tell you that smoking is not very good for your lungs. This is not the early-death you're looking for.
I think the amount of people who have lost a few years due to coffee isn't gonna be very high, and the number of years not that many

Besides, don't go for coffee then, or get decaf.
Try green-tea, and make it properly, according to japanese tea ceremony. That's a ritual-based affair that you'll soon take to doing like an addiction, the green-tea is good for you, and once you get proficient at it, you'll start focussing on other things as you do it, helping with the concentration thing. Indeed, many Japanese people use tea-ceremony in an almost meditative fashion

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, I've found I do a lot of very productive thinking when exercising, walking somewhere familiar (since the route-finding etc is all basically subconcious for familiar routes), taking a shower, riding a train, etc. These require your body to do something, but your mind is left free to reflect.

I actually find that the times when I come up with the best ideas for work are when I smoke cannabis when I get home. I primarily use it to unwind from the day (similar to jogging, which I also do), but inexplicably while either exercising or reading while baked is when I'll suddenly think of a solution to a problem at work. I always check these ideas the following morning just to make sure they aren't stoned-out thoughts and provide an actual solution...and they usually do.

Re:I smoke...

[kju]

So what we need is something which looks like a cigarette, burns like a cigarette, smells like a cigarette, but isn't one and not harmful to your health?

Re:I smoke...

[dummondwhu]

Or, (since I'd be forbidden from having a water boiler at my desk) simply take a couple of minutes to make the tea and then walk away somewhere quiet for a few minutes. There are a dazzling number of possibilities for things to do to give oneself a break to clear the mind that don't significantly increase the likelihood of chemo and radiation treatments later in life and that don't cause one to drag around a foul stench in the more immediate point in time.

Re:I smoke...

[simoncpu was here]

Jah, mon! What we need is ganja! Thank you for finally recognizing its beneficial health effects.

Re:I smoke...

[Kumiorava]

Funny, I have same feeling when I take a shit (hopefully that is correct way to say this) or walk around the block.

Re:I smoke...

[dummondwhu]

Hide in the can for five minutes. Or better yet, briskly walk around with a determined look and it will be assumed that you're off doing something relevant. There are plenty of ways to keep the PHBs at bay while you clear your mind for the better.

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean there is nicotine tea?!

i have smoked on and off since i was 17. i am also a member of mensa.

correlation, causation, blah blah blah.

to be fair, i did quit last year.

Re:I smoke...

[dkleinsc]

Sounds like you need to work someplace with more enlightened management. My office has a pretty clear set of rules about time management:
  - Get your work done when you said you would. Estimates can be revised as need be, but will be questioned and negotiated.
  - Be at any meetings that you are scheduled to be at.
  - How you do that is essentially up to you. If you want to work 10A-7P, or 7A-4P, that's your business.

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you quit mensa or smoking?

Re:I smoke...

[thetoadwarrior]

co-workers in the smoking area do the same thing. If you smoke on your own then you can get a drink on your own too. It'll probably be easier to do now that so many companies require smokers to stand in specific areas to smoke where as tea can be had anywhere.

Re:I smoke...

[nelsonal]

It'd take some doing, but making tobacco tea is possible, we used to use it to kill bugs on plants. It works exceedingly well and never seemed to bother the plants. We'd use a lot (say 1/2 cup per quart) so I'm pretty sure it would have exceeded nicotine's lethal dose, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a blend that wasn't. I'd suggest Sweedish Snus, though, steam curing supposedly generates far fewer of the carcinogiens than smoke curing (used everywhere else does).

Re:I smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's healthy about going out and filling your lungs with unhealthy, chemical-laden smoke?

Re:I smoke...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Exactly. I used to smoke as well, and felt it gave me a great chance to think -- away from everyone. When I quit, I had trouble with that - until I realized that there was no reason I couldn't go outside and pace back and forth *without* the cigarette when I really needed to think something through without interruption.

Re:I smoke...

[kellyb9]

From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you

Isn't that what Slashdot is for?

Re:I smoke...

[geminidomino]

(it didn't see information about either in TFA but I just skimmed it),

TFA didn't really go into methodology at all.

It just threw out 'n' and the means of three classes, and wanked on about them a bit.

Re:I smoke...

[sado196]

Believe me when I tell you I fully understand where you're coming from. I still think about all the fun times I had taking my 5 minute break from work and meeting and talking to other people I would never have talked to normally. And I remember thinking for a while that I was damaging my ability to work by not going out on smoke breaks... when I had a problem I needed to solve, going outside for a smoke break was where I did some of my best work. I know it won't feel like the same thing, but keep taking those breaks. Go outside, walk, sit, relax... smoking gives a great excuse for going outside, but not smoking anymore doesn't mean you shouldn't still go outside for those same breaks. After a while, it gets easier to brainstorm without a smoke. (although, for a while, you will still go outside and spend most of your time thinking about how much you wish you were smoking! ) Good luck quitting when the time comes... it's one of the best things I've ever done and nearly one of the hardest things to keep doing. You'll be proud every time another year comes around without a smoke.

Re:I smoke...

[rrohbeck]

I'm not surprised. The pressure spike from constricting blood vessels probably squeezes more blood through your brain.
I used to have low blood pressure so I sometimes excuse my former smoking as self medication. I even got prescription meds for low blood pressure. These days exercise plus caffeine works just as well.

Re:I smoke...

[Joce640k]

It's not an "exception", it's all part of the "Bell Curve".

Re:I smoke...

[bkr1_2k]

Go for a walk around your building, or up and down the stairs. It doesn't take any concentration, but breaks up your day so you can think abstractly. Plus it provides a little exercise, which can't be bad.

Re:I smoke...

[MiniMike]

Simple solution- stop showering and brushing your teeth. No one in the break room will slow down your departure, you will still get to smell horrible (except the smell may linger less) and have nasty breath like a smoker, and you'll have a nice cup of tea (maybe filled with healthy antioxidants). Best of both worlds.

Re:I smoke...

[uberjoe]

Grab a cup of tea instead.

I hear caffeine is addictive too.

Re:I smoke...

[mjwx]

Cigarettes have provided you with an excuse to get away from everything and focus your mind. No offense, but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette. Grab a cup of tea instead.

Perhaps smart people are capable of refocusing their attention without the need for external stimuli. Although tea is nice.

I have a cunning plan..

[somersault]

Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[shentino]

What about second hand smoke?

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[catxk]

What about second hand smoke?

"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Anonymous Coward]

With small explosive charges, they wouldn't be dangerous to anyone but the smoker.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[selven]

Make 1 in 250 cigarettes have some explosives inside instead of what's normally in there. Now THAT would make smoking fun.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[bmo]

>Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!

My parents used to smoke Kent cigarettes a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I remembered as a kid that it advertised the cigs had the "Micronite Filter" on each pack.

Years later, I found out that the "Micronite" was blue asbestos.

Yep.

--
BMO

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Steauengeglase]

They are one step ahead of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Anonymous Coward]

What about second hand smoke?

"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

The fool who quotes a fscking science fiction film in the wrong context and thinks it wisdom.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[somersault]

At least that way they also take out any possible offspring that manage to pop out before the cigarettes can kill them. (No, I'm not a Nazi, I'm mooostly joking)

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[tepples]

"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

How can a child with a smoker for a father not follow a fool?

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Binestar]

How can a child with a smoker for a father not follow a fool?

How is this example *not* survival of the fittest?

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[pak9rabid]

Oh, we've already been doing that:

The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Center for Disease Control concluded Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source.

You can thank the tobacco industry's choice of fertilizer for that.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[tepples]

How can a child with a smoker for a father not follow a fool?

How is this example *not* survival of the fittest?

What should the child do about it?

Societies in several developed countries have decided to use the law against practices that they consider child abuse. For example, some have banned smoking in restaurants and other establishments that admit children. Many have banned smoking on buses; some are considering banning smoking in a motor vehicle with a child.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Binestar]

What does Survival of the fittest care? I said it originally tongue in cheek, I think smoking is a horrid habit, never smoked but both my parents did (My father quit smoking a longass time ago when he went to buy a pack and they were 75 cents, pissed him off so he quit. My mother smoked up until 3-4 years ago when I put my foot down and didn't let my kids go into the house if people had been smoking inside it, she finally used that ultimatum to get herself to quit).

Yeah, maybe the kid *can't* move out, but that is the point of survival of the fittest. People live long lives so they can raise their children and grandchildren, they don't die immediately when they have offspring like some species.

I suppose my point is that while I was joking, it is still an example of survival of the fittest if the kid dies due to parental neglect. What matters in this instance is due to the weakness of the parent, their offspring doesn't survive. Mother Nature is a harsh mistress.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[ztransform]

Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!

I always had this fantasy about testing this "addiction" that smokers complain about.

Picture a WW2 scenario. You have a room full of smokers. In the next room you have a carton of cigarettes. You tell the smokers the first person to go get a cigarette and light up gets shot. Then wait and see if they really are "addicted".

Personally I think smokers just have no will power. No real will power.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory wikipedia link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_(cigarette)

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[tunapez]

Yeah, and let's do the same with alcohol, it's merely a poison that gives the dumb people a reason to act stupid. And coffee too, those latte toting suburbanites are worse than tweakers in the office, and the drive-thru lines impede access to everything around them. While we're at it, let's program a routine for the a55hole drivers who go 50mph in the left lane to speed up out of control until they are no longer a hazard to themselves and others... I believe this option is already available, check your Toyota dealer for details.

I'm sure I could cite others who annoy me and do not deserve to exist amongst the "enlightened" me, but I need to go satisfy my nic fit.

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[somersault]

Seems I've hit a nerve. Yep.. I enjoy alcohol and coffee, but I've pretty much stopped drinking them both because of the negative health effects. I'm very easily affected by stuff like that, possibly have hypoglycaemia. And I don't drive like a granny like a lot of inexplicable drivers out there. So at least I wouldn't be a hypocrite for complaining about them. The driving one is definitely something that I wouldn't mind being fixed by just not letting idiots have a license, but otherwise people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, as long as it doesn't harm others around them. Smoking unfortunately has a much more direct detrimental effect on those around you than drinking.

Now I know what that Sonic Youth song title means, thanks :p

No surprise here

[calibre-not-output]

"Hmm, I think I'll set fire to this paper tube full of tar and inhale the smoke, even though countless studies have shown it will give me bad breath, impotence and cancer!" Sounds like a real genius, doesn't it?

Re:No surprise here

[Zapotek]

That's why I tell people to stop smoking cigarettes..smoke mini-cigars instead...
Hell, if you're gonna do something wrong at least do it right...

Re:No surprise here

[Anne Thwacks]

I'll set fire to this paper tube full of tar

Have you ever tried a tube of bzip?

Re:No surprise here

[c-reus]

But studies funded by the tobacco manufacturers have shown that smoking is completely harmless. Are you implying that their massive lobbying/ad campaigns/brainwashing is not completely impartial and is done only to increase their profit?

Re:No surprise here

[Opportunist]

Tried that and got promptly arrested. There's no tax on bzip so they made it illegal to smoke it in my country.

Re:No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Einstein smoked...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Re:No surprise here

[calibre-not-output]

And Freud not only did cocaine, but prescribed it to his patients. What's your point?

inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[alen]

i'm shocked. cigarretes are known to constrict blood and oxygen flow. i bet people who smoke are limiting the blood and oxygen flow to their brain and this results in lower IQ results.

  it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your're saying that if I quit smoking I'd be likely to go from my current IQ of ~135 to to ~142, sweet. Time to quit smoking.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[MrKaos]

it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

I used to joke that cigarettes had vitamin C in them...until I found out they did.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[catxk]

i'm shocked. cigarretes are known to constrict blood and oxygen flow. i bet people who smoke are limiting the blood and oxygen flow to their brain and this results in lower IQ results.

it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

No, you got it wrong. Smoking does not make you dumb, but dumb people start smoking. It's right there in the summary: stupid people make poor choices regarding their own health.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Thanshin]

it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

And it's not just a health problem. Enemy countries are actively buying American tobacco to extract the uranium to make explosive devices with it.

And, even knowing that, tobacco companies continue to use the uranium aditives because they don't want to lose the massive sells to those enemy countries.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Paxtez]

[citation needed]

I don't buy it, if only for the logic behind it:

Uranium is easy enough to purchase that the tobacco company can purchase large amounts of it to add it to cigarettes. But the countries are unable to purchase the uranium directly so they are forced to purchase billions of dollars worth of cigarettes in order to be able to produce weapons.

Really? That sounds like the plot to the worst Bond movie ever.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the linked article does not support the conclusion you reached. All the linked article says is that the study concluded that smokers have a lower IQ on average than non-smokers. There are two possible explanations for this. The first (the one taken by the summary and the article) is that people with lower IQs are more likely to start smoking. The second is that smoking lowers one's IQ. Either of these would result in the findings in the study. Hopefully someone will do a follow on study to discover which of these is the case.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Beezlebub33]

"Now that I've caught you, Perry the Platypus, I will reveal my cunning plan. I have bought all the cigarettes in the Tri-State Area! I will smoke them and take the uranium to make a nuclear weapon! ...[5 years later]...[gasp, gasp] ... Almost done...one more smoke..[wheeze]. Done! [collapses and dies]"

[shift to the boys creating a device]

"Oh, there you are Perry!"

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[catxk]

Are you implying that I should read the article before posting?

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[Asclepius99]

Um, I think it was a joke.

Also, it sounds way more like the big twist on an episode of 24 than a Bond movie. Jack Bauer is able to safely recover the uranium rods, 45 minutes later several dozen 7/11 are held up but the robbers take only cigarettes, one of the clerks killed a robber and we realize that they have the same tattoos are the terrorists. Ticktock ticktock ticktock.

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[dzfoo]

Do you by chance smoke?

        -dZ.

Hmm...

[ScottySniper]

Is the lower IQ a result of smoking, or is smoking a result of a lower IQ, I wonder?

Re:Hmm...

[Bozzio]

Does it really matter? They conducted the survey with army recruits and veterans.
The army life is known to attract people in the lower IQ ranges. It is also known to promote smoking. Good luck finding what caused what.

Re:Hmm...

[gotpaint32]

I hope you realize that Israel (where they did this study) has mandatory conscription for both men and women of age. There is not much self selection when everyone is forced to participate. Have you had your cigarettes today?

Re:Hmm...

[MiniMike]

Have you had your cigarettes today?

I can see this replacing "You must be new here" in many, many responses.

Re:Hmm...

[Reziac]

Actually I was just reading something about that earlier today (I think it was on or linked from vdare.com) and turns out the military uses IQ tests, has a bottom cut-off point somewhere in the middling-lower range of average (NOT way down there), and turns down about 40% of applicants for inadequate IQ. Seems they've found there's a strong correlation between survival in combat (because you do things RIGHT) and higher IQ, and training replacement soldiers is a lot more expensive than keeping the ones you've already trained alive. Besides, trainees still on base win no battles.

Oh snap

[Anonymous Coward]

But my IQ is 120 and I smoke.

Damn statistical fluke of my being.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[eldavojohn]

A bit offtopic but I enjoyed the overtly blue-collar ill lit picture that a site called Science Daily employed.

An unshaven sun-reddened face focuses all its concentration on a cigarette protruding directly in front of his nose. His lips are pursed as if to indicate that connecting the tip of that cigarette with that flame requires all of his concentration. If his eyes weren't hidden to prevent us from identifying him (or to keep us from identifying with the subject) we might see them as cross-eyed staring down his nose intent to satiate his addiction. His shirt (which is plain white) and knuckles are smeared haphazardly with grease and his skin glistens with a workingman's sweat. Whatever iconography that hangs from his neck (Isreali dog tags? a Star of David?) can only afford a cheap black cord. The subject is off center to the right with the background as a pitch black. Nothing but a single source of light coming from the left.

It amuses me that the site employs such a suggestive picture of smoking so that it almost screams to be a blue collar, unintelligent, near evil addiction. I understand this image adds to the effect of the article but if ever there was anti-marketing for smoking here it is at a site that claims to be objective in its name. Movies of yore portrayed the beautiful, the rich and the strong smoking. I can walk outside my office building and see well paid people smoking. It's disingenuous to portray it as only a blue collar problem no matter what statistics about IQ say. This only tells me that, on average, low IQs are more likely to succumb to well funded advertising or lack information about smoking. Not that they are any less powerful at breaking an addiction.

I find smoking abhorrent and disgusting but I also think that it detracts from your goals to say that smoking destroys your beauty when young people can see beautiful celebrities smoking. And I also think that a "Science" site shouldn't have such goals or propaganda baked into its articles (one way or the other).

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[swb]

Smoking in the movies of the 40s and 50s is pretty appealing, I'll have to admit. There's two kinds of smoking, though.

The first kind is the continuous, repetitive chain smoking where everybody seems to have a cigarette going.

Then there's the kind of social smoking where you wonder what smoking was really like. I can remember a movie where neither character seemed to chain smoke, but instead after a meal the characters retired to the living room for drinks and they each enjoyed a (singular) cigarette taken from a wooden box on the coffee table.

I'm kind of wondering how common this kind of smoking was and whether it was actual addictiveness or marketing that turned it from an occasional pleasure to a full-time habit.

I'm guessing that a half-dozen cigarettes a week probably isn't near the health risk that a pack and a half a day is.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[lxs]

What's "Ill lit" about that picture? It is nicely lit from both sides, leaving a dramatic dark space so the flame of the lighter will show up nicely even against the white of the shirt. The stylist has done an excellent job of making the model who has only ever broken a sweat in the gym look grimy without sacrificing glamour.

It is a beautiful stock photo, and a well-crafted piece of commercial art.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[matria]

That is not grime, nor is that a dirty T-shirt. It's s very common type of dyed t-shirt, they come with that streaky look in any color, and the guy happens to have dark skin. I learned at a very young age that black and brown people weren't dirty; the color really doesn't rub or wash off. I have an Indian (as in Calcutta Indian) friend whose skin color and sheen is very much like that.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[vrmlguy]

Hey, I've got a beard almost exactly like that, you insensitive clod!. I'm a Unix admin, the black cord holds my SecureID key, and my tee-shirt looks like that after pulling cables beneath the raised floor.

As for the subject being off-center, haven't you ever heard of the rule of thirds?

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[mikael_j]

That's either dirt or a t-shirt that's supposed to look dirty, in either case the choice of that look is to make it look like the t-shirt is dirty.

As for dark skin, if you look at the fingers (including the thumb) it's pretty clear that it's dirt. If that's not good enough then I suggest you look at the redness on the subject's face and the contrast between that and the area around his mouth and his neck. You should probably also factor in the color of his hair (once again, look at the area around his mouth), that is not someone with dark skin.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[Anonymous Coward]

what exactly is so clearly israeli or jewish about this guy that he needs to have a star of david or IDF dogtags around his neck?

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

And yet, you still give us more!

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I have a bunch of friends whose parents own (and therefore my friends worked on) farms. I have literally seen the enactment of that picture a thousand times. Probably far, far more than that. I've been the enactment of that picture, again, thousands of times, easily.

The only thing that's inaccurate about that picture is that the flame isn't cupped to get the cigarette lit as quickly as possible.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[Eli Gottlieb]

The really retarded thing is that they studied the effects of smoking versus not smoking in an organization where almost everyone smokes. I mean EVERYONE. It's what helps them cope with their rather unpleasant jobs and job conditions.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[Sporkinum]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[geminidomino]

what exactly is so clearly israeli or jewish about this guy that he needs to have a star of david or IDF dogtags around his neck?

The fact that Israeli solders were the sample used in the study, I'd wager.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[Anonymous Coward]

it almost screams to be a blue collar, unintelligent, near evil addiction.

I disagree. I think that drawing a connection between smoking and the working class makes the working class look bad.

Re:A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[daniel_i_l]

Whatever iconography that hangs from his neck (Isreali dog tags? a Star of David?) can only afford a cheap black cord.

If that is really an Israeli soldier than the iconography is a dog tag. In addition, it's connected to his neck with a steel chain which is covered with a "cheap black cord". All combat soldiers cover the steel chain so that it wont reflect light and give away their position in battle.

correlationisnotcausation tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody in the article was even IMPLYING one caused the other, so the tag is pretty pointless. Every time a controversial study result is posted here, people have this Pavlovian rush to post "correlation!=causation".

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[Xemu]

Every time a controversial study result is posted here, people have this Pavlovian rush to post "correlation!=causation".

I feel a a sudden urge to say "correlation != causation" in response to this statement.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[ircmaxell]

Normally I am one to raise that flag. But I agree here that it doesn't really apply. The article didn't make mention of any causation. All it said was in this study, men who smoked also had lower IQ's. There's 2 ways that could happen. Smoking lowers your IQ, or the more likely (on the average) lower IQ people smoke. It's interesting to say the least, but they never drew conclusions from the data, so it is a bit of a leap to jump down the correlation != causation bandwagon...

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[vrmlguy]

RTFA. 'Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit, and can be targeted with special education and therapy to prevent them from starting or to break the habit after it sets in.' Sounds to me like the researchers believe that low IQ leads to smoking, not the reverse. They need to redo their study starting with school kids and checking to see which ones take up smoking.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[Trepidity]

The article does include this sentence:

"'People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser."

That seems to pretty strongly imply that the researchers believe there's an IQ -> smoking causation.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[Goaway]

All the yelling of "correlation is not causation" is pretty much the low mark of intellectual laziness on Slashdot. Most of the time when someone yells that, it actually means "I don't like the results of this research" or possibly "I like to look clever". In this case, I think it means "I only read the headline and I didn't like even that".

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[natehoy]

It's almost like someone posting a study causes people to post the tag, isn't it?

Oh, wait, I'm implying causation, sorry!

It's almost like there is a direct correlation between posts about studies, and the use of the correlationisnotcausation tag. Must be an odd coincidence.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[julesh]

Every time a controversial study result is posted here, people have this Pavlovian rush to post "correlation!=causation".

I feel a a sudden urge to say "correlation != causation" in response to this statement.

So do I, but we should be cautious that this correlation might not actually be caused by anything in the statement itself.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[geminidomino]

All it said was in this study, men who smoked also had lower IQ's.

Actually, from what little data provided, they didn't even say that much. They just said that the AVERAGES were lower.

Considering statements like "An IQ score in a healthy population of such young men, with no mental disorders, falls within the range of 84 to 116." suggests that someone involved at some step of the process (whether the source of that is the article's author or the study itself, I don't know) isn't really good with the concept of "outliers", particularly since they don't bother explaining what "such young men" are.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[Reziac]

"All it said was in this study, men who smoked also had lower IQ's. There's 2 ways that could happen. Smoking lowers your IQ, or the more likely (on the average) lower IQ people smoke."

Which doesn't rule out BOTH being the case. Maybe a larger number of low-IQs smoke in the first place, AND it lowers your IQ no matter where it started. In fact I'd guess that's more likely the case than not.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...

[Shadow of Eternity]

"People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health..."

I can't even come up with a good joke for this, they've basically just put all that time and money into finding out that stupid people are more likely to make stupid choices.

I realise that the plural of Anecdote is not Data but I would think that at some point this connection would be obvious enough in day to day life that a study would be unnecessary.

Re:Let me see if I understand you correctly...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given the amount of wrangling over IQ tests, the existence and relevance, if any, of "G", and so forth, that result isn't nearly as trivial as you make it sound.

In common usage, "stupid" basically means "does dumb stuff, possibly isn't too quick on the uptake in situations requiring verbal dexterity". If you use that definition, the statement is nearly a tautology: "People who do dumb stuff generally tend to do dumb stuff with respect to their health...". However, "IQ" is a very different measure, basically of your ability to solve a class of abstract reasoning problems. It is far from self-evident that ability to solve abstract reasoning problems, of the sort that you find on IQ tests, would have anything to do with health decisions.

Aside from the fact that Anecdotes have the annoying habit of feeling more informative than they are, that is why this sort of study is interesting. "IQ" is a rather dry, abstract measure, the relevance of which, outside of laboratory style testing situations that involve solving word problems, has been the subject of a great deal of scepticism. Everybody knows that "stupid" people do stupid things; but it has not, historically, been so clear that "people who perform poorly on a particular psychometric assessment battery" do stupid things.

Obligatory Philip J. Fry:

[0vi_king]

No I'm ..doesn't

Professor Of The Bleeding Obvious

[Bazman]

"People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser."

Is this followed by a reference: "Stupid is as stupid does" (Gump F., 1994) ?

I can haz IQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLTARD.

Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[DevConcepts]

"Israeli Army recruits and veterans" What is the average IQ of those not in the army??

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Isreal, pretty much everybody was in the army.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[catxk]

"Israeli Army recruits and veterans" What is the average IQ of those not in the army??

Following the logic in the summary, it should be higher. From the summary:

'People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[stewbee]

If memory serves me right, military service is mandatory for Israelis. You could probably then assume that they had a good representative sample of the population.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[DevConcepts]

Maybe compare to Swiss (Same mandatory service I believe) but I think much less stress than Israel.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[chrb]

Several years of military service in the IDF is mandatory for young Israelis. After that they are considered lifetime reservists, can be called up for a months service every year, and for an unlimited duration when national security is threatened. This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians - since every Israeli civilian is also a military reservist, these groups state that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian in the traditional sense.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[carlcmc]

"This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians - since every Israeli civilian is also a military reservist, these groups state that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian in the traditional sense."

Which is just their justification for murder. Targeting civilians because they just might be able to be in the military at some point ... puhleasse.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[Eli Gottlieb]

Over there? Rather low, since the group of army-exempt citizens mainly consists of inbred religious fanatics.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[Anonymous Coward]

Females who are married or pregnant before the age of enlistment (18) skip IDF service altogether. Most Orthodox Jews aren't required to enlist. Some males are found unfit for service on physical or mental grounds, they never enlist. Able males who are unwilling to enlist on moral grounds trade IDF service for community service in schools, hospitals and rural communities. There are plenty of Israelis who never have and never will wear an IDF uniform.

This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians...

When you quote bullshit excuses, please be a dear and call bullshit on it right away.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[HeckRuler]

War is full of justifications for murder.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[chrb]

Targeting civilians because they just might be able to be in the military at some point

Reservists are not just people "who might be in the military at some point" - reservists are part of the military: "A reservist is a person who is a member of a military reserve force. They are otherwise civilians, and in peacetime have careers outside the military." The U.S. National Guard is a reserve force.

Obviously reservists are not usually on active duty, and would probably be considered civilians by many people when they are inactive, but nevertheless they are still a trained and functional part of the military system of many nations. Whether off-duty soldiers are legitimate targets depends highly on the point of view of the individual - it is a topic of debate in the West and elsewhere e.g. Tafsil A: Off-duty soldiers are treated as civilians: "Our jurists agree that during a valid war when there is no ceasefire, and when an attack is not aimed at a valid military target, a hostile soldier (whether male or female, whether conscripted or not) who is not on operational duty or not wearing a military uniform and when there is nothing in the soldier’s outward appearance to suggest that the soldier is in combat, then the soldier is considered a non-combatant [man lâ yuqâtilu] (and in this case must therefore be treated as a normal civilian)."

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, both sides want to push the boundary of "who is a civilian".

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[geminidomino]

If memory serves me right, military service is mandatory for Israelis. You could probably then assume that they had a good representative sample of the population.

I'm not so sure about that, but it may be a wording thing, but "An IQ score in a healthy population of such young men, with no mental disorders, falls within the range of 84 to 116".

So what, no one has an IQ > 116?

There's a certain class of slashdot troll who would love that.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[stewbee]

May be you are reading more into my comment, or I wasn't explicit enough. In any case, here is my chance to better explain what I was trying to say.

If every Israeli (my premise that I still have not verified) is required to serve in the military, and they choose randomly from this pool of people, then realistically they would have a good sample population to test from that would eliminate potential selection bias such as socio-economic factors, education, etc.

As an example of a potential bias, I live in the Chicago area, and I occasionally ride on the subway (once every two months or so). Inside each subway car there are ads, some of which state that some university is doing a study on X. They then are putting out a call for people with X to participate in a study. If I did not ride the subway, then there is a good chance that I would have never seen the sign. Is it then possible that this study could be skewed by the fact that only people who have ridden public transportation and have seen the sign? Is there a hidden correlation between people who ride public transportation and those that have X, because maybe there are people that have X and do not ride public transportation? These factors are placing a sort of filter on the participants, and thus the experiment may not have a true representative sample of the population.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[mjwx]

"Israeli Army recruits and veterans" What is the average IQ of those not in the army??

In Israel?

Quite low seeing as Israel has mandatory national service and the only group exempted are religious nutcases.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[geminidomino]

I wasn't questioning your statement (your logic is sound as far as I can see), but theirs. They don't say "An 'average' IQ score" or something similar, which would make more sense.

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[adinas]

Since so many Palestinians end up being terrorists I suppose killing them randomly would also be ok by same logic

Is It Not the Other Way On?

[segedunum]

People with low IQ's are more likely to smoke? That's my experience. That's what I hate about these statistical analyses. Just because there is an apparent correlation people then assume that causation naturally follows.

Re:Is It Not the Other Way On?

[MyLongNickName]

Hate all you want, but neither the summary nor the article implied in any way that smoking caused a lowering of IQ. In fact, the article went on to say that this correlation indicates that gov't should use this information to adjust the way anto-smoking education should be directed. This indicates that they agree with you -- low IQ's tend to smoke, not the other way around.

So, what you are hating is your predisposition to make assumptions.

Re:Is It Not the Other Way On?

[CorporateSuit]

The article offers lots of information to begin making guesses, such as the twins data. There are also medical underpinnings to the hypothesis - if smoking can cause enough blood-related problems to cause impotency and lowered sperm count, then it also has the potential to affect the brain in a negative way. The study is being treated well -- it's not claiming any cause/effects, but it's showing researchers where they can begin testing for cause/effects.

Also...

[RulerOf]

My IQ, on the other hand, is in the 120's or 130's. It's been a long time since I've had a WAIS test though. Always sorta wanted to get another one now that I'm out of school.

Re:Also...

[vertseven]

Perhaps, if you weren't strung out on caffeine and nicotine, your IQ range would be plural and not possessive.

Re:Also...

[RulerOf]

Indeed!

Your inane comment aside, I don't recall if I was ever taught how to pluralize numbers. I do remember that, when pluralizing letters, it's "A's and B's." Extending the rationale behind that to numbers makes sense to me (and is quite handy when dealing with serial or model numbers; think "Dell GX280's"), but I suppose you have to be very intelligent to write something that way based on a rationalization coming from education rather than basing it on your ignorance of the proper method.


Perhaps, if you took the time to go smoke a cigarette and drink a cup of coffee, you might not sit on Slashdot and submit comments that make you look like an elitist jerk.

Re:Also...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you were never taught, here's a quick lesson: when pluralizing symbols or initialisms, use the apostrophe only to resolve ambiguity. Ex: "As" Is this the preposition "as" or the plural of the letter "A"? Write A's and it's clear. "Bs," there is no ambiguity. In short, with vowels, the numbers 1 and 0, and the letter M: use an apostrophe (as, is, etc.; 1 and 0 look like letters; and Ms. is a title).

Treat initialisms as nouns. Plural of PC is PCs. Now you can still use the apostrophe for the possessive ("My PC's power supply") or the contraction with "is" ("My PC's brand new") without ambiguity with the plural.

As for your model number example, that's fine for speech where you might ask your coworker to "take the 1650's out of the rack." In writing, you should probably just add a disambiguating word like "PC" or "server" (i.e. "Dell GX280 workstations" or "Dell 1650 servers"). Not only does this avoid improper and potentially misleading usage of the apostrophe, it may aid the reader who knows the difference between a server and a workstation, but not Dell model numbers.

Re:Also...

[turtledawn]

Can someone mod parent up? I'm out of points and it's informative/useful.

IQ correlates to income though

[oodaloop]

At least on the low side. Those with low IQ tend to have low incomes, though high income does not correlate very well with IQ at all, meaning smart people may or may not do well in life. So since smoking correlates to low IQ and low IQ correlates to low income, it may be true that smoking correlates to low income as the author states in TFS.

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[sco08y]

RTFS: they ruled out socioeconomic factors.

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[Bert64]

Smoking does seem to correlate with low income, which is all the more amusing considering how expensive smoking is in some places...
People with very little money, wasting it all on smoking, and then having insufficient money for food and other basic necessities...

