Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has this theory, which he calls the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. Here's how it goes: intelligence evolved as a way to deal with "evolutionary novelties"--to help humans respond to things in their environment to which they were, as a species, unaccustomed. Thus, smart people are more likely to deal with new things and try them. Those new things seem to include drugs.
Why? Because, as Kanazawa explains, while "the use of opium dates back to about 5,000 years ago ... Other psychoactive drugs are 'chemical' (pharmacological); they require modern chemistry to manufacture." Psychoactive drugs, therefore, are evolutionarily pretty new to humans. Which means that smart people, according to the theory, will be more likely to take psychoactive drugs. That's true even if the drugs are bad for them: "[the Hypothesis] does not predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to engage in healthy and beneficial behavior, only that they are more likely to engage in evolutionarily novel behavior."
Kanazawa even finds a study with support:
Consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the analysis of the National Child Development Study shows that more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children. ... "Very bright" individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than "very dull" individuals (with IQs below 75).
If that pattern holds across societies, then it runs directly counter to a lot of our preconceived notions about both intelligence and drug use:
People--scientists and civilians alike--often associate intelligence with positive life outcomes. The fact that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs tampers this universally positive view of intelligence and intelligent individuals. Intelligent people don't always do the right thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.
source
lol.
Anyway, now you can let the stereotyping begin! Something about college kids sitting around on a couch laughing and eating lots of food, I'm sure. (Because, apparently that's somehow different than if they weren't drinking or getting high?)|||Eh...
It is a hypothesis after all, I'll give the Doctor some more time to (re-)work on it.
It is not about whether or not intelligence is biting at evolutionary novelty here; if people try new drugs, it is simply about experiencing what high the drug offers. For me, the "evolutionary novelty" of drugs died a long, long time ago; humankind has just been making variations since then; nothing new.
If one is going to talk about the evolutionary, I'd rather discuss a cure for AIDS.|||Trying something new =/= becoming addicted and losing your perspective on life.
See, to me someone who tries alcohol a few times, pot three or four times, and maybe mushrooms once... that's way better than someone who is a chronic alcoholic who never touched other drugs.
Quantity =/= diversity.|||Quote:
Anyway, now you can let the stereotyping begin!
Smart kids do stupid things due to boredom. Who knew?|||It would make me feel better if I were a stoner.
Trying new things can be good. Experimentation can be good. Neither is always good, and that's where discernment comes in.|||Akordinn to da droogs hai ded, hai shood be reelee smaart|||Mwuh. It's possible. Could also be a myriad of other things. Smart people tend to have higher incomes, so experimentation with psychoactive 'chemical' drugs is more affordable. If I'm not mistaken, their use as medicine is also more abundant in groups with higher income, so they're more easily acquired in general (pretty much every class at uni features multiple people taking ritalin and anti-depressants, you can get those gifted easy enough).
Also, if this is the biggest hazard of being smart I'm still glad I'm in the very bright rather than the very dull group.
Quote:
Trying something new =/= becoming addicted and losing your perspective on life.
Which isn't in the article. Or in anyone's posts so far. Don't get defensive of something you're not accused of.|||I'm not getting defensive, I'm saying that drugs are generally seen as negative within the connotation of addiction. But afaik, that article could just as simply counted the number of drugs you tried independent of the number of times you did them, which imo would explain the correlation very well.
pfft, now I have to go read the article...
Oh well, seems the study is between IQ and some "frequency of use" variable, not diversity.
Ok, I'm stumped. Cool study.|||"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, "There it is. My Creation; perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest. [shocked expression] Oh, my Me! I left ****in' pot everywhere.. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Hehe, that was the day I created the possum. Still gives me a chuckle. But if I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to...use it. Now I have to create Republicans.." "...and God wept", I believe is the next part of that story."
"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? ..rrrrrrreal ****ing high on drugs." - Bill Hicks
Those were unrelated. I just find them funny.
Did anyone else catch that study that ranked alcohol as the most destructive drug to society? Higher than cocaine and heroin, even. Cannabis was lowest (obviously). I should try to dig that link up as well, I saw it on tv last night. I was quite surprised that LSD and ecstasy were among the lowest as well, but personally the thought of chemical type drugs like that scare the hell out of me.|||Quote:
"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, "There it is. My Creation; perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest. [shocked expression] Oh, my Me! I left ****in' pot everywhere.. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Hehe, that was the day I created the possum. Still gives me a chuckle. But if I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to...use it. Now I have to create Republicans.." "...and God wept", I believe is the next part of that story."
"You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? ..rrrrrrreal ****ing high on drugs." - Bill Hicks
Those were unrelated. I just find them funny.
Did anyone else catch that study that ranked alcohol as the most destructive drug to society? Higher than cocaine and heroin, even. Cannabis was lowest (obviously). I should try to dig that link up as well, I saw it on tv last night. I was quite surprised that LSD and ecstasy were among the lowest as well, but personally the thought of chemical type drugs like that scare the hell out of me.
not quite accurate but yeah. the actual study is here for anyone with the patience to read it. love bill hicks, btw
another link, more on-topic: http://www.badscience.net/category/e...ry-psychology/ - evolutionary psychology should perhaps not always be taken 100% seriously. doesn't mean drugs can't be fun, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment