Smart People Drink, Dope, and Smoke

|

Researchers find in a new study published in the Review of General Psychology that people with higher IQs are more likely to try out and enjoy mind-altering sutbstances than their dimmer compatriots. As the abstract reports:

Why do some individuals choose to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and use illegal drugs while others do not? The origin of individual preferences and values is one of the remaining theoretical questions in social and behavioral sciences. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values than less intelligent individuals. Consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs is evolutionarily novel, so the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume these substances. Analyses of two large, nationally representative, and prospectively longitudinal data from the United Kingdom and the United States partly support the prediction. More intelligent children, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, are more likely to grow up to consume more alcohol. More intelligent American children are more likely to grow up to consume more tobacco, while more intelligent British children are more likely to grow up to consume more illegal drugs.

Based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Psychology Today also reported:

The following graph shows the association between childhood intelligence, measured in junior high and high school, and adult alcohol consumption seven years later in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) data in the United States.  The association is clear and nearly monotonic.   The more intelligent Americans are in their childhood, the more alcohol they consume as young adults.

Smarter people drink

It is important to note that both income and education, as well as childhood social class and parents' education, are controlled in multiple regression analyses of these data from the US and the UK.  It means that it is not because more intelligent people occupy higher-paying, more important jobs that require them to socialize and drink with their business associates that they drink more alcohol.  It appears to be their intelligence itself, rather than correlates of intelligence, that inclines them to drink more.

I suspect that many H&R readers already thought that this might be the case.

NEXT: Gov. Chris Christie Sabotaging New Jersey's Medical Marijuana Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thank Jeebus; now I have an excuse for why I drink so much and do so many drugs. It’s because I’m a genius!

    1. What’s your excuse for all of the shitty enemies you have following you around.

      1. I have no excuse for that, alas. My sparkling personality, perhaps?

    2. Simplicity itself. If you have any intelligence at all, humanity will cause you to alter your conciousness in order to avoid suicide…

      1. Nice.

    3. A genius would probably have the skills to interpret the graph and notice that the heaviest drinking category is the “bright” category rather than the “very bright” category.

      1. Hey, it’s Humor Impairment Man! Thanks for playing, buddy! It’s always a blast when you show up.

        1. What’s wrong Epi…is your humor detection device in the shop?

      2. A genius would probably have the skills to interpret the graph…

        Actually I did notice that right off, but didn’t mention it for fear of hurting the others’s feelings. 🙂

      3. A genius would probably have the skills to realize that there’s sampling error in “latent factor”, so that there’s probably no real difference between “bright” and “very bright”.

        1. Only the “bright” would say that. Oh wait – you probably meant something else. 😉

  2. Reversion to the mean?

    1. He who makes a beast of himself relieves himself the pain of being a man.

      1. I was actually going to post that quote, but you beat me to it. Damn you and your nimble drugged out fingers.

        1. What was that about me relieving myself?

      2. And he who makes a man himself suffers the pain that he was at times a beast.

        1. of himself.

      3. He who fart in church sit in on pew.

        1. Thunder and brimstone, bud – thunder and brimstone.

          1. err… I think the word you are looking for is fire.

            Your welcome.

  3. I must be the smartest person in America.

  4. This all makes sense to me except for tobacco. I find way higher smoking rates among my buddies who I play softball and bowl with (mostly cops, firefighters, city workers, etc.) than those I work/went to school with (mostly lawyers and other professionals). Obviously a cop isn’t necessarily smarter than a lawyer [insert joke here] but on the whole I would guess that at least among my circle of friends the propensity to smoke is inversely proportional to IQ.

    1. The age range for the group is 21-25. I know loads of people who smoked at 21-25 that stopped years ago.

      Maybe smoking in college is correlated with high intelligence and smoking in middle-age is correlated with low-to-mid intelligence.

      1. Smoking in middle age is more likely correlated with one’s difficulty in breaking a habit that one acquired when young.

      2. Yeah I know plenty of law students who smoke (including me), which is the age range of the study.

        Still I would think that past the 20’s smoking would be a more blue collar thing.

    2. That fits with my experience too. I wonder if the study linking increased IQ with an increased likelihood of smoking is old data (i.e. before smoking acquired the social stigma it has today).

