Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 14, 2014, 07:23:51 AM
-
Some people believe that smoking cannabis boosts creativity. But a new study by researchers from Leiden University in the Netherlands claims this is not the case; smoking cannabis may even hinder creativity.
Researchers claim the belief that smoking cannabis improves creativity "is an illusion."
The research team, including Lorenza Colzato of the Cognitive Psychology Unit at the Institute of Psychology at Leiden University and the Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, recently published their findings in the journal Psychopharmacology.
Cannabis, or marijuana, is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US. According to a 2012 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 7.3% of individuals aged 12 and over had used cannabis in the past month.
-
It's not an illusion. Listen to music when stoned and you will hear parts you've never heard or appreciated before. When listening to same song sober you can still hear same bits undiscovered without the THC.
-
It doesn't make you more creative, however it does help in the creative process.
It gives you a renewed sense of novelty when you are in reality completely burnt out.
Nothing good ever gets written stoned, however smoking pot gives the lazy a degree of patients they normally would lack.
-
No amount of evidence or data will convince marijuana users that some aspects of its use may hinder them or may not be beneficial.
I am not saying that marijuana is bad for you. However, you can place thousands upon thousands upon thousands of research in front of them, and they become so defensive.
I knew someone who was a heavy pot user and became EXTREMELY defensive when someone said something "bad" about marijuana, as if you were criticizing him or his family.
Its very strange. :-\ :-\
-
Where is the study and how did they define creativity? how did they measure this? What dose? what strains etc etc etc.
It's a bunk study.
-
I only glanced over the study but I have concerns about the validity of this study. The participants were just picked off the streets after responding to billboard posts and online ads. They're smokers and drinkers and they were financially compensated.
They were given a small dose and a large dose of weed (double blind with a placebo group) and did convergent and divergent tasks. The sample size was small and there were poor controls. They also vaporized which means more THC and fewer cannabinoids that have different vaporization points. They should have had a lot more participants, far greater controls, smoked cannabis (most popular method of consumption; releases a full array of cannabinoids instead of just THC, etc). Vaporizing is a lot different than smoking. As well, hitting a vaporizer in a controlled setting and given a couple of puzzles isn't the best means of collecting data.
I know people here probably discount me and think I'm just waiting for a study to show that cannabis can end world hunger and stop wars across the globe. But what I really want to see are good, objective studies with better controls, more participants and far better methods for testing. Almost all the studies to date are terribly inaccurate.
-
I only glanced over the study but I have concerns about the validity of this study. The participants were just picked off the streets after responding to billboard posts and online ads. They're smokers and drinkers and they were financially compensated.
They were given a small dose and a large dose of weed (double blind with a placebo group) and did convergent and divergent tasks. The sample size was small and there were poor controls. They also vaporized which means more THC and fewer cannabinoids that have different vaporization points. They should have had a lot more participants, far greater controls, smoked cannabis (most popular method of consumption; releases a full array of cannabinoids instead of just THC, etc). Vaporizing is a lot different than smoking. As well, hitting a vaporizer in a controlled setting and given a couple of puzzles isn't the best means of collecting data.
I know people here probably discount me and think I'm just waiting for a study to show that cannabis can end world hunger and stop wars across the globe. But what I really want to see are good, objective studies with better controls, more participants and far better methods for testing. Almost all the studies to date are terribly inaccurate.
Vaping increases CBD however, which would dull things more then smoking, it more anxiety reducing less stimulating etc.
-
Ganja is like a fine glass of premium scotch.
-
No amount of evidence or data will convince marijuana users that some aspects of its use may hinder them or may not be beneficial.
I am not saying that marijuana is bad for you. However, you can place thousands upon thousands upon thousands of research in front of them, and they become so defensive.
I knew someone who was a heavy pot user and became EXTREMELY defensive when someone said something "bad" about marijuana, as if you were criticizing him or his family.
Its very strange. :-\ :-\
Lol you should see alcohol users, pucker up, when they're told alcohol is stronger, more addictive, and a bigger plight for society.
