The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Loser! (2 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4871 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
I assume those pooh poohing it are not pot users or don't know people who are.

A silly assumption.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, landmark wrote:
Quote:
I assume those pooh poohing it are not pot users or don't know people who are.

A silly assumption.


I agree, a silly assumption. I would expect heavy pot users to be the first to pooh pooh it. (But not necessarily the only ones.)
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It's not about the accuracy of the study; it's about understanding the results.


I agree. Most good research answers one question and asks several more. This appears to pose a number of critical questions for deeper understanding of the personal and social consequences of pot use.

We still haven't fully figured alcohol out.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
"The study advances knowledge in five ways. First, our results were robust to control for potential sources of confounding present in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, as well as to alternative approaches to address confounding, including stratification and statistical control for potential confounders. In particular, we ruled out family substance-dependence history, childhood socioeconomic adversity, childhood low self-control, childhood
low IQ, adolescent psychopathology, and low achievement orientation, plus sex, ethnicity, and adult family structure as alternative causal explanations for the observed associations between cannabis dependence (and regular cannabis use) and adult economic and social problems. Second, contrary to prior claims, the associations were not an artifact of criminal conviction of cannabis users, earlier age of onset among the more persistent cannabis users, or their dependence on alcohol or hard drugs. Third, we generally observed a dose-response contingency: The more years of cannabis dependence (or regular cannabis use), the worse the economic and social problems. Fourth, the findings were not due to respondent self-report bias: Comparable results were obtained for economic and social problems whether measured by using self-report or administrative record data, such as credit ratings, court records, and government social-welfare-benefit records. Fifth, the findings were not contingent on historically dependent operational definitions of persistent cannabis dependence/regular use. Whereas the definition of cannabis dependence
changed slightly across the 20-year longitudinalassessment window (as a result of changes in the DSM), persistence of cannabis use was defined in the same way across the 20-year longitudinal-assessment window. Yet the results were replicated by using both cannabis dependence and persistence of regular cannabis use as the exposure.

Cannabis dependence was more strongly linked to financial difficulties than was alcohol dependence; it was not associated with less downward mobility, antisocial behavior in the workplace, and relationship conflict than was alcohol dependence. This finding stands in contrast to popular and expert opinion, which states that heavy alcohol use imposes more economic and social costs than does heavy cannabis use (Editorial Board, 2014; Weissenborn & Nutt, 2012). Our results are consistent with findings from the few previous existing studies in which researchers compared the impact of the two substances and found comparable (or stronger) economic and social effects of cannabis use compared with alcohol use (Patton et al., 2007; Tucker et al., 2005)."

True, it doesn't PROVE a relationship but it does provide very strong evidence of correlation. (More than likely a much stronger correlation than the dangers of second hand smoke!)



I don't at all dispute a correlation.

I dispute the interpretation of that correlation as causation.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
My mistake. I meant to say that it provides very strong evidence of 'causal' correlation.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
That part I definitely disagree with. It provides no evidence that it's not all just the same personality type. Look at all of the correlated traits that liberals share, or conservatives. None of them is remotely causal of any of the others, but put up a post about almost any aspect of politics or society, and you know where the vast majority of the NVMSers are going to side, and the same people are more often than not on the same side.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
So, you're saying smoking weed doesn't turn you into a loser, it's people who are already losers that decide to smoke weed. Hmmmm, you might have a point. Smile
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20295 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Maybe they need weed to deal with being a loser? (Insert smiley fave here. )
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
I'd like to thank everyone for not misspelling it "looser."
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20295 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


It did seem to hold him back huh?

Seemed to slow his creativity.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.

Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?

You do know what the word "proving" means in that context, no?

(Hint: it doesn't mean to establish the validity of the rule.)
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
296 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?


He quit smoking in the early 80's. And as to the creativity, remember there were a lot of smart engineers who made those products. Steve came to the Macintosh product after it started. He presided over two failed project the Apple 3 and Lisa.
The Hermit
View Profile
Loyal user
296 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?


He quit smoking in the late 70's. And as to the creativity, remember there were a lot of smart engineers who made those products. Steve came to the Macintosh product after it started. He presided over two failed project the Apple 3 and Lisa.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.

Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?

You do know what the word "proving" means in that context, no?

(Hint: it doesn't mean to establish the validity of the rule.)


"It is also used in jocular nonsense. "I am always punctual." "Were you on time for breakfast this morning?" "Well no, but the exception proves the rule." In this case, the first speaker is aware that the phrase does not correctly apply to their initial statement, but is appealing to it ironically."
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.

Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?

You do know what the word "proving" means in that context, no?

(Hint: it doesn't mean to establish the validity of the rule.)

"It is also used in jocular nonsense. "I am always punctual." "Were you on time for breakfast this morning?" "Well no, but the exception proves the rule." In this case, the first speaker is aware that the phrase does not correctly apply to their initial statement, but is appealing to it ironically."

Neither the first speaker nor the second speaker understands the meaning of "proves" in that sentence.

My question stands: do you?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?


He quit smoking in the early 80's. And as to the creativity, remember there were a lot of smart engineers who made those products. Steve came to the Macintosh product after it started. He presided over two failed project the Apple 3 and Lisa.



Feel free to use Carl Sagan, or any of a number of other highly successful people.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Apple Computer might have really become something, if Steve Jobs hadn't smoked all that pot in the 70s.


Sounds like a logically suspect attribution based on a few exceptions. What's that they say about the exception proving the rule?


Don't blame me; The Hermit told me that anecdotal evidence was pretty convincing.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 1, 2016, rockwall wrote:
So, you're saying smoking weed doesn't turn you into a loser, it's people who are already losers that decide to smoke weed. Hmmmm, you might have a point. Smile



Actually, I was suggesting that there might be no causality involved at all, but I agree that there might be a causal connection, and if so, it might run in either direction. Or both directions.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Loser! (2 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.39 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL