Smart People Do More Drugs--Because of Evolution

[Joanne98]

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: " 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:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Smart-People-Do-More-Drugs-Because-of-Evolution-2425

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Shooting one's self in the foot would be a novel experience wouldn't it?

Smart people are also capable of learning from the experience of others.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Smoking a joint and shooting yourself in the foot are very different experiences

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. The premise is suspect.

"Hey, hold my beer and watch this!" are probably pretty common last words. And I doubt that quest for a novel experience is especially reflective of high intelligence.

"Novel" isn't the same thing as "smart".

[FiveGoodMen]

5. I see. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Maybe I should wait until you come down.

No, drugs aren't necessarily bad. But using them isn't evidence of intelligence. "Risk" isn't one thing. The guy who risked ridicule for tying animal sinew onto a flexible stick to better propel spears was engaging in a different kind of risk than his brother who was randomly sampling mushrooms hoping to find psychedelic ones.

The smart guy in the community was the one standing over his shoulder taking notes.

[nunyabidness]

12. Beer is not what they`re talking about. Beer has been around forever.

Are you mad because you never did drugs?

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Cool.

An ad-hominem wrapped in three false assumptions, all packaged with a missing-the-point blue ribbon.

[JohnWxy]

17. unless of course, the person was stoned when he shot himself in the foot. Being stoned he wouldn't

know the difference or care. B-)

[TalkingDog]

10. Shot = pain. Drugs = (generally) pleasure.

Novelty and seeking it (among the intelligent) also means that they can readily ascertain whether it is a positive, negative or neutral experience.

If I've been wandering around the forest and I get stuck by a pine stob (stub for you non-Southerners), it isn't much of a leap to decide projectiles entering my flesh may not be pleasant. So no gunshots to the foot thanks.

If I pick a small mushroom and nibble it, I may (or may not) get nauseated, but the changes in brain chemistry might be pleasant enough to override the ill effects.

Intelligence doesn't just mean you are smart, it also means you work out a method of decision making that gives you optimal results.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Novel = not knowing which will result.

[TalkingDog]

16. Technically...no.

Novel means new. Not unique.

A cell phone is novel. The telegraph was unique (until the advent of the telephone)

When the object or activity is unique, then I'd assume the rate of experimentation is equal among all groups until a certain amount of time has passed. I don't know of studies along that line, so I'd be hard pressed to say if that amount of time is 1 hour or 3 years.

[theoldman]

3. Ignorant people don't have the money to buy drugs.

Ignorant people however have more children resulting in an ignorant population. Using drugs probably reduces the number of children born to smart parents. That is how evolution works.

[TalkingDog]

8. Bad, logic....bad, bad logic. Sit... stay.

1) Ignorant does not equal unintelligent.

2) Unintelligent people are as likely to have money as intelligent people. It's called the Lucky Sperm and Egg club. It goes toward explaining why once a family business is built up it rarely survives more than 3 generations without serious modification to the original business model.
That's because the intelligent driven person who built it and made it work may not have intelligent driven children.

3) Drug use by parents has not been shown to affect intelligence in offspring. Now, drug ABUSE may affect intelligence, but those studies still are not conclusive.


That is NOT how evolution works. And your post is NOT how cogent points are made with in a debate.

[thereismore]

6. 0.3 of standard deviation means the findings are not statistically significant. Not even close. nt

[bemildred]

9. Interesting. Not convincing, but still interesting. nt

[Demeter]

11. Having survived the 60's without the slightest desire to even try drugs

Having lost an uncle to drink and drugs and a mother to lung cancer, I don't think it takes much brains to see that drugs, alcohol and tobacco are better left to the devolved...

Smart people teach their kids not to follow the fashionable crowd into stupid dead ends. That's real evolution.

[Tutankhamun]

13. If you think that "smart" people are less likely to do foolish things such as drugs, you

are confusing intelligence with wisdom. Smart people can be prone to making unwise choices. Intelligence does not equal wisdom.

[Demeter]

19. Truly Smart People USE What They Have

Intelligence is potential, and it has to be exercised regularly.

[happyslug]

18. Don't these people understand Statistics?

The rationale that Smarter people do more drugs then dumber people is based on the following sentence in the report the author is citing":

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).

3/10 of the STANDARD DEVIATION!!!!! You can only have a 99% confidence that the difference found in a study are real as opposed to random chance if the difference are more then THREE STANDARD DEVIATIONS. 95% Confidence if the difference is just two Standard Deviation, 90% confidence if the deviation is ONE deviation.

Here is have less then ONE DEVIATION, in fact it is only 3/10 of a Deviation. I am NOT a Statistician, so I have no idea of what is the confidence level is for 3/10 of a deviation. If 3/10 of the Deviation provides only a 50% confidence i.e. you have a 50% chance that the difference is more the product of chance then anything real.

Please note I am guessing as to the 50% confidence level. I know it is NOT 90% confidence, for that is one standard deviation (i.e. 10% chance that the difference is more a product of chance than anything real).

To improve the confidence level to only a 5% chance that the difference is more a product of chance then anything real you have to increase the confidence level by Five Percentage points. To do that you need to double the "Standard Deviation" (i.e. TWO Standard Deviation instead of one Standard Deviation). Two Standard Deviation provides a 95% Confidence level (or a 5% chance that the difference is more a product of Chance then anything real, and a 95% chance that the difference is real).

To get an additional four percentage points you need to add another "Deviation" (i.e. to get a 99% Confidence rate you need three Standard Deviations). That you have to have two points separated by at least three Standard Deviation to have a 99% confidence that the difference is real (And even then you have a 1% chance that the difference is a product of chance).

Generally the Deviation is the square root of test sample (Thus on a 100 point test, the Standard Deviation is generally 10 points, you have to have a statistical test to make sure that is the case but it is a guideline we can use since we do NOT have the actual test sample to check the Confidence level of the Test sample).

On some test is can be more (For example on IQ tests three standard deviation on the norm of 100, is 40 points, which under Social Security Regulation is the difference between someone of average intelligence and someone who is so mentally retarded that he or she can not work).

Just pointing out the weakness of this argument, I can easily make a point that the difference is more a product of chance then any real difference between how intelligent people and dumber people uses drugs. The Statistical tests uses proves nothing given the low Deviation and resulting low Confidence level in the differences found in the report.

[Demeter]

20. Thank You

You have demonstrated how they lie with statistics, and very ably.

[VioletLake]

21. So, compared to retarded people, smart people do more drugs?

Smart people do lots of things in greater amounts than retarded people.