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[oodaloop]

RTF comics. That's obviously a lot easier for you, since reading my post was too difficult.

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[chrb]

So since smoking correlates to low IQ and low IQ correlates to low income, it may be true that smoking correlates to low income as the author states in TFS.

Yes, smoking does correlate with low-income, but TFS states that this factor has been eliminated for this study: 'Because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor.'

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[oodaloop]

OMFG, people. Just because they ruled it out as a factor doesn't mean there isn't a correlation! Dumb people smoke. Dumb people have low incomes. People who smoke may be more likely to have low incomes. All they've shown is that low income IS NOT THE CAUSE of smoking. That doesn't mean there isn't any correlation. Here's an analogy:

Smart people have lots of books. Smart people have smart kids. Having books in the house was ruled out as being the cause of having smart kids. But there is a strong correlation between smart kids and having books in the house. Get it? The smart parents are the cause of both the books and the smart kids.

Cause or consequence?

[Lorens]

Article implies that people with lower IQ are more likely to start smoking. Sounds likely (smoking is not an intelligent decision). Several comments imply that smoking can lower your IQ. Sounds likely too (low-dose daily protracted poisoning by hundreds of different toxins can't do much good). Prevention should take both possibilities into account. If "Smoking will kill you" isn't enough, might "Smoking will fry your brain" be better? Probably not, but worth a try to counter "Smoking keeps you alert".

Re:Cause or consequence?

[Anonymous Coward]

History has had quite a few intelligent smokers, like Isaac Newton. And on the other hand is only a 10% difference, it's not *that* big of deal.

And in other news...

[Asterra]

People Who Require Scientific Studies To Prove Something Easily Intuitable Have Lower IQs.

Smoking break

[matria]

When I worked where there were a number of smokers who took their regular smoking breaks, I took a break with them; except that I took a brisk 5-minute walk around a nearby park while they were busy poisoning themselves (and yes, nicotine is a very potent poison, makes a fine anti-tick dip for sheep). Did a great job of clearing my head and letting me get back into the groove for another couple of hours.

government to rethink education on smoking

[Culture20]

SMOKING BAD!
BAD SMOKING!

This message has been brought to you by the Surgeon General's campaign against heart and lung disease, and is intended for viewers with lower IQs. If your IQ is above 95, this was not intended to be condescending in any way.

Re:government to rethink education on smoking

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I found your post completely, grossly, unrepentantly offensive.

Mod parent up.

Re:government to rethink education on smoking

[maestroX]

SMOKING BAD! BAD SMOKING!
This message has been brought to you by the Surgeon General's campaign against heart and lung disease, and is intended for viewers with lower IQs. If your IQ is above 95, this was not intended to be condescending in any way.

Dude, dont dig the fag lingo, but the smoking sounds awesome!!!

Decisions, Decisons...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would explain the old adage, "if she smokes, she pokes"...

You Fucked Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you've been smoking for so long, you IQ is now 95. Way to go, dumbass!

Re:You Fucked Up

[Anonymous Coward]

be more respectful of your betters.

It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[MyLongNickName]

"In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighborhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools," says Prof. Weiser, whose study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction. "But because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor. The government might want to rethink how it allocates its educational resources on smoking."

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[oodaloop]

Yeah, thanks jackass. What I said doesn't contradict anything in TFS, so maybe you could try reading it again.

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[Rob the Bold]

I think he did RTFA, but was just pointing out that he thought low income was more correlated to lower IQ than higher income correlated to higher IQ - not that the study was poorly controlled. That's what I tell myself, too. Also the subject of my second favorite bible passage. Ecclesiastes 9:11, "The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all."

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[MyLongNickName]

Let me recap with nice short sentences.

1) You are pointing out a correlation between low income and smoking.
2) Everyone in the freaking world understands this correlation.
3) Study dismissed socio-economic status as the driving factor.
4) Study indicates that IQ is the driving factor behind smoking.

Now, it is possible this study is wrong, or simply biased to one demographic. However, in the context of this story, your original post may have been technically correct but is, in fact, a distracting statement. The newsworthy part of this study is that it is NOT income but IQ which is the important factor to look at.

The article then goes on to suggest a policy change as a result.

But keep arguing your non-point with everyone. It is the Slashdot way.

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[MyLongNickName]

I am tired and perhaps not thinking clearly, but how is this possible?

"low income was more correlated to lower IQ than higher income correlated to higher IQ"

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[oodaloop]

However, in the context of this story, your original post may have been technically correct but is, in fact, a distracting statement.

So how is telling me to RTFA relevant if what I said was right? What I said was relevant. They've ruled out socio-economic factors as a cause, but that doesn't mean it's not correlated and several people here seem to think that is the case. I was just pointing out that it can still be correlated.

But keep arguing your non-point with everyone. It is the Slashdot way.

So is trying to correct someone who is right.

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[Eli Gottlieb]

Or the government might think to allow soldiers some kind of stress-relief or recreational drug other than tobacco smoking.

Re:It's fun to stay at the R-T-F-A.

[Rob the Bold]

I am tired and perhaps not thinking clearly, but how is this possible?

"low income was more correlated to lower IQ than higher income correlated to higher IQ"

I don't want to put words in oodaloop's mouth, here, but this is my take on it. Also, this is PIDOOMA, so it could be entirely wrong, but it's how I think it could at least be possible/plausible.

Practically speaking, I would say that a person of below average intelligence would have their money-making potential compromised by their intellectual deficiency. It's hard to get a fair deal if you can't even figure out the deal. Even if they wished to become rich, it would be hard to do. So the overall earing power of the less mentally gifted would be lower.

A person of average or better IQ, on the other hand, has the opportunity to do well financially. They might not choose to, they might lack the "EQ" to properly schmooze their way to the top, they could suffer physical disability or mental illness, or for any other reason not be willing or able to take advantage of their gifts.

So a fool has little chance, whereas "nobody's fool" has more random odds of becoming prosperous.

If you were to plot a scattergram of data that followed my hypothesis, then you might see a trend of income varying with increasing IQ up to a point at which the income data points start spreading out, giving you much bigger error w.r.t. the earlier trend.

Again, I'm not a sociologist or economist or anything like that, so this could be total BS.

Correlation and Causation mayhem

[mrstrano]

I read this news a couple of days back and I wanted to find more about the paper, so I typed 'smokers are dumber' on Google.
The headlines of the articles appeared in the results given by Google. However, while the first three or four results correctly cited the paper
with titles like 'Smokers dumber than non smokers' around the 6 or 7 result articles like 'Smoking makes you dumber' started to appear.

"correlationisnotcausation"

[CODiNE]

says all the smokers in the audience.

tee hee. :)

Statistics can be hazardous to your health

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they say they tried to control for something, doesn't mean they succeeded.

I'm guessing that the number of low-IQ male smokers from upper-middle class families produces quite a small sample size. (Remember that IQ is as much determined by socio-economic conditions as it is by basic wiring.) If the sample size of that population was insufficient then the analysis can't be trusted. Given the number of statistical blunders we see in routine science, my WAG is that the statistics here might be a bit suspect.

That's where Einstien made his mistake...

[mswhippingboy]

Guess if he would have laid down his pipe, maybe he would have found the Grand Unified Theory.
GMAFB
Smoking is bad, no doubt - but there are too many examples of geniuses that smoked for me to buy this.
Sounds like propaganda to me - but if it stops X percent of people from starting smoking, the I guess there's no harm done.

Re:Duh -is this a line from Smokey and the Bandit?

[SargentDU]

The GP may be referring to Smokey and the Bandit where the girl was running away from marriage to the Sheriff's son and has jumped into the Bandits's Pontiac Trans Am with her wedding dress on, and lights up a cigarette.

I found one factor they overlooked

[cenc]

They studied 20,000 people that joined the military. That would indicate they already could care less about their life or were already shown to be inclined to accept training or participate in activities that would make them disregard their own life. How about a control group among say something like university professors? At least compare that to 20,000 university students of the same age. There is a certain sweet spot for stupidity among those age groups (the superman factor).

   

Re:I found one factor they overlooked

[beakerMeep]

As a dumb smoker, I'm skeptical of the study, but I'm pretty sure military service is required of all citizens in Israel.

Re:I found one factor they overlooked

[Zerth]

You do know that the Israelis have mandatory military service? Everybody fit to serve joins.

Re:I found one factor they overlooked

[Anonymous Coward]

You found nothing, but thanks for playing.

Tell that to these folks...

[Civil_Disobedient]

Lower IQ huh? Isn't that interesting.

Re:Tell that to these folks...

[maxume]

The study focused on young men today (attitudes towards smoking have shifted quite a lot over the last 50 years), and it also drew conclusions about the groups, not about the individuals.

So a list of historical individuals is pretty unrelated.

Re:Tell that to these folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget the fictional smart ass Sherlock Holmes

Re:Tell that to these folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god! You found a handful of outliers! Their sample set has been RUINED now!

I've gotta ask, do you know how statistics work?

Re:Tell that to these folks...

[Civil_Disobedient]

Outliers? Tell you what, Mr. Anonymous Coward, go find me a hundred famous artists, authors, scientists or politicians that aren't (or weren't) smokers.

In creative circles, non-smokers are the outliers. Sorry to have to break your understanding of the world.

Re:Tell that to these folks...

[Civil_Disobedient]

it also drew conclusions about the groups, not about the individuals

Yes, and my comment was about a group as well, illustrated with examples from said group. Which group is that? Creatives. People who use their brains for a living. Artists, authors, scientists... you'll have a much harder time trying to find a famous author that didn't smoke (or drink, for that matter).

Go ahead and prove me wrong. For extra credit, try and prove me wrong without simply using "individuals" as evidence, since you seem to hold so little value in actual data.

Ciggarettes VS..

[carp3_noct3m]

When I was in the military, especially on combat tours, I ended up smoking an unhealthy amount to help me cope. When I got off the plane this last time, I quit cold turkey, and now when I smell regular cigarette smoke I can barely stand it. (Which just now made me realize maybe I associate it with bad things and its not just the smoke itself) , I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals, and smoke about once a week for enjoyment while drinking a cognac or brandy. I feel it is much more enjoyable (longer lasting, smells better) and is slightly better for my health (mouth cancer yes, lung cancer no), but I digress, I got into pipe tobacco when I joined the university scene and ended hanging out with professors and philosophy students, of whom a large amount smoke pipes. Ok now I have no idea what the point of the post was, mmm, maybe I just have a low IQ. Oh mondays mornings, I loathe you. On a side note, as a formally staunch anti-weed guy (couldn't hold security clearance if you smoked) I now have had amazing success with my PTSD using weed instead of alcohol to self-medicate.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Lumpy]

Most people I know who are military smoke because.... It's something to do. I had friends that started smoking in the military because it was the only way to make the daily hurry up and wait tolerable.

