Fuzzy Math

The results are in from another helpful RAND study on the effects of marijuana. The study compared standardized test scores from pot smokers and from those who spurned the evil weed. It turns out, if you?re a ?poet? or a ?literary type? you?re good to go. But users had 15 percent lower math scores. The RAND rep assumes the worst:

It makes a lot of sense that it (marijuana) would affect certain types of cognitive functioning, particularly things that are hard to grasp like math.

Since when is math harder to grasp than poetry? (The speaker is an economist.) If this study proves anything at all, it?s that ?literary types? are more drawn to the stuff in the first place.

Comments

[Warren]

As a dope smoking electrical engineer, I'd say the results reflect more cultural bias than the effects of pot. Attempting math while stoned is not usually productive (but it is fun!). However, getting high can often precipitate insight to elusive solutions after a prolonged period of intense, sober, contemplation.

[Anonymous]

It would be interesting to see a study on how MJ affects right brain & left brain people or "literary" vs. "math" people. Firsthand, I've seen more "math" types either completely freaked out or completely indifferent to its effects.

[Fish in Water]

How does the study prove that "literary types" are more drawn to pot in the first place?

That may very well be the case, but I'm trying to understand the logic by which you've deduced it from this particular study.

[Hank]

Those who smoked pot are more likely to be literary types (in this scenario) and are therefore more likely to do poorly in math, regardless of their sobriety or lack thereof.

[Tim Stich]

THC intoxication inpairs short-term memory function, which is important to efficiently computing math problems without paper. That's scratch paper to write down interim results, not smoking papers. But when the high wears off the memory improves, no? Just don't take your math tests stoned. Can't RAND deliver this conclusion? I told you and it cost you not a dime.

[Plutarck]

Tim: Well sure, it didn't cost _us_ a dime, but, you see, it didn't make you a time - did it?

This I shall call "Zero-Value Capitalism".

[Plutarck]

Or, better yet, in RAND's instance it is "Getting Something For Nothing", while in your instance it is "Getting Nothing For Something".

[jtuf]

The author of the RAND study forgot that a _correlation_ in an observational study does not prove _causation_. Anyone who is knowledgeable in statistics realizes that. Maybe she smoked too much MJ to handle stat 101.

[fishfry]

I was a math major in college and went on to obtain a Master's degree in math. I was also a dedicated pot smoker. What I found was that I needed to be straight to do homework problems sets -- in other words, when I needed to be able to focus my attention to manipulating symbols. After completing my homework or symbol-manipulation work for the evening I would get stoned on marijuana. Being stoned always helped me to visualize and understand the ideas and mathematical structures underlying the equations. I believe marijuana was actually helpful to my overall understanding of higher (no pun intended) mathematics.

[JDM]

Since there is no difference between the literary ability of pot-smokers and non pot-smokers, there is no way to conclude that literary types are more drawn to it in the first place. It would be possible if you say that if you presume that the literary pot smokers have had their superior literary abilities brought exactly back to the level of the non-literary non-pot types, but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

Also, if that were the case, you couldn't make any conclusions about whether pot reduced mathematical ability either. It would be possible that the literary types started out with lower math scores to begin with.

The only conclusion that could be drawn from Kerry's conjecture and the data from the study is that pot smoking and literary types are dumb.

[Kerry Howley]

Actually, you can't even conclude that "there is no difference between the literary ability of pot-smokers and non pot-smokers" because standardized tests are famously poor measures of reading and writing skills. They're much more accurate, for obvious reasons, when measuring math skills...of course, when you're dealing with math skills, it becomes much easier to "teach to the test" and artificially inflate scores.
The phrase "exactly to the level of" has no meaning here. There isn't anything precise about a standardized test, which is why the final statement in my post is a conditional. In all likelihood, the study proves nothing at all.

[Plutarck]

Furthermore, tests of the normal variety are _exceedingly_ bad at judging one's capacity and understanding of the fundamentals and learning of more advanced concepts. Tests can, for instance, show someone to be good at Algebra...and yet they go on to fall flat on their face when attempting calculus or statistics.

But more than anything else, tests are simply entirely unable to just INTEREST - the study could be explained in yet another way by saying that MJ makes people simply not care about these stupid little tests and trivial sorts of challenges.

That's the thing with studies - if you can explain the results properly in ways that do not support the conclusions, then the conclusions are simply to be discarded, even if the data and study is still good. Or, if you prefer "more research is needed" - hahaha.

[JDM]

Firstly, there is no difference between being stupid because you don't care, and stupid because your brain doesn't work. Secondly, if the literary tests are so useless as to not be able to differentiate the literary-types from the non-literary types, then it would seem that there is no such thing as literary ability, and that being a literary type or a pot smoker is just a fall back position for dumb people.

[Plutarck]

JDM:

"Firstly, there is no difference between being stupid because you don't care, and stupid because your brain doesn't work."

So if you don't do well on a math test, you're stupid? Stupid may be stupid, regardless of reason, but you're begging the question and trying to steal a base as well.