    3. This all makes sense to me except for tobacco. I find way higher smoking rates among my buddies who I play softball and bowl with (mostly cops, firefighters, city workers, etc.) than those I work/went to school with (mostly lawyers and other professionals).

      Cops and firefighters where I live make an assload of money. So from where I stand, that makes them pretty smart.

      1. Or unionized government employees.

  5. Only users lose drugs.

    1. “Drugs are for losers, and hypnosis is for losers with big, weird eyebrows!”

  6. I will be briefly serious:

    IQ tests measure the ability of your thinking brain. The more you think, the less you trust your “gut” — that unconscious part of your brain that stores tradition and evolution (in other words, the stored decisions of your ancestors). As a result, it seems to takes real smarts to talk yourself into doing something that your forebears thought was stupid.

    In some cases, this leads to some new innovation. In others, spectacular failure.

    In short: it takes real brains to do something really stupid.

    Now I’ve had my say. Go back to drinking. I recommend wines from Sunstone.

    1. You may say that. I kicked ass on the spacial relationship part of the IQ test I took by trusting my gut. Thinking about it took too long.

      1. I am not invalidating your experience — I’m talking about the General, which will occasionally not match the Specific.

        (Which I could do by pointing out that I’ve got an IQ in the 150s, but probably drink less than anyone I know.)

        1. but probably drink less than anyone I know

          Perhaps that’s the problem.

          1. Are you suggesting that I could solve all the world’s problems by getting smashed once in a while?

            Dang, I’m more selfish than I thought.

        2. I know plenty of teatotalers, so drinking less than them would be very difficult.

          1. I married into an Italian family, so “I don’t drink” translates into “I don’t drink much.”

            1. The Italians don’t know how to drink, Toucan Sam.

              1. Right. Then there wasn’t an empty bottle of wine for every guest at last night’s Christmas party.

                1. Wine?

                  Bunch of amateurs.

    2. Except that our ancestors have been drinking and doing drugs since before recorded history. Some have even said that alcohol is responsible for the creation of civilization.

      1. I like Terrence McKenna’s theory that psyechedelic mushrooms are responsible for the creation of language itself.

        1. Isn’t that the opening track in Mudvayne’s first album?

      2. Are you saying that civilization is not evolutionarily novel? Think about it.

        On a less serious note, think of the dumbest people you know. Now think of those back-to-nature people who think we should get rid of cars and eat just nuts and berries. Now draw a zenn diagram of those two groups…

        1. A Zenn Diagram?

          What is the sound of 1 group overlapping?

      3. Some have even said that alcohol is responsible for the creation of civilization.

        A steady supply of food was alright, but when it was discovered how civilization enabled brewing there was no turning back.

  7. I do not like this blogpost… because it confirms that most politicians and Drug Warriors are smart.

    1. How so?

      1. http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news…..etail.html

        http://smashedpoliticians.blog…..caine.html

        Server squirrels don’t allow for more than two links, but I could have gone on all day.

        1. I hate to support politicians for a moment, but… these stories always include some variation of “the nosy neighbor” who rats people out to the cops instead of minding their own damn business. They are the truly loathsome.

  8. “The origin of individual preferences and values is one of the remaining theoretical questions in social and behavioral sciences.” That got me laughing.

    1. Me too. Like they got most things figured out. I didn’t quite LOL, though.

    2. That line of thinking is the crux of scientific socialism. It isn’t enough that human behavior and brain function aren’t mapped, and relying on incomplete information is a recipe for disaster. It’s the idea that individuals should be shaped in all means possible to meet the desires of the powers that be (usually the demos or the oligarchy, both paragons of the Left).

      The upshot is that when quantum teleportation becomes practical, “humanity” can take whatever form you want it to, and its functioning will be at the whim of whoever you let manipulate your mind.

      1. Not if you wear your tinfoil hat as you were advised.

        1. I can’t find tin foil at the grocery store.

          1. It’s a conspiracy.

  9. “We get high and drunk because we’re smarter than you”?

    Meh.

  10. Where’s The Wine Commonsewer when you need him?

    1. Probably having a lunch of left-over prime rib roast.

  11. Wow, I was doing some lines of blow and simultaneously bending spoons remotely when I read this…now it all makes sense why I do what I do.

    1. Holy shit, you too?

    2. I was so startled by this article, the goat I was staring at died prematurely…

    3. Check back with us when you can bend light with your bare mind.

      1. That is a “Magic of Recluse” reference…very nice.

        1. Had to Google “Magic of Recluse,” but it sounds like it might be an entertaining read.

  12. Maybe smart people wouldn’t get high so much if they weren’t under constant assault at the hands of the stupid.

    1. This…

    2. Oh. Yeah.

    3. No shit. I often feel the need for a strong drink after reading a lot of what is out there on the interweb. Or after listening to NPR on the commute home from work.

      1. Or after listening to NPR on the commute home from work.

        Just like when I roll around in thistles on my way to get the mail. I hate when that happens.

      2. “Hello, I’m your NPR announcer. I am going to talk like I’m very intelligent, but still say the dumbest shit imaginable.”

        1. At least NPR won’t be throwing the latest poptrash hit at you. Now, if they’d just go back to their old “no jocksniffing” policy.

          1. shenanigans. They do it all the time, they just have someone from the BBC tell it to you so it sounds classy.

    4. + 420 …..Amen Brother.

  13. So I should be more lenient and understanding to winos and druggies because they are smarter than I am – which explains why they’re in the gutter and I am not.

    1. use != abuse

      1. I think you meant:
        use = abuse!

        winos and druggies don’t even make sense

        1. No, that’s not what I meant.
          It is possible to be a user and be a productive member of society.
          You probably know many respected professionals who you might be shocked to find out are illegal drug users or heavy drinkers.
          Abuse is when use affects one’s ability to function in normal society, and that’s when people end up in the gutter.

          1. No way! People who use and abuse drugs can’t be professionals. We have mandatory drug testing to make sure drug users are relegated to the bottom of society where they belong. PBUH.

          2. Re: Sarcasmic,

            It is possible to be a user and be a productive member of society.

            Perfectly possible. That does not explain how a supposedly intelligent person would not reason his way out of dependancy. Maybe being intelligent is not the same as being smart.

            1. You’re missing the point. No one’s saying that crack addicts, alcoholics, or whacked-out meth addicts are smarter than everyone else. We’re not talking about the people who are completely dependent on those things.

            2. Maybe being intelligent is not the same as being smart.

              There’s no maybe about it. Smart, learned, wise, clever – none of those are the same as being intelligent. Intelligence measures the ease with which one becomes any of those.

            3. How do you reason yourself out of an addiction?

              1. Drink!
                Hey, we all gotta catch up to Tony’s level of enlightenment.

    2. Why should you need to be lenient to anyone? Don’t we all live in individual snowglobes?

      1. Hah, zing! Go on Tony, tell us about how much libertarians hate the poor and how we kick old people in the teeth. Millions of people in the wheat industry (millions saved or created, of course) rely entirely on how many strawmen you make here everyday.

        1. That “George Ought to Help” video is ingenious. I’ve never seen the “gun in the room” argument made so succinctly and accurately before. Of course, Tony still won’t understand, but thanks for sharing. Good to know that there’s another anarcho-capitalist around here.

          I’m off to go mace some children at an under-funded foster house, since I’m a libertarian and all.

          1. Be sure to wear two monacles. You don’t want to get that shit in your eyes.

            1. Thread winner!

    3. That drunken bum out there on South Main is a great holy man, seer and prophet. You should show more reverence and appreciation – hand him a bit of spare change. 🙂

  14. The more I learn about the world, the more I feel like I need to get plastered, so this makes senses.

  15. Well, if the world wasn’t such a tragedy for those that think, maybe they wouldn’t drink so much. Or else life’s a shitty comedy that seems funnier when you’re baked.

    1. That sounds like the manifesto of every 15-year-old who believes that the only reason life is so hard is because he’s so terribly bright that he experiences everything on a different level than the cognitive peons.
      The difference is, it’s possible to feel for the 15-year-old. After all, we expect silly self-aggrandizement from teenagers.

      1. Actually, I expect silly self-aggrandizement from just about everyone.

        Except me. I’ve evolved past all that into an engine of pure rationality fueled by beer, cheeseburgers, whiskey, and cocaine.

        1. …and hookers. Don’t forget about the hookers!

  16. Ah, so now I finally understand what “Going Galt” means.

  17. Perhaps this is related to risk homeoestasis. Taking drugs is risky: psychoactive drugs kill brain cells and repath the network. The dangers are well-known and fairly obvious.

    Smart people feel a certain immunity to the deleterious effects, since they have a “surplus” of IQ to start with. So they are more prone to imbibe and “use” alcohol and other drugs.

    Dullards can’t afford to lose IQ points to drug use. Smart people can.

    1. Darwinian: yes alcohol kills brain cells. The weak ones…

      1. Whatever doesn’t kill me makes…it makes…I…who does this song, man?

  18. A study that supports our point of view and gives us an excuse to chemically turn ourselves into morons! Best not look at this one too closely, eh?

    1. Well, as twv points out, we’ve got a ways to go before we get down to your level, dullard.

      1. It takes a special sort of chutzpah to extoll your own intelligence while engaging in third-grade name calling.

        1. The record is skipping again.

        2. you called kids dullards as a third grader? well, I’m not calling you a liar, but how frequent were the wedgies?

          also, the whole ‘drugs kill brain cells’ and ‘make you stoopid’ thing seems way overblown. can somebody please show me how occaisional/responsible use of any drug destroys teh brane and brings teh stoopid? *injects drug of choice* I am see no evidense of drugs makin me stooped ever. I thinkles ur full of liez. so whatevers, prove it smurt guy!

          1. Mmmmmmm, pancakes are so good.

            Especially after I’ve had some of teh reefer and got teh muncheeez…

  19. Just reading that made me hungry. I need a Twinkie.

  20. This still doesn’t explain the existance of David Lee Roth…

  21. This is enough to make everyone who’s stupid get smart in a hurry…

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

    1. That’s why I will buy good beer while I can still afford it.

      1. Make it. It’s cheaper.
        I’ve got two batches to the tune of ten gallons or so, that’s around five cases of microbrew quality beer, all for less than $40 worth of ingredients.
        Try buying five cases for two Jacksons.

        1. How many batches till ROI on the equipment?

          1. Not many. The equipment you need is pretty simple. Of course, I bought all mine in ’93, so it’s long since paid for.

          2. Let’s see. I’ve made fifty or so all-grain batches. At roughly 2.5 cases per batch at $13/12pk that adds up to $3250 to buy the beer.
            That cost me $1250 in ingredients and over time I’ve spent close to $800 on equipment (9gal brew pot, propane burner, kegs, co2 tank, regulator, dedicated fridge, fermentation vessels, Corona mill…).
            I think I’ve got a good return (if you ignore labor, but that’s why it’s called a hobby, right?).

            It’s possible to get a beginner’s kit for under a hundred bucks http://www.homebrewing.org/Beg…..p_352.html and buy ingredient kids for as cheap as thirty dollars. That’s where I started before my hobby became an obsession.

            1. *ingredient kits*

            2. Actually, I don’t brew anymore because of the lack of a dedicated fridge.It’s too hot down here without one.

            3. Thx T & sarc,

              Everybody likes talking about the latest beer they’re racking, but I haven’t seen much for anyone getting started. The last starter kit someone posted looked kinda lame, and I’ve had too many other hobbies on my plate to do some serious research and shopping.

            4. My first batch exploded the corona bottles. The dark glass bottles took the pressure, but took a half hour to pour. Second batch is a little flat. I’m hoping the third attempt will be just right. Beer will be money soon enough.

  22. All poets may be drunks, but not all drunks are necessarily poets.

    1. All Prius drivers are moonbats, but not every moonbat owns a Prius.

  23. . . . more substance abuse -> more intelligence and self-awareness -> more substance abuse -> more intelligence and self-awareness . . .

  24. I brake for hallucinations

  25. Hey, anyone wanna get high?

  26. This explains all of those perpetually hungover grad students.

    1. No, the fact that they can waltz into the department at 10:30am and still leave at 5pm (and get countless days off) explains the perpetually hungover grad students.