-
I only glanced over the study but I have concerns about the validity of this study. The participants were just picked off the streets after responding to billboard posts and online ads. They're smokers and drinkers and they were financially compensated.
They were given a small dose and a large dose of weed (double blind with a placebo group) and did convergent and divergent tasks. The sample size was small and there were poor controls. They also vaporized which means more THC and fewer cannabinoids that have different vaporization points. They should have had a lot more participants, far greater controls, smoked cannabis (most popular method of consumption; releases a full array of cannabinoids instead of just THC, etc). Vaporizing is a lot different than smoking. As well, hitting a vaporizer in a controlled setting and given a couple of puzzles isn't the best means of collecting data.
I know people here probably discount me and think I'm just waiting for a study to show that cannabis can end world hunger and stop wars across the globe. But what I really want to see are good, objective studies with better controls, more participants and far better methods for testing. Almost all the studies to date are terribly inaccurate.
No offense, but even then you would come up with an excuse. As I stated above, pot smokers defend pot like they are defending a family member. Hypothetically speaking, they can come up with conclusive evidence that pot is bad for you, and you would still try to come up with some excuse.
-
Lol you should see alcohol users, pucker up, when they're told alcohol is stronger, more addictive, and a bigger plight for society.
Yes, they lose it.
The strange grip that these substances have on people is quite interesting.
As stated before, the pot smoker I knew would get REALLY pissed if anyone said anything bad about marijuana. Quite the spectacle.
-
No offense, but even then you would come up with an excuse. As I stated above, pot smokers defend pot like they are defending a family member. Hypothetically speaking, they can come up with conclusive evidence that pot is bad for you, and you would still try to come up with some excuse.
I accept that it's not perfect. Smoking any plant matter that's psychoactive isn't going to go without consequences. I just want to see objectivity!
Same thing with juice. I juice. I love it. I know there's sides, but I don't want to see bias and fear mongering in studies. I want to make the right choices and that can only be done when there are credible studies done with proper controls and whatnot.
-
It is always funny seeing a study critiqued for its sample size by armchair scientists. This is almost always the first thing they toss out when confronted with a result contrary to their pre-ordained beliefs.
In this one they had three groups with 18 people in each.
How do you suppose they came up with 18? Were they just lazy and didn't want to do more? Did they run out of time and money and just decide "fuck it, that's probably enough"? Would it have been a better study with different results if they used 19, 20, 100, 1,000,000 instead? Was the funding body, the university's institutional review board, the journal's editorial board and their peer reviewers who approved the study for publication, all ignorant of this issue?
Let's hear what the experts on getbig think.
-
It is always funny seeing a study critiqued for its sample size by armchair scientists. This is almost always the first thing they toss out when confronted with a result contrary to their pre-ordained beliefs.
In this one they had three groups with 18 people in each.
How do you suppose they came up with 18? Were they just lazy and didn't want to do more? Did they run out of time and money and just decide "fuck it, that's probably enough"? Would it have been a better study with different results if they used 19, 20, 100, 1,000,000 instead? Was the funding body, the university's institutional review board, the journal's editorial board and their peer reviewers who approved the study for publication, all ignorant of this issue?
Let's hear what the experts on getbig think.
Plus, there is a big push to look at effect size more than if results are merely significant or not. The effect size is really what's important when interpreting studies.
-
It is always funny seeing a study critiqued for its sample size by armchair scientists. This is almost always the first thing they toss out when confronted with a result contrary to their pre-ordained beliefs.
In this one they had three groups with 18 people in each.
How do you suppose they came up with 18? Were they just lazy and didn't want to do more? Did they run out of time and money and just decide "fuck it, that's probably enough"? Would it have been a better study with different results if they used 19, 20, 100, 1,000,000 instead? Was the funding body, the university's institutional review board, the journal's editorial board and their peer reviewers who approved the study for publication, all ignorant of this issue?
Let's hear what the experts on getbig think.
In statistics the term power is used, power is calculated with N in mind and relays the strength of a study. Usually that is the manner in which weight is given to a study besides it's methodological considerations.