As far as I'm aware it is a given that people can be good at one thing and bad at another - that one can understand dialectical materialism, for instance, but not be able to teach others about it, or even be able to do both but have little to offer on subjects like the theory of gravity, set theory, binomial theorum, Jennifer Lopez' dress, or simply be slow with mathematical computation.

Further:

"Secondly, if the literary tests are so useless as to not be able to differentiate the literary-types from the non-literary types, then it would seem that there is no such thing as literary ability..."

Non sequitur - that does not logically follow whatsoever.

[Sparky]

"Firstly" and "Secondly?" Must be a literary type.

I don't have any problem seeing how the data could be explained by literary types being more drawn to pot. Of course, that's just one of about a billion possible explanations for the data...uh, I forgot what I was talking about.

[JDM]

Plutark,

If group A has more mathematical ability than group B, and there are no differences otherwise, group B is dumber.

Also, notice the word "seem" in "it would seem that there is no such thing as literary ability." If literary-types are presumed to be literary-types because they did less well on mathematics, and equally well on the literary test, it can't be said that literary-types have any preponderance of any positive quality of "literary abliity." If literary ablity is not a measurable quality that someone considered a literary-type has moreso than a non-literary-type, then perhaps what is called literary ability is simply the absence of mathematical ability.

In other words, in Kerry's formulation the literary types - as far as we can conclude from the RAND study - are simply those who didn't do well on the math test.

[SM]

Are they saying that smoking pot permanently reduces math skills ? If not, the results are of no particular interest, other than scientific - just dont give an exam while stoned, that's all. I mean, does anybody think its a great idea to start studying after six beers and three scotch's ?

[Madog]

When I'm sleep deprived I'm much more creative and insightful, but I can't do math worth shit (Or spell but that can be fixed later). So pot's not the only thing that can alter your brain that way. Maybe they should study the effects of other things as well.

I've never gotten high though, so I can't compare myself in the two states. Maybe in the name of science I could give it a try though.... 🙂

[Plutarck]

JDM:

"If group A has more mathematical ability than group B, and there are no differences otherwise, group B is dumber."

I would take issue with your imprecise use of both "dumb" and "stupid"...but then, well, apparently I'm a literary type. But, using your definitions, still the problem remains:

"If literary-types are presumed to be literary-types because they did less well on mathematics, and equally well on the literary test, it can't be said that literary-types have any preponderance of any positive quality of "literary abliity.""

Well, actually I would agree - saying someone is a literary type just because they don't do as well on math doesn't make any sense, as it simply means they aren't apparently so good at math. The person good at both math and reading would just be "well-rounded", not a math person.

But if you are correct in that that is the way "litery type" is being used...well, I would agree that such a use is just, well, wrong.

[Anonymous]

I posted the first post and was hoping that someone could provide some insight or examples of studies re my question. Does MJ have a different effect on people who are more right brain or left brain and if so what?

[Plutarck]

From looking closer, it does seem that is at least how Yahoo is using the term "poetic or literary type" , meaning simply to have a lower math score than others, but the same reading score. Which, of course, really doesn't make much, if any, sense whatsoever.

But I suppose that's what you get for relying on journalists at Yahoo to say something sensible.

However, further looking closer:

" Those who started smoking marijuana had 15 percent lower scores in math than non-smokers but no difference in the reading test, Pacula said. That lower math score could result in a salary 2 percent lower later in life, her research found."

I'm hoping that's just good old-fashioned journalistic ignorance of math, statistics, and logic, because "correlation does not equal causation" - ugh, it makes me ever the more ill to encounter such vacuousness so constantly. Not only is it that fallacy, but the addition of lack of understanding of statistical variation and "noise" in nature. Ugh.

[dhex]

2 percent salary difference?

wtf?

[Fish in Water]

Plutarck,

You are likely not a literary type, because you're not reading very closely. The linked story was written not by journalists at Yahoo, it was written by a person or persons with Reuters. 😉

That lame emoticon does not mean I'm not a literary type.

So I'm trying to sort through all these comments. Are we saying that Kerry Howley reached his or her illogical conclusion -- albeit a conditional one -- because of a mistaken presumption that "math types" and "literary types" are automatically mutually exclusive people?

[Kerry Howley]

I still don't think the conclusion is necessarily illogical, though I admit it's a stretch. If you take math scores to be significant and reading scores to be totally unreliable (this, by the way, isn't just hypothetical...in my experience teaching SAT prep, the same student can take a test twice within a week, score exactly the same on the math section and go up or down hundreds of points on verbal) what you have is a situation in which the pot smokers are scoring poorly on the math section. We could attribute this to the pot itself, or to the fact that those with an inclination to smoke were going to do poorly anyway. So, assuming that you're either a "literary type" or a "math type," not both, (Reuters' divisions, not mine) and literary types necessarily struggle with quantitative comparisons and the like precisely because they aren't "math types," it makes sense to assume a correlation between "literary types" and pot smokers. You would also have to assume that, given a reliable measure of verbal scores, the pot smokers would score higher than the non-smokers.

[Jackson Brown]

It takes a clear mind to &*%ake it ...

[Guy on Jackson Brown's tour bu]

It takes a clear mind to take it, or it takes a clear mind not to take it?