  27. Thish makes shense perfectly to ….. Oh crap I trains my losht thoughts

  28. Not surprising. Smart people get bored. Drugs make things interesting. Generally speaking.

    1. The most likely explanation.

  29. This all makes sense to me except for tobacco…at least among my circle of friends the propensity to smoke is inversely proportional to IQ.

    I think we got us a Q.E.D. here.

    High IQ and some schizoid personality characteristics correlate strongly?the “tortured genius,” “creepy nerd,” and “edgy jerk” characteristics, specifically. Smoking is medicinal in those cases?the best psychopharmaceutical that’s available, really?but it doesn’t alter their personalities enough to make them able to (or want to) be part of any “circle of friends”?especially not one that includes the manageable-extrovert types who become “professionals.”

    And such a circle would of course exclude them.

    So.

    1. Is it just me or did penny just call us all schizoid?

      1. No, she’s clearly speaking from personal experience. Something hit home. Personally, I play out my shizoid delusions right here on H&R.

        1. You’re telling me.

          1. WHO SAID THAT??

            1. SILENCIO!!!

      2. Only those of us who consider ourselves to have high IQs. So, everyone here probably believes that they’re more likely to have schizoid personality features. However, considering how unlikely it is that all of us are exceptionally bright, at least some of us are just assholes.*

        *Yes, I’ll cop to being in the latter category.

        1. I was just going off the “creepy nerd” and “edgy jerk”. Between those two sets, I think you covered everybody, intelligent or not.

        2. However, considering how unlikely it is that all of us are exceptionally bright,

          Actually it is very likely that most of the people who post at H&R are quite bright. Others aren’t particularly interested in the subjects and issues discussed here.

          1. I’ve been reading H&R for years, and I must say I disagree.
            That’s a problem that frequently shows up in political circles. Everybody is certain that they’re smart. They’re certain that they’re smart because they’re interested in politics.
            Sadly, most of those people are wrong.

            1. There’s some merit to this, but just because you can’t assume reasonoids are smart doesn’t mean you must assume they are stupid. Think of the basics. Most everyone commenting here is at least literate, capable of using a computer, and capable of repeatedly finding this site. I would say that puts most of these folks solidly in the top half of IQ for homo sapiens. Few people realize just how dumb average IQ is while also giving themselves too much credit for their own intelligence. But then again, I unleash the stupid with great force and frequency.

              1. I don’t assume anyone-reasonoid or otherwise-is stupid. Nor do I assume they’re smart. However, if someone offers evidence either way, I’ll go where it takes me.

                1. I tend to find that the best evidence of someone’s intelligence is how often they agree with me.

                  1. DEAR RC, i disagree!

                  2. Which, of course, is the absolute worst evidence of yours…

              2. I’d say most of the people posting here, John aside, can coherently spell words within grammatically correct sentences. We tend to think outside of the the standard left-right orthodoxy, indicating our capability to see the inconsistencies in the standard “left-right ideological spectrum”, and indeed to see this spectrum itself as a fraud perpetrated by a two-party system and complicit media. We also preach a policy of self-reliance over government babysitting, indicating that we are confident in our abilities to provide for ourselves and our families (or if we can’t, that’s our own shortcoming). We wonk out about monetary policy and scientific advancements, while most people’s intellectual stimulation ends at the Farmville and celebrity gossip level. NTTAWWT.

                …and not that I want to be self-congratulatory or toot our horns (after all, there are plenty of very intelligent people with whom I have profound ideological differences), but there is a very compelling and obvious case that Reason commenters are above average intelligence, or many of us simply would not waste our time here. Even our bumbling non-libertarian friend Chony has admitted that much.

                1. Thankyou for agreeing with me – you must be a person of superior intelligence and perspicacity. 😉

            2. I’ve been reading H&R for years, and I must say I disagree.

              Well okay then, they’re mostly all a bunch of dumbshits. There – make you feel better? 😉

            3. I don’t know. Go read a discussion thread on ESPN SportsNation sometime. That should give you a better idea of what the bottom half of the IQ distribution looks like.

              1. I learned very quickly that advanced statistical analysis on the ESPN boards isn’t really going to interest very many people there. Thankfully, there are full sites devoted to that admittedly nerdy side of sports.

  30. I’m like friggin’ Alfred Einstein, then.

    1. Was he any relation to Albert?

      1. For a “smartass”, you’re relatively obtuse.

        1. my mom thinks I’m acute!

        2. For a ‘smartass”, you’re relatively obtuse.

          Done anything about your Aspergers yet?

  31. Did we really need a scholarly study about this? We learned all we needed to know from “Cheers”:

    “Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this… A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.

    “Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine, which is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”

  32. Since nobody else has said it yet, the Savannah-IQ hypothesis is ridiculous bullshit.

    First off, it doesn’t apply in this particular case since the results are not robust across cultures. The smoking correlation is the opposite in the US from the UK (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-does-intelligence-affect-smoking-differently-in-the-us – also notable for Kanazawa for inadvertently summarizing the majority of evolutionary psych in a sentence: “The true and honest answer is that I don’t know, but I can speculate”) as is the correlation for the use of “hard” drugs (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs vs http://blogs.discovermagazine……ment-22547).

    Second, Savannah-IQ hypothesis proponents have plenty of studies showing IQ correlates with proficiency in novel behaviors, but none demonstrating that it correlates any less with proficiency in non-novel behaviors. In fact, when measured, proficiency in non-novel behaviors like small group social skills (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Correlation:between:intelligence:and:social:deficiency.html) or athleticism (http://www.jstor.org/pss/27526200) correlate with general intelligence just as well as many of the novel behaviors cited as examples.

    Not that the Savannah-IQ hypothesis is completely without worth; it’s an excellent example of my own Theory Acceptance Hypothesis – “For explaining a given phenomenon: Accurate theories more likely to become widely accepted than inaccurate theories. Inaccurate theories are more likely to become widely accepted than an acknowledgement of a lack of accurate theories.”

  33. When you look at the stats, people who habitually abuse intoxicating substances are predominantly poor. Unless some luck of the draw like a pretty face or an obscene talent saves them, its trailer-time.

    What I think the study disclosed is seeing is something at least a plurality of posters here can relate to though: People curious enough to try these things; appreciate them even. But smart enough to not fall in the abuse-cycle these things can engender. Its like nuclear stuff for the individual. Nuclear power good, nuclear bomb bad.

    And I think a plurality of posters here know someone who really did nuke their existence with these kinds of substances, without any help from the State etc., just their personal foolery.

    And from my personal experience I think some are hard-wired to nuke themselves on some things but not others. My personal atom bomb is hard booze. I like that stuff sure enough, but after waking up on a beach looking at a Ferris Wheel in Mexico not knowing how I got there…well, I knew the booze had to go.

    But that was fifteen years ago and I was smart enough to leave ToKillYa alone since. So I avoid being Bad Stats guy I like to think. No DUI’s, booze children, or convictions. But not everyone who encounters a similar situation, so they eventually graduate to Bad Stats. To use the pun, it’s quite distilling on the substance-using population that way.

  34. It’s easier for intelligent people to see through anti drug propaganda and deconstruct it.

    In my experience, intelligence and more importantly common sense, is what guides a person’s choice of drug.

    People who are stupid, unsophisticated, and who lack common sense tend to choose crack, meth, heroin, etc. and are poor because they don’t have the mental abilities and the gumption to be anything else. They make their own bed, then they lie in it.

    It takes some curiosity about yourself and the world you live in, and some desire to change yourself for the better, to experiment with psychedelics Entheogens, etc.

  35. I’m not as think as you smart I am.

  36. genius is pain.

  37. I would be willing to hedge a bet that pride can be a major factor in whether or not a person tries harmful substances. “Smart” people believe that because of their superior intellect that they automatically know better than anyone else what is good for them. All I’m trying to say is take this study at face value.

  38. I would have thought that people with lower IQs would dope and smoke, rather than smarter people. Is it because smart people want to know what happens when they alter their brain? I would think they would be smart enough to stay away from those substances. http://www.sharonoconnell.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.