Smart People Do More Drugs--Because of Evolution

[Grat3fulh3ad]

[EDIT...] This article is not saying that being smart makes you do drugs, nor that doing drugs makes you smart, nor that some unintelligent people do not out binge some smart people, nor that all smart people do alot of drugs...

It is pointing out a statistical correlation, providing a potential explanation based on other things we already know, and supporting the explanation with further statistical correlation.

Knowing an idiot who does a lot of drugs, or a smart person who does none, has no real bearing on the veracity of the article.[/EDIT...]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

The human consumption of psychoactive drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, is of even more recent historical origin than the human consumption of alcohol or tobacco, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people use more drugs more frequently than less intelligent individuals.

The use of opium dates back to about 5,000 years ago, and the earliest reference to the pharmacological use of cannabis is in a book written in 2737 BC by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung. Opium and cannabis are the only “natural” (agricultural) psychoactive drugs. Other psychoactive drugs are “chemical” (pharmacological); they require modern chemistry to manufacture, and are therefore of much more recent origin. Morphine was isolated from opium in 1806, cocaine was first manufactured in 1860, and heroin was discovered in 1874.

Given their extremely recent origin and thus evolutionary novelty, the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume all types of psychoactive drugs than less intelligent individuals. Once again, as with alcohol consumption, the fact that the consumption of psychoactive drugs has largely negative health consequences and few (if any) benefits of any kind is immaterial to the Hypothesis. It 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.

By HEATHER HORN | November 01, 2010 12:23pm
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/feat...ople-Do-More-Drugs-Because-of-Evolution-2425/

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.

 

[canadiancracker]

i knew thats why i love drugs

i really do believe that more intelligent people do use drugs out of boredom with life. where normal people are just content doing the same shit over and over and never open there minds to different altered states of consenseness.

some of the quickest and most common sense, make the right dicision right first type people use and have used alot of cocaine and are regular cannabis and other drug users.

i personnally have been smoking since im 15 and am now 26. i am alot more successful than most 40 year olds i know. i can honestly say that because of weed i am where i am today ive never used cocaine or hard drugs but only because im afraid ill love it too much and blow away my cash, but if money was not an issue id def do more shit.

thanks for the interesting read. CC

 

[Dr_Tre]

How convinient for all of us, right? I ain't buying this, though I admit people who use drugs are more interesting personalities.
Nowadays you can think of just bout any claim and find some back up on the Internet.

 

[boroboro]

Hey, thanks. It's tempting, but hopefully I'm smart enough not to pat myself on the back for smoking a little cannabis.

Psychoactive drugs being "evolutionarily pretty new to humans" is an idea that surprised me for a minute. Then I realized that thinking back 10,000 to 50,000 years would still be "evolutionarily pretty new".

Terence McKenna loved to speculate on the evolutionary benefits of low doses of psilocybin. The improved vision could certainly help a emerging species from being eaten by the predators hiding in the grass on the savannas.

And cannabis, well, it should be enough to say that an improved libido would be evolutionarily beneficial....

The idea still seems strange, though: smart people tend to do unusual things, things that are 'evolutionarily novel'? Why? Could it be that it's the smart people who are slightly more likely to make it through those 'evolutionarily novel' misadventures alive and intact?

Final question: Does this mean that Keith Richards and Lemmy Kilmister are 'smart people'?

 

[ibjamming]

How about the more likely...EVERYONE wants to get stoned...and as we ALL collectively got smarter...some of us developed/found more and more things to get us stoned?

I've known some REALLY stupid people who loved to get DESTROYED. In fact, I'd argue that the more intelligent don't like to get absolutely hammered. We prefer a manageable buzz. Or am I the only smart one that feels this way?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i never said anything about dosages.
use more drugs ≠ take higher dosages within the context of the articles.

Nor does anything in the articles imply that some stupid people don't like to get wasted, nor that every smart person gets high.

the basic premise is statistically accurate.
more intelligent people are more likely to use more psychoactive drugs.
just like more intelligent people are more likely to engage in all sorts of other evolutionarily novel behavior.

 

[007.]

Opium and cannabis are the only “natural” (agricultural) psychoactive drugs.

Ummm....


psilocybe mushrooms
amanita mushrooms
morning glory
hawaiian baby woodrose
salvia
coca leaves
caffeine in its many forms
dmt snuffs
ayahuasca
ergot
datura
peyote/peruvian torch/other mescaline cacti

I could go on, but basically my point is that this article is a crock, with very little awareness of accounts by anthropologists regarding the extent of "drug" use by hunter/gatherer communities.

The author also seems to think that because the earliest written records that survive to this day of cannabis use was in the third millenia BCE, this is when people first started using it.

As much as I'd like to say "hey! I'm smart because I like drugs", this article is full of it.

PS: If the author really wanted to demonstrate that more smart people use drugs, he would look for a study correlating IQ to drug use. He wouldn't find a dubious theory about "evolutionarily novel behaviour", falsify the history of humanity's involvement with drugs, and then link the two.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

As much as I'd like to say "hey! I'm smart because I like drugs", this article is full of it.

The article says that smart people are more likely to use drugs, not that drug users are more likely to be smart. You're twisting it up.

PS: If the author really wanted to demonstrate that more smart people use drugs, he would look for a study correlating IQ to drug use. He wouldn't find a dubious theory about "evolutionarily novel behaviour", falsify the history of humanity's involvement with drugs, and then link the two.

You sure you read my whole post?

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).

Exactly what you ask for has already been provided.

Also there is much well documented evidence supporting the statistic that more intelligent people are more likely to engage in behavior which is novel from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[headband 707]

Awww I will take you to another plain and explain... lol lol.. till then your just going to have to exsist in this plain....

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

plain plane?

 

[Bulldog11]

I don't know about you guys but I smoke weed to get high. I have no idea what all this other crap is about.

 

[guest3901]

i see alot of the word...hypothesis,theory,
in the posted quotes from some articles...
so is any of this circle talk worth anything??

 

[headband 707]

plain plane?

plain/plane/take your pick lol

 

[ddrew]

Further proof of my brilliance

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

plain/plane/take your pick lol

Ok... how about I take an ordinary dc-10 flight to a large open meadow in an alternate dimension...



I'd take a plain plane to a plain in another plane.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i see alot of the word...hypothesis,theory,
in the posted quotes from some articles...
so is any of this circle talk worth anything??

as much as any talk about any science is worth, since it is all just hypothesis and theory and data and evidence....

 

[guest3901]

as much as any talk about any science is worth, since it is all just hypothesis and theory and data and evidence....

hypothesis and theories are guesses.

data and evidence are proof.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

hypothesis and theories are guesses.

data and evidence are proof.

you need to study more science.


There is no such thing as proof, a scientific theory is the closest thing there is in science to a 'truth'.

 

[Bettysmith]

hypothesis and theories are guesses.

data and evidence are proof.

Can't have one without the other.

 

[headband 707]

Ok... how about I take an ordinary dc-10 flight to a large open meadow in an alternate dimension...



I'd take a plain plane to a plain in another plane.

Beam me up Scotty lol