Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd think you'd have realized by now, that we don't care about your opinion.
That's the general response I would expect from someone who smoke and is in favour of smoking pot. I believe most pot heads do function in society adequately and some more than adequately. Some though do not and pot generally numbs feelings etc at the same time increasing paranoia, that's not self medication.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
That's the general response I would expect from someone who smoke and is in favour of smoking pot. I believe most pot heads do function in society adequately and some more than adequately. Some though do not and pot generally numbs feelings etc at the same time increasing paranoia, that's not self medication.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
No
ok, do you understand what self medication means? are you familiar with the early childhood depression/anxiety research, on the self medication research itself?
what is it you have against the self-medication confound?
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
It shouldn't be a search page
what is the title of the article you want me to read
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
My first degree was in a biological subject, I did units in it then. When I my first post grad studies, they were more humanities based as it was a professional qualification as well as being a post grad I did some more. In my last post grad qualification, which was quite a while ago, I did no stats at all as the focus was significantly different.
ok...
65% of all data is within 1 SD of the mean. Thus, something being above 1 SD only has a 35% chance of being different. There is no field, no pilot work, nothing, that accepts that as a valid cut off point for significance.
In a case like this, where we are trying to say that one group has more mental health issues than the other, anything over .05, or 3 SD, would be entirely inapropriate. This is the standard in science, and one that many people think is too liberal. For instance, in my own work, I'm generally unsatisfied with anything over .01, as a .05 alpha means you have a 1/20 probability of your results being due to chance. At 1 SD, you have a 1/3 probability of your data being due to chance.
how could you possibly think 1 SD is a worthwhile measure?
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, do you understand what self medication means? are you familiar with the early childhood depression/anxiety research, on the self medication research itself?what is it you have against the self-medication confound?
what is the title of the article you want me to read
ok...
65% of all data is within 1 SD of the mean. Thus, something being above 1 SD only has a 35% chance of being different. There is no field, no pilot work, nothing, that accepts that as a valid cut off point for significance.
In a case like this, where we are trying to say that one group has more mental health issues than the other, anything over .05, or 3 SD, would be entirely inapropriate. This is the standard in science, and one that many people think is too liberal. For instance, in my own work, I'm generally unsatisfied with anything over .01, as a .05 alpha means you have a 1/20 probability of your results being due to chance. At 1 SD, you have a 1/3 probability of your data being due to chance.
how could you possibly think 1 SD is a worthwhile measure?
I always considered a 1 for any single study as significant, if that is then repeated independently it becomes more relevant still. Most people take >1 as an indicator of significance as it's more likely right than not. This though is due to perfect testing conditions which are rare.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I always considered a 1 for any single study as significant, if that is then repeated independently it becomes more relevant still. Most people take >1 as an indicator of significance as it's more likely right than not. This though is due to perfect testing conditions which are rare.
every sentence in that paragraph is factually incorrect
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Not at all.
voila:
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I always considered a 1 for any single study as significant, if that is then repeated independently it becomes more relevant still.
1000 studies significant at .35 are 1000 studies that failed to find an effect
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Most people take >1 as an indicator of significance as it's more likely right than not.
nobody takes 1 SD as a reliable indicator of significance
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
This though is due to perfect testing conditions which are rare.
this has nothing to do with test conditions, but rather how likely chance is as an explanation for your results, which is a matter of variance within the measurement tool and the thing being measured itself
*******
you aren't trolling?
Originally posted by inimalist
voila:1000 studies significant at .35 are 1000 studies that failed to find an effect
nobody takes 1 SD as a reliable indicator of significance
this has nothing to do with test conditions, but rather how likely chance is as an explanation for your results, which is a matter of variance within the measurement tool and the thing being measured itself
*******
you aren't trolling?
It is an indicator of significance, because it is more likly right than wrong if it is greater than 1.
Of course stats are dependant on how the data was collected, this is how marketers and scientists/social scientists work often..
How's that trollin?
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
It is an indicator of significance, because it is more likly right than wrong if it is greater than 1.
Of course stats are dependant on how the data was collected, this is how marketers and scientists/social scientists work often..
ok, so if someone said, I know there are aliens, but there is a 35% chance I could be wrong, would you be really confident in their results?
and you can say that all you want, there isn't a journal in existance that would accept work with only .35 level of significance
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so if someone said, I know there are aliens, but there is a 35% chance I could be wrong, would you be really confident
Would it be worth placing a bet at the bookies?
Hell Yeah, i've set it at a low significance to make it easy for you. Because I know the majority of studies conclude MJ has a link to mental illness and not a positive one.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Would it be worth placing a bet at the bookies?Hell Yeah, i've set it at a low significance to make it easy for you. Because I know the majority of studies conclude MJ has a link to mental illness and not a positive one.
ummm, a low SD favors you
/facepalm
ok, I'm done, I'm not a stats teacher
Originally posted by inimalist
just to point out, I am much more familiar with the science on marijuana than are you 😉
I'm sure you are which is why you know the causitive link in those with a genetic predisposition to certain types of mental illness is far more significant than what i'm asking for to prove against it. :-)
Originally posted by Daemon Seedbut the same is true for alcohol, nicotine and caffeine consumption. do you believe alcohol and cigarrettes should be prohibited?
That's the general response I would expect from someone who smoke and is in favour of smoking pot. I believe most pot heads do function in society adequately and some more than adequately. Some though do not and pot generally numbs feelings etc at the same time increasing paranoia, that's not self medication.
Originally posted by 753
but the same is true for alcohol, nicotine and caffeine consumption. do you believe alcohol and cigarrettes should be prohibited?
It's degrees of the issue of substance abuse, I no longer drink, i'm not a good drunk. I banned it for myself, I gave up smoking years ago.... I believe if alcohol was discovered today it would be class A. Does that help? I do still drink coffee.
well it is good that you see the limits that work for you, but we are discussing prohibiting and criminalizing certain drug uses. so the question is should alcohol consumption be banned for its social consquences (a lot more damaging than pot use)? would that accomplish anything or would people still consume it and drug cartels become more pwoerfull by supplying it? would the possible reduction in the social consequences of alcohol consumption outweigh the problems arising from prohibition and illegal trade? are there other options to minimize the impact of alohol use?
these very same questions should be asked of all drugs.
what would the social consequences od decrimanlizing and or regulating pot use be? all statistics I've read say that no extra harm to society would come form it and it denies drug dealer some source of income.
Originally posted by 753
well it is good that you see the limits that work for you, but we are discussing prohibiting and criminalizing certain drug uses. so the question is should alcohol consumption be banned for its social consquences (a lot more damaging than pot use)? would that accomplish anything or would people still consume it and drug cartels become more pwoerfull by supplying it? would the possible reduction in the social consequences of alcohol consumption outweigh the problems arising from prohibition and illegal trade? are there other options to minimize the impact of alohol use?these very same questions should be asked of all drugs.
what would the social consequences od decrimanlizing and or regulating pot use be? all statistics I've read say that no extra harm to society would come form it and it denies drug dealer some source of income.
Alcohol sadly is ingrained in culture it cannot be banned. Firstly with pot as its usually smoked with tobacco, cancer goes up. This is outside all the other things. I think you've been reading pro pot statistics.