[Jackson Brown]

It takes a clear mind to MAKE it!

Hysterical laughter
;-}
;-}
;-}
.
.
.

[dhex]

i find it rather odd that this study was even funded in the first place. maybe their next step should be to test the groups which come up with the cash for this sort of thing.

then they can find out what they're smoking and let the rest of us know, because it seems to be some rather groovy weed.

[anon]

I've been known to indulge in pot occasionally, and I'm a mathematics undergraduate. I don't think that it's adversly affected my mathematical ability, but then again I don't do it very much.

Right on about the self-selection thing. I've noticed that very frequent users (say >5 times weekly) tend not to be very engaged people. I knew some of them in grade school before they used pot, and they were losers then too. Maybe being a loser in the first place makes you want to get high constantly, as opposed to vice versa. Just a thought. Personally, I save it for special occasions; I don't use pot more than 1-2 times per month.

[Jeff Smith]

Some thoughts and questions:

1) There is no way to tell how well the author
dealt with the selection bias problem as the
Reuters piece, typically, does not describe
the econometric methods used or, even more
simply, the conditioning variable used in
the analysis.

2) The paper does not appear to be available on
the web. If someone has found the URL,
please send it along.

3) The press should not report on papers that
have not yet been subject to peer review,
especially when they are not even available
for other researchers to comment on (other
than those who attended the IHEA meetings
in SF, which did not include me as I was
at a different conference).

Grumble, grumble, grumble and back to the
referee reports.

Jeff Smith

[Johnny Utah]

I was taking a Discrete Math course once and doing really bad in it. None of the lectures mad any sense to me. One day I went to class Drunk and about half way throught the class...Boom...the material started to make sense. I didn't continue to drink before class but I did start to do better in the course. I've heard that when you are having a problem with something you should try looking at it from a different poing of view. Maybe beer, mj and sleep deprivation are ways to gives us that alternate view.

[Anonymous]

Hey is it true that Jackson Brown is a wife beater?

[Julian]

I don't know whether dope smokers are unusually apt to be "literary types," but it should be glaringly obvious that there's a selection bias issue here. Hardcore math types in particular, and probably honor students in general, smoke dope at a lower rate than the student population as a whole as a matter of personal disposition. Most of the people in my AP Calc class in high school were just not the sort of folks likely to spark up a doob at the end of the day. I'm not sure how you'd disentangle the various factors in play there, but anecdotally speaking, I don't have a sense that math people who started smoking later--say in college--got any worse as a result, provided they weren't trying to do their problem sets while actively stoned.

[Brian]

Anon. from 9:33 pm yesterday:

"The UCLA cannabis project has provided several interesting observations that contribute to our knowledge about this plant and its constituents. Some of the findings (reduction in intraocular pressure, bronchodilation) may have therapeutic significance in the future. Certain results (testosterone lowering, airway narrowing after heavy use) indicate that side effects are also a possibility. Other data (unchanged immune response, lack of chromosomal alterations) seem to controvert the reports of other investigators. Still other information obtained (hemispheric lateralization, electroencephalographic changes) appears to represent new knowledge about the effects of cannabis on humans."

The full text of this report was published in the
Annals of the NY Academy of Science, Vol.282, pp. 211-20. In 1976...so, you have to visit the library if you really want to read it. That's the most recent reference I can find in a quick lit search, probably becasue very few neuroscientists take the popular conception of "left-brained" and "right-brained" very seriously anymore. This isn't to say that there isn't lateralization of functions (there absolutely is), but it's a lot more complicated than that.

Hope that's helpful...

Brian
(an occasional dope-smoking neuroscientist who did just fine in math, thank you very much!)

[Anonymous]

Kerry,

You never addressed Fish's question regarding your androgyny.

[Matt]

Julian finally said it. A self selection bias. I am continually amazed at this kind of crap that gets published in seemingly credible medical journals (ie. JAMA and TV violence). As a scientist (currently finishing a PhD in physical chemistry) I would get nailed to the wall by my peers if I even suggested this type of causation from such flimsy data. What's the deal? If these findings were valid I guess I could have been a freakin' genius. I smoked a lot of pot throughout my studies for my chemistry BS and my mathematics BS. This is how you find out if pot makes you a mathematical dunce. Take a few thousand kids and test their mathematical abilities. Randomly select half and get them high every day for a year. Re-test the lot, simple and straight forward. Anyone want to volunteer their kids?

[Percy Dovetonsils]

Small wonder that pot poetry is indistinguishable from the usual stuff, since just about anything will be accepted by the illiterati. I call your attention to the Spectra hoax and to the Ern Malley one.

[Julian]

For what it's worth, I recall hearing once that 800s on the SAT math are a good deal more common than 800s on the verbal. My guess is that, assuming aptitude in both is bell-curve shaped, math is shorter in the middle and fatter at the ends. (Yeah, I know there's a technical term for that, but it's escaping me...)

[Cohen Jeremy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/26/2004 04:17:00
If I could get my membership fee back, I'd resign from the human race.

[Barton Julia]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 195.94.1.122
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 11:51:15
A coward mistakes oppression for peace.