On Friday, April 18, 2014 8:22:00 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:13:01 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:36 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, April 18, 2014 1:36:43 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The "causes schizophrenia" is correlation based conjecture. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think you are probably contextualizing this matter wrong. It isn't a >>>> matter fundamental causation. That's really another matter entirely. If >>>> someone has x probability of developing schizophrenia all being >>>> equal, but 2*x probability if they happen to smoke a lot of pot. That's >>>> causation in the meaningful sense here. >>>> >>> >>> You cannot infer causation because it could be reverse causation or >>> there could be a hidden variable. In the reverse causation hypothesis, >>> early schizophrenia traits would cause people to be more interested in >>> smoking cannabis. In the hidden variable hypothesis, some other trigger >>> (e.g environmental or genetic) would cause both a propensity for >>> schizophrenia and to smoking cannabis. In both these scenarios, abstaining >>> from cannabis would not improve your chances of not developing >>> schizophrenia. >>> >> >> >> Telmo, I summarized a point adding an "all being equal" statement. Is it >> meaningful to throw out a wheelbarrow full of possible controls when >> someone summarizes in a sentence? >> > > "All being equal" means that we are assuming that the effect is not caused >>> by some confounding variable. I gave you two alternative theories (not >>> controls, much lesse a wheelbarrow of them) that equally fit the data "all >>> being equal". You are just appealing to common sense. >> >> You're telling me what I meant by the generic term 'all being equal'? You're saying control, cannot relate to something about which there is theory? You're bullshitting. What do you want? My statement was reasonable. You weren't reasonable in your attack. I was under no obligation to list all the ways things might need controls. What do you actually want here? What got under your skin? You don't know as much as you are making out in the points of detail. Because they aren't important in the context at the level. I think this more politics. You don't like that I saw concerns about connections with cannabis and mental illness. You don't have to like it. There's report today about hard connections with brain abnormalities. Go play with that...do your 'this is bad science' act on that. I respect you telmo, but I'm going to have get over what you said about 'all being equal' and the controls first because that was really stupid mate
> > >> >> Also, a lot of what you say here, talks about various causalities when >> someone with a propensity is smoking pot. But the discussion was focussed >> on whether pot should be available. So it would really matter would it, >> precisely how it came to be statistically significant when someone wih >> propensity puffs they are 2x more likely to become mentally ill. The point >> is really that it does not matter which ways the causalities are going. If >> there is a strong connection...a stong correlation...then that's a major >> consideration. ion >> > > > It matters because the different hypothesis that you can draw from the > same correlation lead to different predictions on the outcome of a certain > action. > Telmo...look...how about you tell me what your expertise and experience is, tell me your qualifications. Because I tell you what I think. I think you're kneejerk reacting from a political standpoint. But I'm being political, I'm expressing a reasoned view about the status of cannabis. Below here you suggest I argued it was ground for banning it. But I made it very clear I was not saying that at all. You not reading anything carefully. You're bullying me that I am not reasonable because I have made a claim about causation, when I clearly didn't...I said in the meaningful sense HERE having just said to PGC I did not think it was important what the fundamental causation was. You not reading anything clearly. You're bullshitting above about terms. Beloiw you alleging I've called for banning when I clearly said it was a matter of risk, and these were conserations. So look...I don't think you're a serious person at this moment. I don't think you're well motivated. You've got political axe to grind. I don't. Have a read of the article....and then maybe cool off and come back tomorrow and give me another lesson in something. You obviously know a great deal. > > >> >> It's like...if there's a strong connection between HIV and injecting >> heroin. Maybe it's the rough chicks hanging around at dheealer houses with >> a high frequency of HiV and the junkies fuck them, but always inject >> clean.. There's no statistical, mathematicalk, scientifical, rational, >> reason to bogged down in that sort of detail, if where you are is a higher >> level of detail. The link is strong, because he wouldn't have fucked that >> chick unless he'd been injecting smack at the dealers. >> > > Yes, so if the problem is the promiscuous ladies (the hidden variable), > then all things being equal, legalising heroin would put the dealers out of > business and probably have a positive impact on HIV rates. If there is > direct causation from heroin to HIV (e.g heroin makes your immune system > weaker) then making heroin legal would probably aggravate the HIV problem. > If there is direct causation from HIV to heroin (e.g depressed people who > are afraid of death use drugs), then making heroin illegal would probably > have no impact on HIV rates. > > >> >> Likewise, propensity people being a lot more likely to get ill a lot >> sooner if they happen to be smoking a lot of pot, compared to those that >> don't. OK, we can say maybe people about to get ill go crazy for a joint. >> An outsider like that is not a reason to draw a conclusion. It's reason to >> monitor what happens then, when these joint crazed cliff edges don't get >> any grass? It'd come out in the number telmo...and it's always possible to >> review or rescind an earlier at the time highly plausible explanation. >> > > Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> This is the same mistake as concluding that playing basketball makes you >>> taller. Y >>> >> >> ....isn't it much more a case of a naughty fallacy your end, bogging >> reasonable higher levels in a lot of inappropriate detail. I hope you don't >> I couldn't have thought of a few controls myself. You answered an 'all >> being equal' high level statement with a lot of stuff that might not be >> equal dude >> > > As I explained above, my objection has nothing to do with confounding > variables or level of detail. > > >> >>>> I'm not throwing a definite claim out, but so far as I am aware, there >>>> is a significant connection with pot smoking. Correlation is good >>>> enough for here. >>>> >>> >>> But it's apparently not good enough for alcohol, nicotine and caffeine: >>> >> >> If I click this link will what I find be keeping correct context telmo? >> Tell me it will and I'll have a go >> > > It's up to you. It seems to me that, if some correlation between > schizophrenia and cannabis is a sufficient reason to ban cannabis, then it > must follow that it is also a sufficient reason to ban tobacco, alcohol and > caffeine, because similar correlations were found for these substances. > > >> >>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181622/ >>> >>> >>>> Who cares - and who knows - what the fundamental cause is, if cannabis >>>> is a high risk for triggering it, where there are few other triggers >>>> likely >>>> to have come in its place. That's a problem. Maybe society thinks its an >>>> acceptable statistic. Maybe not. >>>> >>> >>> What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak >>> correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws >>> that were desired a priori by some interest group >>> >> at >> Yeah. It's normally the interest group trying to bog everything down in >> unnecessary and innappropriate detail...normally thaut mixes up context and >> levels of detail, and key point ivs illustrative. >> >> Is that more like me here or you? >> > > There's no need to play that game. I gave you a set of arguments and you > can object. Qualifying my arguments with adjectives like "inappropriate" or > "unnecessary" is not a valid objection. You have to explain why. > > Telmo. > > >> >> >> >> >>> But it's the same pr oblem in practical terms as if cannabis did cause >>>> it. Same problem adjusted for whatever numbers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Not strongly convincing, because I bet all the subjects consumed sugar >>>>> and were involved in variety of other behaviors and consumptions. People >>>>> don't live in test tube and the results of questionnaires and tests of >>>>> this >>>>> sort should be taken with a large grain of salt. It's just easy science >>>>> to >>>>> make money with and get funds for, from appropriate interests. To be able >>>>> to single out that it was the Cannabis in all these people's lives as >>>>> exclusive cause, and not merely trigger of latent tendency, is too >>>>> strong. >>>>> You can say "we suppose, correlation, because reason x, sample size y". A >>>>> lot of things can precipitate psychosis in patients that already have >>>>> some >>>>> preisposition >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PGC you're an interesting arty author guy, to my eye anyway. But being >>>> truthful, I don't see a lot of content here. You're asking to smooth and >>>> normalize, and perhaps there's an argument that hey if we make people wear >>>> trousers what are we going to force on them next. It's much more arguable >>>> this would sit in the case-by-case bracket. I think I would also have to >>>> question your use of correlation vs causation type argument. The correlate >>>> is the major component in scientific statistics. A correlate is not >>>> nothing >>>> PGC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're talking poison, so ghibbsa, you're barking up the wrong tree if >>>>> you're claiming that some people claim it "innocent". But you're right: >>>>> it's more the world that people live in than the poison itself. If your >>>>> perspective is a dead end job of being mechanically exploited and >>>>> underpaid >>>>> below ability to survive and make a living, and no exit is palpable, then >>>>> you have increased poison use; without that, I think we'd see more >>>>> breakdowns, psychosis, and crimes happening. It is asking too much to >>>>> expect that segment of society to function "properly" while being >>>>> shafted. >>>>> PGC >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't disagree. I had added that there wouldn't likely be enough to >>>> go one way or another on cannabis. But again, I don't have a clear sense >>>> of >>>> the distinctiveness of what you say here. The effects of drugs at the >>>> lower >>>> strata of society, is or should be one of the major considerations. >>>> Because >>>> it's there that we see community collapse, intractable criminality and >>>> violence, and other serious problems, much of which is related to drugs. >>>> Guy in the dead end job possibly not so much.......sadly people in that >>>> sort of life seem to manage to keep their desperation behind their >>>> bedsitter door. >>>> >>>> OK sure, part of my story...a long way back in childhood sees me >>>> sensitized to segments of society that probably you are not, or are less >>>> so. That alright, but it isn't a legitimate line of argument that alone. >>>> If >>>> you don't think it matters...why don't you? If you think the damage is >>>> reasonable, what do you know about it? If you think society isn't paying a >>>> hefty price...really? What do you actually know about this matter? >>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