A couple swore they could sight in on a target faster because they smoked.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Krahar]

I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals

Yep, those chemicals will kill ya'. In other news, I've moved to all-natural plutonium to put in my morning drink.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple swore they could sight in on a target faster because they smoked.

Funny, that's what my friend Solid Snake says too.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[MarkvW]

Always carried a book in my pants' cargo pocket whenever hurry up and wait was on the horizon. Gosh. That was a long time ago!

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Ltap]

I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals, and smoke about once a week for enjoyment while drinking a cognac or brandy.

Are you a hobbit, by any chance?

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[carp3_noct3m]

As opposed to plutonium rolled around in a yellow cake uranium and mercury and baked as a delicious coffee cake you normally use?

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[pommiekiwifruit]

Since when is there natural plutonium on this planet? Arsenic might have been a better example.

Och

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true bullshit!

Another conclusion from this

[jmv]

In the study, conducted with 20,000 Israeli Army recruits and veterans, the average IQ for a non-smoker was about 101, while the smokers' average was more than seven IQ points lower at about 94, and the IQs of young men who smoked more than a pack a day were lower still, at about 90.

It sounds from this that the average IQ in the army is also below 100 (which is the average, right?), which would indicate that people who serve in the army have below-average IQ. Not too surprising either.

Re:Another conclusion from this

[darkstar949]

However, the survey was done by the Israeli Army which has a mandatory service period for all non-Arab Israeli citizens, as such, the survey is likely a good cross section of the general demographics of the country.

Re:Another conclusion from this

[JustNiz]

According to wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Israel is 34th best with a national average IQ of 94.
IF you're American, don't mock. The US is only 19th best globally with an average of 98.

Re:Another conclusion from this

[Nadaka]

It does not mean that at all. If the percentage of smokers is small and the percentage of non smokers large, the average will still balance out at ~100. I know its a dead horse and I am going to beat it anyway., This is Israel, military service is compulsory, everyone male and female must serve their tour of duty.

Re:Another conclusion from this

[asvravi]

According to the *book* described in Wikipedia, not according to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is a collection of facts. Books featured in Wikipedia can even be pure works of fiction.

Re:Another conclusion from this

[Anonymous Coward]

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia.

That's some solid math and geography skills. It's questionable to assume neighboring countries would have similar IQ levels, but this example is just absurd. El Salvador and Colombia are separated by 1200 miles of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.

Sure it does.

[Anonymous Coward]

...though high income does not correlate very well with IQ at all, meaning smart people may or may not do well in life

Sure they do.

IQ is a good predictor on how well one does in school - after all, the IQ was designed to find the deficiencies in children to help them do better in school -(ex. they score low in the verbal, then that's where they need more attention).

Now, in this modern society where the amount of education correlates highly with one's socioeconomic status, folks who do well in school are more likely to be more educated. Those more educated, and therefore have done better in school, will have higher IQs since IQ measures that ability to do well in school. Hence: higher IQ equals higher probability of being more well to do. We're not talking about outliers like illiterate multi-millionaire ball players or entrepreneurs or trust fund babies.

IQ is not a measure of how smart one is. It's a measure of the probability of doing well in school. Or...

If human intelligence is just verbal and spacial reasoning, then I guess IQ measures human intelligence - poorly.

I Quit!

[methano]

I quit smoking a few years ago. It was the smartest thing I ever did.

Re:I Quit!

[MenThal]

I quit smoking a few years ago. It was the smartest thing I ever did.

I would hope you've done something else that was smarter, or I'd feel bad for you. Inversely, I started smoking, and it wasn't _the_ dumbest thing I've done (just one of the dumber). :P

Re:I Quit!

[ULTRAJOE]

me too - 'bout a week and a half ago the first couple days withdrawal were insane, but it's worth it now anyone else, give it a shot, it's much better

The break. That's what got my dad

[Rob the Bold]

From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.(emphasis mine)

My Dad joined the US Navy in '45 (since he was about to be "invited" to join the army). If you smoked, you got a a smoke break every hour. If you didn't smoke, you didn't need a smoke break, now did you? Also cigarettes were free for the sailors -- at least everywhere my Dad was stationed. Philip Morris did his part for the boys. It took Dad 50 years to quit, by which time it was too late.

Warning, broad generalization below...

[COMON$]

I have a graph in my head that pops up every time I see someone smoking. The X axis is time, the Y axis is the 'issues' scale. If you are a smoker the younger you are currently, the greater number of issues you have. I think this rational is due to the fact that anyone under 40 or so should know better due to a number of factors, yet still chose to start smoking. I cannot blame our parents for smoking but the teens today are either idiots or trying to cover for something.

Re:Warning, broad generalization below...

[mswhippingboy]

I have a graph in my head that pops up every time I see someone smoking.

Sounds like someone has some issues of their own :)

Re:Warning, broad generalization below...

[COMON$]

hmmm interesting observation as I have just recently started smoking cigars while on vacation...averaging 2 a year...

people aren't ticks

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot

Correction

[zakeria]

People who smoke tend to do worse in IQ tests because they are accustomed to smoking in a stressful situation so let them smoke when taking the test to see just how much better they do while not feeling as stressed!!!

Missed factor???

[Anonymous Coward]

I smoke and personally, if I was taking a 2-3 hour IQ test I'd start to lose concentration after about 1 hours, and after 2 I’d be useless. Try taking an IQ test after not eating for 10 hours, and see how a similar brain response affects your results.

Smoking is a bad, bad habit

Can still be a cultural thing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imho it's not directly a consequence of the IQ. Imho it's that smoking is more common in families with a lower social status due to how and with whom those people spent their lifetime like at work and during spare-time.
The role that health plays in someones life is imho also rather linked to that, the social environment so to speak and maybe education, than linked to the IQ. If you grow up in a smoker environement with smoking friends, are exposed to the nicotine etc. and it seems natural to you and not smoking is not cool among your friends, and health issues are not a big topic among those people, you are more likely to become a smoker yourself.

I went in school to Germany, it has a split school system after the 4th grade (sigh), and I went to the highest of the 3 school types there. The number of smokers in my class was really low and later at uni it was the same. But most of these people grew up in families, were smoking was uncommon and the education was better and gave students more awareness for health issues etc. and maybe lead to stronger personalities on average. So at our school it was okay not to smoke. It was okay to make your own decisions and say no. It didn't mean your uncool or strange... I think it all plays a role.

Personally I grew up in a non-smoker, non-drinker family. For some time I smoked on parties, got heavily drunk, tried out weed and all that, but never got addicted and gave up on all that. I think if anything is bad for the intelligence it's heavy drinking. At school I was almost a physics genious, all came natural to me, I got the highest grades without ever learning, and after my military service and excessive partying on the weekends, I went to uni and felt dump, as if I had lost all my talent for physics. :(

only cigarettes eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how these studies always leave out other forms of smoking like pipe and cigar smoking.

Just use logic

[JustNiz]

Smokers are stupid. Its self-evident.
You'd have to be really short on intelligence to be a smoker these days. I'm surprised the difference in scores isn't greater.

Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs

[Fozzyuw]

And oddly enough, old men who smoke pipes and wear tweed jackets have a higher IQ.

Also

[newdsfornerds]

I always thought that cig smokers these days (smoke free offices) have an extra bit of motivation to get stuff done quickly because they will need a smoke in the near future.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

God's intelligence test

[krazytekn0]

That's what my dad used to call smoking. "They say they'll kill you on the package..."

Re:God's intelligence test

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Nicely said.

This is completely wrong

[Stregano]

I took a clinical IQ test and I came up to be 118 and I smoke.

According to that, I am smarter than their non smokers. They can take that whole test and eat it.

Re:This is completely wrong

[DragonTHC]

yeah, 118 really isn't much to brag about.

Re:This is completely wrong

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Plus you really can't be that smart(even if your score was respectable) since the label on the package says what you're doing is really stupid, metaphorically speaking. That's like saying the girl in Scary Movie who ran up the stairs when the sign said "Certain Death(pointing up the stairs)" might be smart if she scored high on an IQ test.

Re:This is completely wrong

[MiniMike]

Maybe you would be claiming a 128 without smoking...

...and I came up to be 118 and I smoke.

... and wouldn't be writing sentences like that.

Someone else explain the concept of 'average', I'm going out for a pick...

Not so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

They chose to smoke; I didn't. They don't have to either. They have to live with the consequences of being a smoker.

I am more than happy the fuckers have to go outside now. For the last 15 years, I couldn't go out and eat in a restaurant because of my asthma.

To paraphrase the old adage, your rights end where my nose begins. I'm not happy that it took the government* to ban smoking inside restaurants, etc, but I think a restaurant owner has the same responsibility to give smokers the boot outside as they do drunken, filthy, stinky vagrants. You can be either, and more power to you, but not in here.

*my state, at least, had a referendum and 70% voted to ban smoking. Not exactly anti-democratic.

Re:Not so much.

[kramerd]

They chose to smoke; I didn't. They don't have to either. They have to live with the consequences of being a smoker.

I am more than happy the fuckers have to go outside now. For the last 15 years, I couldn't go out and eat in a restaurant because of my asthma.

To paraphrase the old adage, your rights end where my nose begins. I'm not happy that it took the government* to ban smoking inside restaurants, etc, but I think a restaurant owner has the same responsibility to give smokers the boot outside as they do drunken, filthy, stinky vagrants. You can be either, and more power to you, but not in here.

*my state, at least, had a referendum and 70% voted to ban smoking. Not exactly anti-democratic.

You are the opposite of correct.

The adage is your rights end where mine begin, The nose is not part of the phrase or its meaning. The takeaway should be that if it is legal for me to smoke in the state, that you should not be able to stop me from doing so. You have the right to choose not to smoke, but you certainly do not have the right to claim that smokers can exist, but inside of restaurants, magically, they don't. Thats the same line of thought as 'you can be gay, but not in my church' or 'you can be homeless, but stay out of mcdonalds.' The concept is absurd.

This country used to not be retarded, and restaurants used to have smoking and non-smoking sections. The only reasonable complaint on this I can see is that discriminatory restaurant sectionalism should not occur, even if it happens to be separate but equal sectionalism. On the other hand, restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. If a restaurant wishes to not allow smoking, they have every right to. The problem occurs when state law prohibits the restaurant from allowing smokers inside. Passing a law that requires private businesses to not allow smokers inside is about as anti-democratic as it gets.

Re:Not so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your faulty logic and strawman arguments don't really prove anything. No one is claiming that smokers 'magically' don't exist. They are supporting the rights of non-smokers to be in public without having to suffer from being in the proximity of smokers. Smokers are free to go anywhere, just not to smoke anywhere. I can go out in my yard and yell incoherently, but I can't expect to do that in a restaurant, can I? To contrast with your argument, people don't choose to be gay or homeless, while smoking is a choice. Homeless people aren't allowed to loiter in a restaurant, but I've seen them allowed in if they have money to buy food. As smokers are allowed in restaurants, just not allowed to smoke there. It's really a simple distinction.

This country used to not be retarded, and restaurants used to have smoking and non-smoking sections.

I can't understand why you think this was a good solution. It was a retarded idea because it didn't work and the non-smoking section smelled like a flophouse just as much as the smoking section. Sort of like having a non-peeing section of a swimming pool.

The problem occurs when state law prohibits the restaurant from allowing smokers inside.

The problem here is that this is not at all what the law states. Smokers are just not allowed to smoke in the restaurant, if they can resist their filthy urges until they leave the restaurant (and move a decent distance away) there is no problem. Why do you feel the need to mis-state the law here? Is it because that's the only way to justify your position?

Intelligence vs wisdom

[Nerdposeur]

Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

This is too simplistic. EVERYBODY knows that smoking is bad for you. Some just know in more detail.

My wife had an in medical school for her anatomy class. He showed the students how to dissect a cadaver, and showed them the horrible, shriveled, black lungs of a deceased smoker.

And then he went outside and took a smoke break.

My explanation? There's a HUGE difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems; it asks "how can I reach goal X?"

Wisdom is a big-picture thing; it asks "what kind of goals are worth having? What is good for me in the long run?" And I think it also includes the willpower to do those things. If you know what's best but don't do it, I'd say that's foolish.

(And of course, we are all foolish in some ways.)

Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit

So does having a lower IQ lead to smoking? Or does smoking cause a lower IQ? Or do both result from a worse family environment? Maybe being exposed to second-hand smoke is a risk factor for both, or maybe being exposed to parents who knowingly and daily act against their own best interests stunts a child's desire to reason about the world and encourages them to make foolish, emotional decisions?

POeh

[zmooc]

Am smoker. IQ is 143. So lonely.... boohoo:Ppp

Brag about?

[srobert]

How is any IQ score something to brag about? It's not an accomplishment. It's just an accident.

Dumb Study

[Eli Gottlieb]

Where the hell could they find a statistically-significant sample of non-smokers among IDF draftees?

Re:Dumb Study

[Wyatt Earp]

I knew some IDF draftees that didn't smoke. Of the folks that didn't smoke they were either women, Air Force or Navy or in medicine. Dated a couple girls in the IDF, none of them smoked but most everyone else did, Noblesse packs everywhere.

Look at the map.

[Nerdposeur]

everyone smokes down South

As a southerner, I'd like to point out 1) of course we don't all smoke, and 2) while yes, smoking is more widespread in the south, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nevada are all in the top 10. 11, 12 and 13 are Alaska, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)

Check out this map and the table linked at the bottom: http://www.smokefree.gov/map.aspx

Re:Look at the map.

[moosesocks]

Weird. Anecdotally, I noticed far more smokers in Virginia compared to when I lived in Jersey, despite the fact that the percentages seem to be about the same on that map.

In other news!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, a new study suggests that people who drive cars generally have smaller bank accounts and IQ's than those who own their own jet aircraft.

Not the best study.

[thejollyman]

I didn't read the entire article, but if this study only includes members of the Israeli military it's probably best not to draw conclusions from it. Some questions to ask: What is the average IQ of the sample group as a whole? Were civilians studied? Were Israel's conscripted forces studied, their volunteer force, or both? I could go on, but I think you see the idea. I'm not so sure that this study proves anything.

No the GP nailed it

[aepervius]

Think about is and honestly answer this : how many jocks did you see smoke ? That was a lot in my school. How many nerd did you see smoke ? I can't recall of any. Anecdotal as yours, but I am pretty sure this could be quantifiable by looking at the number of smoker in say, philosophy, amth, science course, versus the number of smoker in say, marketing, business, and similar, versus those which never studied or never made the grade.

Re:No the GP nailed it

[thousandinone]

Actually, I didn't see many 'jocks' smoking as compared to nerds. I'm not saying that my experience was any more representative than yours, but it is what it is. And makes sense, really. As I understand it, a smoking habit tends to be detrimental to ones athletic ability- And a lot of advertisement for cigarettes in years back has had the intent to make it look 'cool.' My observations have always been that the nerd who doesn't get much social attention is more likely to use smoking as an icebreaker than the jock who can break the ice with his football jersey.

As an aside, you listed 'philosophy' as one of the 'intelligent' paths? Really? University and Grad school are major commitments of resources, both time and fiscal. There isn't exactly a wide market for philosophy majors out there. And there really isn't anything you can learn (regarding philosophy) from a school program that you can't already learn elsewhere for free. Perhaps it gives you access to speak with or listen to others on a number of topics, but is it enough of an advantage to justify that level of resource commitment? That little piece of paper indicating a degree in philosophy isn't going to do much for your career- Whereas with a different major, not only is the piece of paper valuable, but access to laboratory facilities (or their equivalent) is an important part of learning as well...

Correlation verses Causation.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know which causes which: the article simply assumes stupid people are more likely to smoke. But what if the chemicals in cigarette smoke affects cognitive function? We don't know from the study. And if we assume that only dumb people smoke when the reality is smoking makes people dumb, then targeting prevention efforts at dumb people may make things worse.

Besides, if the article is true, and only dumb people smoke because dumb people lack life skills, what do you intend to do? Increase education? Like teaching a pig to sing, you'll only annoy people and make things worse.

Or do you intend to take people's decision making away from them if they fail to do what you think they should do? There's a dark path...

bunch of pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit being so brainwashed. If you enjoy smoking... smoke. So what if takes off a few years at the end? I have an IQ of 149 btw. I think it is the people with average IQ who make all those stupid anti-smoking ads.

You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance"

[tomhudson]

Both the Pope and smokers exhibit cognitive dissonance - the ability to simultaneously hold two conflicting or contradictory ideas simultaneously.

Smokers KNOW that smoking is bad for them, and yet they continue to do it.
The Pope KNOWS that pedophiles are bad for the flock, and yet he hid them.

Neither one of them wants to do what any rational person would do (both smoking and protecting pedophiles are irrational behaviour).

Re:Hard to get addicted

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been smoking cigarettes on and off for 15 years. During some periods up to 1-2/day and others 1/month, at one time I even had a break for one year, just to see if I could. Currently I'm smoking quite irregularly, at most once per week, and would have no problem stopping forever. Basically it's just a treat for me, like eating an ice cream. This goes against all claims that you become addicted very quickly. Maybe it's because I've been very careful to not become a social smoker at work, because I think that's how you easily start accelerate your smoking without thinking about it.

Smoking versus working

[swb]

I guy I used to work for who smoked told me that he started smoking because it got him out of work.

He was working at a machine shop and found that if he took a break with the smokers, his foreman made him go back to to work while the smokers got to keep on smoking. Apparently not working but smoking was "doing something" and not working without smoking was "standing around." He basically started smoking to keep from working.

I'm guessing its like that in the military, too. A guy smoking is on a smoke break, a guy not smoking is just standing around.

Re:Smoking versus working

[billcopc]

A guy not smoking is "gathering video evidence to support a future legal case against his former employer".

Fuck cigarette smokers. No, not in the sexual sense. I find the whole thing revolting from top to bottom: the habit, the smell, the health and cosmetic damage, and the billion-dollar industry that thrives on this hypocrisy. The world would be a much nicer place if everyone just smoked regular tobacco (or whatever wacky weed suits you).

Re:Smoking versus working

[martin-boundary]

I'm guessing its like that in the military, too. A guy smoking is on a smoke break, a guy not smoking is just standing around.

That's why you should never join the military as a regular private. Always join the military as a general. Generals can stand around doing nothing anytime they want, and it's called a photo opportunity :)

You idiot are a moron.

[JDmetro]

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-50.asp

Re:You idiot are a moron.

[somersault]

What exactly is your point? Am I a moron because you can post hyperlinks? Because I said "Darwin" instead of "survival of the fittest"?

Re:You idiot are a moron.

[JDmetro]

what does survival of the fittest have to do with intentionally poisoning people? I sure as hell hope you don't work in the medical community.

Re:You idiot are a moron.

[somersault]

Clearly you have no sense of humour. Besides, they are already intentionally poisoning themselves for fuck's sake.. making it stronger would just be like giving people whisky, vodka and absinthe instead of beer.

Second hand smoke kills clusters of IQ?

[freaker_TuC]

So, second hand smoke could make people dumber?

If so, they will possibly soon see a correlation between clubs, bars, cafe's, restaurants and IQ.

Chicken or egg?

[macraig]

Which came first, the egg as dumb as a pet rock, or the chainsmoking chicken?

Maybe its just anxiety?

[Giometrix]

Is it possible that people that smoke enjoy smoking because they are a bit anxious? If so, couldn't we account for the lower score being attributed to not being less smart than a non-smoker, but being more anxious while taking the test than someone who is less anxious?

Re:Maybe its just anxiety?

[freaker_TuC]

possibly,

My mom plays WOW better when she smokes than when she is out of cigarettes ...

I've noticed that a few times; the correlation could also be with the stress of being out with cigarettes, that I do not know; I don't smoke.
I think cigarettes are powerfull; mentally and physically; not even considering it's proven risks and still being politically legal in every country on the world.

Data above data

[moteyalpha]

There were so many responses to this that I decided I should make a tool to analyze the posts using a technique I discovered from Google talks on AI .

• IQ of experimenter
• Ratio of survival in combat to bad habits
• Likelihood that a smoker that has not had a cigarette in days will kill somebody, anybody.
• • Follows orders
  • Independent thought
  • Fears death

umm...huh? is parent post sarcasim?

[GoChickenFat]

I couldn't get though the parent post without imagining a self-important university type. "I now smoke a pipe while drinking congnac with my professor and philosophy student friends and now I smoke weed" Berkley? is that you? This second hand smoke is making me dumb. Um, "lung cancer no" - what you smok'n

I think I found proof

[abbynormal brain]

and here it is: http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ichmsmok.jpg

Captain Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious Boy (running into Obvious Cave): Captain Obvious! Did you hear?! People who voluntarily smell bad, seek to contract emphysema and lung cancer, want to have bad skin, and waste tons of money, have low IQs!

Captain Obvious: Don't you think this is a little bit too obvious even for me, huh?

Oh hai, I haz anecdote for you!

[Vegeta99]

I just quit smoking, but my IQ's been measured between 145-165. The higher the measured IQ, the higher the "developmental range". So does that mean my IQ just went up?

I'd actually like to see the data they used for this. I've read studies before that said high-IQ students, on average, listen to angrier music. Smoking's a pretty angry thing to do, I guess.

Re:Oh hai, I haz anecdote for you!

[OrangeTide]

Death Metal is a dish best served with a pack of cigarettes.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[HungryHobo]

Both the Pope and chocolate eaters exhibit cognitive dissonance - the ability to simultaneously hold two conflicting or contradictory ideas simultaneously.

Chocolate eaters KNOW that eating chocolate is bad for them, and yet they continue to do it.
The Pope KNOWS that pedophiles are bad for the flock, and yet he hid them.