-
In statistics the term power is used, power is calculated with N in mind and relays the strength of a study. Usually that is the manner in which weight is given to a study besides it's methodological considerations.
Read my above statement. Effect size is just as important as power in a study.
EFFECT SIZE
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm
-
Weed makes your brain more like an autistic's brain, your connecters stay connected longer etc. It does improve making art,music etc imo
-
Read my above statement. Effect size is just as important as power in a study.
EFFECT SIZE
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm
I will take your word for it here, I couldn't be bothered with stats anymore, fuck I use to hate that shit so much.
-
I will take your word for it here, I couldn't be bothered with stats anymore, fuck I use to hate that shit so much.
Its not all about sample size. Measuring the effect size tells you the magnitude of difference between the variables, not just if the variables share a relationship.
Effect size is a simple way of quantifying the difference between two groups that has many advantages over the use of tests of statistical significance alone. Effect size emphasises the size of the difference rather than confounding this with sample size.
-
Weed makes your brain more like an autistic's brain, your connecters stay connected longer etc. It does improve making art,music etc imo
Without question
-
In statistics the term power is used, power is calculated with N in mind and relays the strength of a study. Usually that is the manner in which weight is given to a study besides it's methodological considerations.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting a post-hoc power analysis, but those are generally not a good thing to do and are not widely accepted as valid in science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power#A_priori_vs._post_hoc_analysis
This is largely because (like SF1900 has been saying) you have to assume the effect size in the sample is representative of the population you are studying, without knowing if you in fact had a big enough sample for this to be true.
Power is most appropriately calculated ahead of time (from pilot data, previous similar studies, or from just assuming you need to see a large effect size for the result to be meaningful) to know how many subjects you need to get a valid result. This is where the 18 came from, which explained very clearly in the study, if anyone bothered to actually read it (it is free).
-
Whomever made that study can go fuck themselves. Am I supposed to believe them just because they said so when its obvious it can make you more creative? Bitch please.
-
Whomever made that study can go fuck themselves. Am I supposed to believe them just because they said so when its obvious it can make you more creative? Bitch please.
What is the most creative thing you have done since you have smoked untold pounds of weed. Surely you must have a Rembrandt or something tucked away.
-
weed makes people less creative when not stoned.
-
What is the most creative thing you have done since you have smoked untold pounds of weed. Surely you must have a Rembrandt or something tucked away.
Thats the thing, if it increased creativity, you would think millions of people would be creating great works of art. How many people who are weed smokers actually create great works of art? The famous artists that smoked weed and did create great works of art just happened to be weed smokers.
-
Smoking doesn't make you anything.
For example people who study drawing and painting can be considered creative and they can feel hundred times more creative when they smoke pot, but people who have no idea what to do with their life will not get any creativity from smoking, let me tell you that.
-
Thats the thing, if it increased creativity, you would think millions of people would be creating great works of art. How many people who are weed smokers actually create great works of art? The famous artists that smoked weed and did create great works of art just happened to be weed smokers.
The best Artists never smoked anything and created things like The Sistine Chapel, artists like Fredric Edwin Church, Peder Monsted. Beethoven didn`t need weed to write the 9th. I love hearing the nonsense from the drug apologists.
-
Thats the thing, if it increased creativity, you would think millions of people would be creating great works of art. How many people who are weed smokers actually create great works of art? The famous artists that smoked weed and did create great works of art just happened to be weed smokers.
Fine Art by Wiggs
(http://www.hogrockcafe2.com/Turd%20in%20a%20toilet.jpg)
-
Weed making people creative? Doubtful...LSD and mushrooms? Probable...
-
Smoking doesn't make you anything.
For example people who study drawing and painting can be considered creative and they can feel hundred times more creative when they smoke pot, but people who have no idea what to do with their life will not get any creativity from smoking, let me tell you that.
exactly
-
The best Artists never smoked anything and created things like The Sistine Chapel, artists like Fredric Edwin Church, Peder Monsted. Beethoven didn`t need weed to write the 9th. I love hearing the nonsense from the drug apologists.
