What Is Bad Science?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
howsitgrowin420
Well-Known Member
I think that this is an example of bad science purporting to be good science: see article attached
They lost me when they basically said “we used a classification variable (marijuana use) but are presenting it as if we manipulated something.” They continued to lose me when they said “the IQ of marijuana users was significantly lower than the control group”. They of course meant statistical significance and looking at the actual data everyone was within one standard deviation of 100 (15 is the standard deviation for IQ and +/- one standard deviation is as normal as can be for the human population…..not so mind blowing - but IQ is a junk measure to anyone but the ‘pop psychologists’, housewives, and probably the psychiatrists of the world.
Personally, I wish death upon any person who uses a significant p value to connotatively suggest a “significant” difference in the raw data. At one point they did call marijuana use a “causal variable”, but they did zero manipulation and have no basis for stating causation. Furthermore, you have to look to their recruiting standards. When they parsed out “exclusive marijuana users” why not address that apparently people with comorbid substance abuse apparently had higher IQs (because IQ only played into their experiment for dramatic effect and to pull out a publication in a competitive academic world.)
Ahhh, the behavioral measure- where to start? Wow, measuring a person’s verbal behavior and assuming a correlation to their actual behavior. Wait, did they have low IQs or do they have the ability to reflect and assign a 0-2 value to complex scenarios after applying them to their own life…..as a user, I’d first study the aversiveness of completing those archaic, academic questionnaires - all developed by some student desperately seeking the validation of their cohort and the larger field in which they hope to make a life - and evaluate how much of responding was maintained by finishing versus the content of the questionnaire. How exactly does a scale used for people actively seeking treatment apply to people who answered a flyer regarding research?
If marijuana were not a schedule one drug, someone could take a bunch of non-smokers and do a longitudinal study with some actual manipulation of variables. Someone could answer questions about response times, memory….IQ if you have to go there.
They lost me when they basically said “we used a classification variable (marijuana use) but are presenting it as if we manipulated something.” They continued to lose me when they said “the IQ of marijuana users was significantly lower than the control group”. They of course meant statistical significance and looking at the actual data everyone was within one standard deviation of 100 (15 is the standard deviation for IQ and +/- one standard deviation is as normal as can be for the human population…..not so mind blowing - but IQ is a junk measure to anyone but the ‘pop psychologists’, housewives, and probably the psychiatrists of the world.
Personally, I wish death upon any person who uses a significant p value to connotatively suggest a “significant” difference in the raw data. At one point they did call marijuana use a “causal variable”, but they did zero manipulation and have no basis for stating causation. Furthermore, you have to look to their recruiting standards. When they parsed out “exclusive marijuana users” why not address that apparently people with comorbid substance abuse apparently had higher IQs (because IQ only played into their experiment for dramatic effect and to pull out a publication in a competitive academic world.)
Ahhh, the behavioral measure- where to start? Wow, measuring a person’s verbal behavior and assuming a correlation to their actual behavior. Wait, did they have low IQs or do they have the ability to reflect and assign a 0-2 value to complex scenarios after applying them to their own life…..as a user, I’d first study the aversiveness of completing those archaic, academic questionnaires - all developed by some student desperately seeking the validation of their cohort and the larger field in which they hope to make a life - and evaluate how much of responding was maintained by finishing versus the content of the questionnaire. How exactly does a scale used for people actively seeking treatment apply to people who answered a flyer regarding research?
If marijuana were not a schedule one drug, someone could take a bunch of non-smokers and do a longitudinal study with some actual manipulation of variables. Someone could answer questions about response times, memory….IQ if you have to go there.
ayr0n
Well-Known Member
Like....circling shots on a barn?!