Neither one of them wants to do what any rational person would do (both eating chocolate and protecting pedophiles are irrational behaviour).

It's a stupid comparison.

Humans are not rational actors and unless you have no self destructive vices of any kind then neither are you.
And that's not even going into people having every right to value their own health however they wish vs pleasure from various activities.

If it helps you think

[SmallFurryCreature]

Then why didn't you think "this is killing me, making me loose the sensation of taste and smell and makes me smell bad as well as costing me an arm and a leg to feed my addiction"?

Hard to take a 10 year drug addict serious as a deep thinker.

Re:If it helps you think

[sado196]

Did you even read my comment? I haven't smoked for 6 years. I am agreeing with you... it's a drug addiction, and that's why someone thinks a cigarette is helping them... when really it's just bring them back to normal. Think, then speak...

But wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought people who smoke look older and cooler. And you know, everyone is doing it.

Or something like that, according to those terrible videos I was forced to watch in school.

Well, this does prove your IQ

[SmallFurryCreature]

As has been pointed out, in Israel they got conscription. Everyone serves.

So this study has shown that people named Bozzio have limited knowledge of the world and are unable to make proper informed conclusions. A limited study to be sure, but I think the results will stand up over time.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

The Pope KNOWS that pedophiles are bad for the flock, and yet he hid them.

Invalid comparison:

• Smokers KNOW that smoking is bad for them, and yet they continue to do it.

• vs.

• The Pope KNOWS that pedophiles are bad for the flock, and yet he did something else.

Maybe, hiding pedophiles encourages more of the perversion. But it is not automatically "cognitive dissonance" to think otherwise.

Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there's going to be as much trouble getting people to stop smoking.
Give people the new FSC treated smokes, and see if they notice the difference.

Hi, I'm a smoker, but I won't smoke the mass-produced cigarettes if they've been treated.

Also, I wonder if their study used FSC treated cigarettes (which may be known as LIP, RIP, or RFR depending on how they are marketed in a given region)...

This matters to me, since these devil sticks have been pushed out, and foist upon unsuspecting consumers. I found out the hard way, too. Bought a pack of the usual, and they tasted like I was licking a piece of copper (that same flavor you get from chewing on a 1979 penny). I ended up with a rather aggravating headache, unlike what usually happens to me after a smoke (a cigarette is roughly equal to a capful of bitch-be-cool).

Re:The break. That's what got my dad

[angrytuna]

The Air Force was the same way, unfortunately. I don't know if this is still true, but I used to work on the flight line, and it didn't matter if your jet was flying or not; there was always something to do, and if you didn't smoke, you had to go out of your way to hide for a 15 minute break. The higher ups that worked indoors would task you if they caught you sitting around and bs-ing, but they could see you outside smoking and bs-ing and could care less. I know many folks who learned that lesson early on. Hopefully it's on the way out. I know it seemed far less prevalent during the latter portion of my career. Of course, I had changed job fields at that point, so that may have affected it as well.

Re:Hard to get addicted

[tapanitarvainen]

This goes against all claims that you become addicted very quickly.

Some studies have indicated the tendency to get addicted with nicotine is hereditary (ditto with heroin): some people (around 70% if memory serves) get addicted very easily, others rarely or not at all. Maybe you're one of the latter group.

The farmer!

[freaker_TuC]

.. he hooked up the chicken on Nicotine in the first place!

Class marker

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that smoking + non/smoking is a economic class divider.

low self esteem,.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am smart, well over IQ100, so what.

I'm depressive and mentally ill, I smoke. I have very low self esteem.
I try to quit sometimes but I don't care. Quit why? for whom?
for my future family that i don't believe in? will never have...

I hurt and i dont care anymore.

low self esteem both leads to giving in to social pressure,
and trying to smoke like them, and not having the internal
strength to quit even when you want to.

people who are dumb of course have issues with self esteem,
so do smart people. maybe less so? i dont know.

-AC

Fountain of Youth

[Ukab the Great]

There's nothing hotter than a golden browned 18-year old beach babe sucking on a cigarette.

There's nothing uglier than the same girl after 25 years of excessive smoking and tanning.

Re:Fountain of Youth

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing hotter than a golden browned 18-year old beach babe ...

FTFY. Smoking has never been sexy, except to other smokers.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

You must be one of those low-IQ smokers. Try to get your facts straight.

Chocolate eaters KNOW that eating chocolate is bad for them, and yet they continue to do it.

Too bad you got the facts wrong. People who consume more chocolate live longer. Just one example:

http://www.healthnews.com/medical-updates/heart-attack-survivors-benefit-chocolate-consumption-3571.html

Heart attack victims may want to gravitate toward the chocolate choices on the menu, thinking of it not just as a treat, but as a potential lifesaver. While past reports have indicated some potential benefits to eating chocolate, we now have new evidence showing a previous heart attack patient may be avoiding death by consuming two or more servings of chocolate per week.

A study released in the September issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine, indicates death from heart disease in previous heart attack victims are cut threefold when sufferers eat two are more servings of chocolate weekly, compared to those who refrain from eating chocolate. The study indicates the less chocolate consumed the lower the protection against heart attacks for previous heart attack survivors.

Research has indicated the myriad benefits of cocoa, the main ingredient of chocolate, such as lowering blood pressure and improving blood flow, but the new report is the first to make the connection between chocolate consumption and the prevention of death from heart attacks in heart attack victims. The new study, lead by Imre Janszky of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and co-author Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, a researcher with the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, tracked 1,169 non-diabetic men and women, ranging in age from 45 to 70, located in Stockholm county. The study began in the early 1990's, with patient data being gathered, beginning when they were hospitalized from their first heart attack. Study participates were asked several questions in regards to their diets from the previous year, prior to their first heart attack, including questions regarding chocolate consumption and frequency. Three months following discharge from the hospital, study participants, were given health examinations and they were continually monitored over the next eight years.

The researchers said, "Our findings support increasing evidence that chocolate is a rich source of beneficial bioactive compounds." They found the more chocolate a previous heart attack sufferer consumed during a week, the lower their risks of dying from a heart attack. Dr. Kenneth Mukamal said, the study only involved chocolate and they did not find a benefit from sweets in general. He explained the life saving properties of chocolate realized during the study, were probably a result of the antioxidants in the cocoa.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

The evidence shows that he sent the priest back into the field, after being sent memos saying that the guy would re-offend. (The priest went on to abuse more than 200 more children).

Fuck the pope. Preferably with a broomstick. With splinters.

It's a fight to the death!

[reifnir]

Causation vs. correlation

bloody useless correlation

[BlindRobin]

This is probably true but the data is meaningless. People of generally higher intelligence probably avoid high risk behaviours with greater regularity in the same way that they tend to apply critical analyses to all aspects of their lives with the possible exception of sexual attraction (depending of course on the degree of individual desperation). The sad part of this is that, admittedly I didn't bother to RTFM, some punter got funding to do nothing and that it got posted here as filler for a slow day. Meh!

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[HungryHobo]

We can all find quotes for the health benefits for just about anything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575131611338379340.html

Lengthier smoking habits--but not more intense ones--seem to reduce the odds of developing Parkinson's disease, according to a study in Neurology. The inverse association between smoking and Parkinson's--the neurodegenerative disease characterized by difficulty in controlling movement and speech--was first reported half a century ago, but this is the first study to separate the number of years smoking from the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Researchers compared the smoking histories of 305,468 elderly subjects, 1,662 of whom had been diagnosed with the disease in the previous decade. Compared to the nonsmokers, subjects who had smoked at least a pack a day for one to nine years were only 4% less likely to develop Parkinson's. But subjects who smoked as many cigarettes a day for more than 30 years had 41% shorter odds of developing the disease. The number of cigarettes a day, however, had no significant independent effect on Parkinson's risk. The results suggest that any Parkinson's-protective effects of tobacco reach saturation at low doses, the researchers said.

Chocolate is good for you?
I'm sure it was really healthy for these girls:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/chocolate%20fatty/markd2009/singletrack/sexy_women.jpg

I've never smoked in my life but I detest smug arseholes who think they have the right to dictate how other people should run their lives.
Humans are capable of and have every right to make choices to do things which are bad for them.

Eating fatty food, eating high salt food, eating chocolate, smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs, very high risk sports.
All these things are irrational.
All these things can hurt or kill you.

but the world contains an unlimited supply of smug arseholes like yourself who are certain, absolutely certain that they Know Better.

You talk about cognitive dissonance and then claim that a high fat, high sugar, mildly addictive substance with little nutritional value like chocolate is good for you.
Let be guess- You like chocolate and so you've decided that you couldn't possibly be making a mildly self destructive choice and valuing pleasure over health.

People who consume chocolate live longer?
Can anyone say "sample bias".
There's similar crap about alcohol where it's claimed that a couple of glasses are somehow good for you because people who consume a glass or 2 a week are healthier.
You know how they get those results?
They separate people into groups of people who drink a little and people who don't drink and don't take into account people who can't drink because of health problems and so a former alcoholic dying of liver failure will go into the "doesn't drink" group and drag down the life expectancy for the group.
Lets see if those lovely studies which show chocolate as healthy factored in if parts of the "non chocolate eating" groups were diabetics already obese and on diets to try to lose the weight or otherwise unable to eat chocolate for health reasons.

Or we could just let your cognitive dissonance continue and assume it's good for you and that you're a perfectly rational actor.

If she smokes AND has tattoos...

[Joce640k]

...it's a sure thing. Bonus points for piercings, etc.

Then again, who wants to poke girls like that?

Yes...

[Joce640k]

...we're aware of the existence of bell curves. Thanks.

Two words "Bell Curve"...

[Joce640k]

If you're looking for it, selective memories will surely show the world to be full of "smart smokers".

Statistics, OTOH will prove you wrong.

Another Factor At Play

[patchmonster]

I bet they were losing concentration while taking the test since they couldn't smoke.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

Chocolate has been proven to reduce the stickiness of platelets, allowing for better blood flow without the associated risks of the "aspirin for the heart" regimen. You were wrong. Get over it.

Even dihydrogen monoxide, in too large a quantity, is deadly. But reasonable consumption of chocolate has health benefits, contrary to your knee-jerk complaint.

Obviously...

[daniel_i_l]

This could easily be explained by the fact that smoking is more common in the combat and combat supporting (tank and APC mechanics for example) units than it is in the bureaucratic and intel units. Many young soldiers pickup smoking simply as a way to pass the time. Therefore, it's more likely to happen in the combat units since they stay in the army for extended periods of time (usually around 17 days) as opposed to the bureaucratic and intel units who go home every day. Soldiers in combat units simply have more time to spare. In addition, life in a combat unit is far more stressful and smoking is a popular way to deal with it. Now, I probably don't have to say that soldiers aren't sent to combat units because of their extraordinary brain power. I dont have any data to back this up, but I'm pretty sure that the average IQ in the combat and combat supporting units is lower than in the bureaucratic and intel units. With this in mind, the results aren't to surprising. It happens because a high percentage of soldiers with lower than average IQ's are sent to units which encourage smoking.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[HungryHobo]

And?
Smoking also reduces your chances of developing Ulcerative Colitis.