Many artists have been linked to drug use, vincent VG, jackson pollack all kinds of things, creative people are often driven to the brink from the need to create. I think the dichotomy you have created is false. Anything that increase dopaminergic tone with improve creativity. We are machines nothing more.
-
I would ask that everyone of you phaggots please lower your tone when addressing Hulkotron. He is a research scientist by trade and knows more about statisticles and bell curves and what not than any of you homos.
Thanks.
-
Some people believe that smoking cannabis boosts creativity. But a new study by researchers from Leiden University in the Netherlands claims this is not the case; smoking cannabis may even hinder creativity.
Researchers claim the belief that smoking cannabis improves creativity "is an illusion."
The research team, including Lorenza Colzato of the Cognitive Psychology Unit at the Institute of Psychology at Leiden University and the Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, recently published their findings in the journal Psychopharmacology.
Cannabis, or marijuana, is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US. According to a 2012 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 7.3% of individuals aged 12 and over had used cannabis in the past month.
They obviously were not high when they did the study.
-
Many artists have been linked to drug use, vincent VG, jackson pollack all kinds of things, creative people are often driven to the brink from the need to create. I think the dichotomy you have created is false. Anything that increase dopaminergic tone with improve creativity. We are machines nothing more.
The issue is that those artists (vincent VF, pollack) were great artists who just happen to be drug users. It's purely correlation. I have a suspicion that they would still be great artists without the drugs.
If youre assertion that drug use is linked to creativity, then why arent millions and millions of people creating great works of art? You cant pick two artists and say, "Well, their creativity is linked to their drug use." Doesn't work that way.
-
I wouldn't say it "makes" you creative, but it can help you to see things in a different way.
Any drug can let you approach things from a different perspective from when you are sober.... some times, that can lead to some useful insight.
-
Many artists have been linked to drug use, vincent VG, jackson pollack all kinds of things, creative people are often driven to the brink from the need to create. I think the dichotomy you have created is false. Anything that increase dopaminergic tone with improve creativity. We are machines nothing more.
No we aren`t.
-
I know people here probably discount me....
I don't. You're one of the good guys.
"1"
-
I don't. You're one of the good guys.
"1"
It has nothing to do with discounting.
It's what you can and cannot prove through scientific inquiry.
-
The issue is that those artists (vincent VF, pollack) were great artists who just happen to be drug users. It's purely correlation. I have a suspicion that they would still be great artists without the drugs.
If youre assertion that drug use is linked to creativity, then why arent millions and millions of people creating great works of art? You cant pick two artists and say, "Well, their creativity is linked to their drug use." Doesn't work that way.
And vice versa, maybe the others would have been better with drugs. :D
Also, quite the spurious correlation there, I mean great works of art are how we are measuring creativity? those people are poor examples all around, I simply used them because TA did, they are extraordinary people, basing anything off them would be a poor choice imo.
My assertion is that specific drugs are linked to higher creativity as they alter perception. Hallucinogens specifically, also, creativity is kinda hard to define as it is a nebulous idea, is it simply creation of novel ideas?
-
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
-
No we aren`t.
we are organic rube goldberg machines. Of course we literally aren't however we behave very similarly. For example our body runs by itself mostly (hardware) and our software handles the higher order stuff. Neil Bostrom is right ;D
-
(http://schmoesknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Cheech-and-Chong-Up-in-smoke-.-Cheech-and-Chong-Up_e36cb0_4049630.png)
-
It's not an illusion. Listen to music when stoned and you will hear parts you've never heard or appreciated before. When listening to same song sober you can still hear same bits undiscovered without the THC.
agreed 100%,problem is only us guys who actually experianced that wont believe it,they will believe some scientist instead who prolly never smoked a joint in his life saying its not true. same with food,eat a nice meal an hour after u got stoned and ill guarantee anyone they enjoy it more than they ever did.i dont care what science says cause i know what i know from doing it
-
we are organic rube goldberg machines. Of course we literally aren't however we behave very similarly. For example our body runs by itself mostly (hardware) and our software handles the higher order stuff. Neil Bostrom is right ;D
Stephen Pinker is right.