Creativity is not improved through cannabis use, claims study

[240 is Back]

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.

[Rascal full]

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.

[MikMaq]

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.

[SF1900]

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. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[dustin]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[Archer77]

Ganja is like a fine glass of premium scotch.

[MikMaq]

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.

[SF1900]

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.

[SF1900]

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.

[dustin]

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.

[Hulkotron]

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.

[SF1900]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[SF1900]

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

[latiuss]

Weed makes your  brain more like an autistic's brain, your connecters stay connected longer  etc. It does improve making art,music etc imo

[Necrosis]

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.

[SF1900]

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.

[thebrink]

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

[Hulkotron]

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).

[Wiggs]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[BigRo]

weed makes people less creative when not stoned.

[SF1900]

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.