5 ms·

To point out the absurdity of this study using only 31 users with varying degrees of other types of drug use, as well as measuring some highly subjective metric

To point out the absurdity of this study using only 31 users with varying degrees of other types of drug use, as well as measuring some highly subjective metric, let me offer some purely anecdotal evidence that has a bigger sample size. I can name more than 31 rappers (try me) that have heavy, long-term cannabis use that have fast "speech timing", high "vocal quality", and low "vocal effort" compared to the general population.

ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
So? It just shows that rapping might be an effective prevention therapy for this supposed effect.
- omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
  Well, supposed effective prevention for the supposed effect.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  It doesn't show that at all. It could mean that that profession selects people who are the best in the world at those things, and cannabis is entirely coincidental.
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    > You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes. -- Bill Hicks
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
> let me offer some purely anecdotal evidence that has a bigger sample size That is not how science works. And a study isn't absurd just because you don't like its conclusions.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "To point out the absurdity of this study using only 31 users with varying degrees of other types of drug use, as well as measuring some highly subjective metric, " This is the reason he does not like the study.
  - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
    That is the reason they gave publicly, not the reason they don't like the study. The study used participants without a history of other drug use. And having the effect appear with only 31 randomly sampled users means the effect is easy to detect. This is a normal number of participants for this sort of study. You see this sort of motivated reaction to a study every time there is one that triggers a population.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      " You see this sort of motivated reaction to a study every time there is one that triggers a population. " This is true, but in both directions. Because unlike you said, they actually only tested 31 cannabis users against a controll group of 40. And found that maybe subtle differences exist. "Speech samples were collected from a carefully described cohort of 31 adults with a history of cannabis use (but not use of illicit stimulant drugs) and 40 non-drug-using controls." "Subtle differences in speech timing, vocal effort, and voice quality may exist between cannabis and control groups, however data remain equivocal"
      - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
        > they actually only tested 31 cannabis users against a controll group of 40 This is exactly like I said. In fact nothing you say contradicts anything I've said, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Adding more participants would measure the same subtle difference with increasing precision, but it's unclear what the point of that would be.* The next logical step is to look further into voice effects, since the voice effect (along with the similar motor effects) are just easily measurable proxies for other changes going on in the brain. Generally, if one's criticism of a study uses only concepts you learn about in the first day of intro to statistics (e.g. "correlation does not imply causation" or "there are only N participants"), then chances are pretty low that one has discovered a serious flaw that was missed by the authors and reviewers. *We can get into a wider discussion about power here, but that tends to be pretty subtle and nothing at all about the power of the study merits it being called absurd.
tootahe45 5y ago
You mean rappers who are likely faking their drug use as they often do with their use of firearms, expensive jewellery and cars.
- jjj123 5y ago
  You think rappers are faking smoking weed?
  - TillE 5y ago
    Some people definitely believe that because they've had bad experiences with weed (paranoia etc), it's not a fun drug. Too many people are getting ultra-stoned instead of enjoying it like you would half a bottle of wine.
  - tootahe45 5y ago
    Faking is probably the wrong word. Just bragging about doing things they don't actually do.

ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago

So? It just shows that rapping might be an effective prevention therapy for this supposed effect.

omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
Well, supposed effective prevention for the supposed effect.
fighterpilot 5y ago
It doesn't show that at all. It could mean that that profession selects people who are the best in the world at those things, and cannabis is entirely coincidental.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  > You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few tunes. -- Bill Hicks

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

> let me offer some purely anecdotal evidence that has a bigger sample size That is not how science works. And a study isn't absurd just because you don't like its conclusions.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"To point out the absurdity of this study using only 31 users with varying degrees of other types of drug use, as well as measuring some highly subjective metric, " This is the reason he does not like the study.
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  That is the reason they gave publicly, not the reason they don't like the study. The study used participants without a history of other drug use. And having the effect appear with only 31 randomly sampled users means the effect is easy to detect. This is a normal number of participants for this sort of study. You see this sort of motivated reaction to a study every time there is one that triggers a population.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    " You see this sort of motivated reaction to a study every time there is one that triggers a population. " This is true, but in both directions. Because unlike you said, they actually only tested 31 cannabis users against a controll group of 40. And found that maybe subtle differences exist. "Speech samples were collected from a carefully described cohort of 31 adults with a history of cannabis use (but not use of illicit stimulant drugs) and 40 non-drug-using controls." "Subtle differences in speech timing, vocal effort, and voice quality may exist between cannabis and control groups, however data remain equivocal"
    - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
      > they actually only tested 31 cannabis users against a controll group of 40 This is exactly like I said. In fact nothing you say contradicts anything I've said, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Adding more participants would measure the same subtle difference with increasing precision, but it's unclear what the point of that would be.* The next logical step is to look further into voice effects, since the voice effect (along with the similar motor effects) are just easily measurable proxies for other changes going on in the brain. Generally, if one's criticism of a study uses only concepts you learn about in the first day of intro to statistics (e.g. "correlation does not imply causation" or "there are only N participants"), then chances are pretty low that one has discovered a serious flaw that was missed by the authors and reviewers. *We can get into a wider discussion about power here, but that tends to be pretty subtle and nothing at all about the power of the study merits it being called absurd.

tootahe45 5y ago

You mean rappers who are likely faking their drug use as they often do with their use of firearms, expensive jewellery and cars.

jjj123 5y ago
You think rappers are faking smoking weed?
- TillE 5y ago
  Some people definitely believe that because they've had bad experiences with weed (paranoia etc), it's not a fun drug. Too many people are getting ultra-stoned instead of enjoying it like you would half a bottle of wine.
- tootahe45 5y ago
  Faking is probably the wrong word. Just bragging about doing things they don't actually do.