Do you do any high risk sports?
Do you drink alcohol?
Do you stay up far too late when you know you should be getting a healthy nights sleep?
Do you ever drive too fast?
Do you ever overeat?
Do you eat oily or salty foods?
Do you eat foods which you know are high in cholesterol?
Do you sit too close to the computer screen?
Do you do anything which you know is bad for you at all?

This isn't about chocolate.
It's about arrogant dickwads like you who think they have the right to dictate how everyone else should live their lives.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[bkr1_2k]

Not to be a Pope supporter here, but it would seem to me we're talking about Pope John Paul II if the person "went on to abuse more than 200 more children) if not Paul VI or John Paul I. It seems very unlikely that any priest, however active has molested 200 children since 2005 after already being "caught" at it.

That's not to say that Benedictine XVI wouldn't/won't follow the same course of action, but I just want to be clear who you think should be fucked with a splintery broomstick.

Re:The break. That's what got my dad

[dunkelfalke]

Oh, there are different sergeants as well. I've heard of a particular one who always used to say: he who can smoke, can also do some work.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[HungryHobo]

I think it's referring to when the current pope was a bishop.
A priest under him was abusing children.
The current pope found out and as this guys superior did sweet fuck all.
The church gave the pedophile priest a stern telling off and sent him to a new parish.
He abused a lot more kids over the years after that in great part because the current pope didn't give a shit about the kids and was more concerned about making sure the church wasn't brought into disrepute.

Oxygen deprived brains.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know if this really makes sense or not, but smoking deprives oxygen from the body and thus the brain. Could it be that people who smoke have gradually killed off enough of their brain to lower their IQ?

Many men smoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Fu man chew.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

Yes. He was actually the adjudicator in charge of the final disposition of one of the cases, and approved the guy going back to work with kids, despite the memos saying the priest was going to re-offend. And then he goes around calling the newspapers reporting all this as indulging in "petty gossip."

Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs

[LBt1st]

People with low IQs smoke. ...well no shit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

a time problem

[gabriel.px42]

IQ tests are timed and the smokers probably had a smoke break within the test time, that why they have got lower rank

I smoke Marlboro, you smoke cock.

[Anonymous Coward]

they oth give impotence, but I am manlier because it takes a real woman to rouse me in the morn before I work them cattles.

People drafted into compulsory service lie

[Anonymous Coward]

This study is made on people drafted into a very dangerous compulsory service, were they are forced to kill and do immoral acts , sometimes against innocent people. The best they can hope for is that it only steals a couple of years of their life and that they don't get killed or maimed. Take also into the equation that men from influential or rich families within Israel usually find a way to avoid military service, that makes the military services hard to accept to those without a choice. Many of them tell or do anything to seem unfit for duty and get out of it.

I'm not from Israel, but my country had compulsory military service when I was that age. Mind you, this was a country that was not involved in any armed conflicts or likely to get involved in any, the services was not dangerous only a very boring period were you couldn't earn any money, study or do anything meaingful. Like in Israel, doing your military service gave no advantages whatsoever when you had finished them and was allowed to continue your normal life (doing your military service still don't give any advantages in civil life in my country and now when we have a more voluntary system (theoretically you could still be involuntary drafted, but they don't screen all kids age 18 to see if they are fit for service), only somewhat daft people do military services). In the time of compulsory military service, most people with some brains tried to make themselves look as useless as possible. I made the mistake of not cheating on my IQ tests (I cheated on my physical tests, but unfortunatly my results were not bad enough) and had a year of harassment because I refused to become an officer (they couldn't legally force anyone into becoming an officer, but they could make your military service prolonged and unpleasant). I've been told that the harassments against people who don't want to do military services within the Israeli army is really bad, even to the point where people get mutilated.

So most of the people in this study with half a brain propably wants to make themelves look bad. Appearing to be a fat, stupid smoker, seem to fit the bill.

(Unfortunatly compulsory military service is like Democracy. It is generally a bad thing, but all the alternatives are a lot worse.)

Smoking makes your smarter

[JohnDuffield]

Sheesh, over 500 comments, this is going to get lost in the wash. Smoking makes you smarter, guys. Believe me. Five hundred years back we had tracks for roads, open drains, squalor, plagues, et cetera. Look at us now. We've got electricity, cars, computers, and rockets to the moon. The Allies won the war because everybody smoked like troopers. Hitler didn't, and look at the mess he made of every last thing he touched. But Einstein did, along with lots of other smart guys. Helps focus the mind you see. And without it, people lose their edge. Don't believe me? Think about why we don't have rockets to the moon any more. It's fashionable to knock smoking these days, but here's a couple of journal articles discussing smoking and intellectual ability: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f43533n81707641r/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/pj50566667r72779/

Standard Deviation

[MOInsIT]

I have not read the Article, however what I find interesting is that no one has mentioned standard deviation. The standard deviation for an IQ test is +/- 15 points. This means that a difference of 4 points is, quite frankly, nothing. I do not smoke but I find it funny how certain groups of people are using IQ tests to make themselves feel superior, which is all these "studies" basically amount to. A previous study showed that Atheists had higher IQs than religious people, however the difference was, once again, well within the standard deviation. As a side note the article for the Atheists article also mentioned something about Liberals vs Conservatives. Show me a study in which more than 100 non-smokers/Atheists/Liberals score 20-30 points higher than smokers/Religious/Conservatives and then you've got yourself a theory, otherwise, there is nothing to see here.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

The evidence shows that he sent the priest back into the field, after being sent memos saying that the guy would re-offend.

He may have thought, the memos were wrong. Or that the priest was too good at his main job. Or whatever — I'm not agreeing with him, just stating, again, that his action was not necessarily evidence of "cognitive dissonance". Catholic church has been extremely lenient towards its members for many centuries (except in the crimes against the Faith itself, of course)...

Fuck the pope. Preferably with a broomstick. With splinters.

Oh, wow... And then — after calling for such cruel and unusual punishment for a person, who has not even done anything remotely similar to anyone himself, you'll turn around and protest waterboarding and other "torture" of people credibly and strongly suspected of terrorism and, maybe, even the death penalty (for convicted murderers)...

Talk about dissonance!..

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

The problem was his misplaced priorities - a character flaw from back when he didn't stand up and refuse to join the Hitler Youth.

Besides, the Pope would be getting off easy compared to the "punishment" he believes non-believers merit.

Pope Wants Unborn Children To Have Citizenship, Voting Rights.

This pope is great - he's done more to discredit religion than anyone else in the last 100 years! At this rate, I hope he stays pope a LOOONG time.

Ashtray Lickin' Good Times

[Geotopia]

"Is that code for something"

What is it about slashdotters that think everything has to be in code?

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[shiftless]

I've never smoked in my life but I detest smug arseholes who think they have the right to dictate how other people should run their lives.
Humans are capable of and have every right to make choices to do things which are bad for them.

Let me stop you right there.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Who the hell is dictating anything to anyone?

The original statement, before you somehow managed to drag it off into Neverland with your trollish foolishness, was "you can't fix stupid." And that is 100% correct. Smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, despite knowing the well known risks and side effects, is stupid. Any smoker will say the same himself.

In the same breath he might tell you that he's "tried" to quit but "couldn't." Bullshit. You don't "try" to quit, you either quit or you don't, and the difference between the two is how closely you listen to your conscious mind (telling you to quit) vs your baser instincts (telling you to smoke.) Talking to some of these people is truly a fascinating study into the human mind's power of self rationalization. As you said, it's their choice, but that doesn't change the fact that it is obviously (and scientifically proven to be) a stupid one.

BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I even still smoke a cigar or a pipe once in a blue moon, but I made the choice to not let any chemical control me.

The addict's self denial

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again, I smoke at most half a pack a day"

and then

"Cigs are one of those things where if I have them, that's great...if I don't, I'm not going to go out of my way to get more."

I rest my case.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[bkr1_2k]

Thank you. I just wanted to understand the situation completely, and I think you did that.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[bkr1_2k]

Thanks for the clarifications.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[pnutjam]

The catholic church does not believe non-believers deserve any punishment. Maybe pre-vatican 2 they did, but the Catholic church has grown and embraces other religions and people.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

Man is a much more mature species then it was in the past, our religions have also matured. Too bad some people still prefer "the good old days", which really means better for me, and better for someone is always worse for someone else...

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

This pope is great ... to discredit religion

The abuses now coming to light have taken place under earlier pontiffs — including the Jean Paul, whom the Left were praising (for his anti-Bush stance). I think, someone has already pointed that out to you... Here is a more detailed rebuttal to the current anti-Catholicism hysteria.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

Ratzinger was the man who decided that one of the abusers would go back into the field and be allowed to work with kids again despite being warned against it. There is no way left for him in this scandal except for him to resign before they bump him off like they did John-Paul # 1 to cover up the Banco Ambrosia scandal.

He's no longer taken even semi-seriously any more.

Site ...

[zummit]

http://www.trackmypacks.com/

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

Ratzinger was the man who decided that one of the abusers would go back into the field and be allowed to work with kids again despite being warned against it.

You don't like reading the opponent-suggested material, do you? New York Times lied to you — by omission. In fact:

That diabolical priest, Lawrence C. Murphy, was assigned to St. John's School for the Deaf in 1950, before Joseph Ratzinger was even ordained.

Reports of his abuse of the deaf children surfaced in the 1950s. But, under three archbishops, nothing was done. Police and prosecutors were alerted by parents of the boys. Nothing was done.

Weakland, who became archbishop in 1977, did not write to Rome until 1996.

And as John Allen of National Catholic Reporter noted last week, Cardinal Ratzinger "did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001. ... Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome."

By the time Cardinal Ratzinger was commissioned by John Paul II to clean out the stable, Murphy had been dead for three years. [emphasis mine -mi]

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

You missed the lie.

Cardinal Ratzinger "did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001. ... Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome."

In other words, Ratzinger did hav a say in some of those cases before 2001. To then go on and look only at what happened after 2001 is disingenuous.

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

Ratzinger did hav a say in some of those cases before 2001.

Maybe, it the time for you to lay down your evidence?.. Or, as they say, {Citation needed.}

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[tomhudson]

read what I highlighted - they said "most", which meant that Ratzinger indeed handled some before 2001. Or has your "blind faith" blinded you to the common meaning of the words you yourself referred me to ...?

Re:You might want to look up "cognitive dissonance

[mi]

read what I highlighted - they said "most", which meant that Ratzinger indeed handled some before 2001.

I asked you for evidence of Ratzinger's misconduct — not insinuations, but actual misdeeds: what did he do to deserve being anally raped with a splintered broomstick, and when did he do it.

Put up or shut up. Thank you.