Huh? They take hte drugs, an increase in events is recorded
As I've explained, that's not the research that was done.
No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.
no, I claimed, based o nthe article that was posted- that the study showed that there was a strong connection
As I've explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that's a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.
No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency
That isn’t what the statement says- it clearly says the magnititude of the EFFECT- not the magnitude of the events of the effect-
"Effect" was not the researchers' term but mine, in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.
you keep sayign that hte study cited was not longitudinal, what is your evidnce that it wasn’t? (Note, I’m not doubting you- I’m simpyl askign if you know that they were unable to link the two
Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.
the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t.
I’m sure ther researchers were brilliant enough to know that you can’t just make claims without doign VERY CAREFUL studies- the wiki site’s arguments are really only applicable to ‘studies’ doen by unethical evaluators who care nothignm abotu scientific integrity
No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can't be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.
I've tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It's frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you've bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.
[[correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]
I understand htis, but again, where’s the evidence that the frequency of events wasn’t icnreased whn on the drugs? if 50% or even 40% had icnreased events, then the magnitude was infact strong- We went from saying there wasn’t a sginifcant increase, to ‘the frequency of the icnrease wasn’t very large (which basically is sayign hte same hting-)
[[remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare. ]]
Again, the cited source states that htere is a strong connection- I’m goign b y what the article says- if there’s a strong connectio nthen that correctly implies that there must have ben an icnrease in events i norder to come up with hte ‘strong connection’ clasim- if only a few peopel in the study showed an increase, I don’t beleive the researchers would have stated a strong connection and woudl have infact stated the opposite- Generally thsoe who do testign are unbiased or do so in an unbiased way because their careers and reputations are o nthe line
you are saying that “As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency.”
I’m goign to have to tackle this after my nap- my mind is tired right now- but basically the one can’t happen without hte other- if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events
[[Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.]]
Egads, your previosu post made mention of the fact that it wasn’t a logitudinal study, therefore it wasn’t vaslid- basically was the claim-
[[No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can’t be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.]]
Good golly- Statign that htere is a strong connection is makign hte claim that the one causes anm increase in frequency-
[[I’ve tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It’s frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you’ve bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.
]]
Mmmm yes, you’re arguign in circles- and changign hte goalpost from psot to post- I’ve asked several tiems now for soem kidn of evidence that using drugs didn’t icnrease the frequency of events- such as you claiemd at the beginnign of the argument- and yo’ure goign round and round avoiding providing any evidence and simpyl restatign claims on wiki that has nothign to do the findings- there’s a strong cennection- I didn’t make hte claim- the article cited did- if you have evidenece that usign drugs doesn’t correrlate to increase in frequency, I’d be itnerested i nseeing it- but talkign in cuircles and then claiming I am ‘uneducated’ and runnming away isn’t really very polite- I’ve kept it civil- and have asked a simpel question and have not received an answer yet-
[[As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]
Where the heck does thsi fit into the argument? Do you have evidence that only .01% of drug takers had icnrease i nfrequency? or are you simply just guessing? I didn’t read any such thing- I read that there was a ‘strong connection’
If you don’t have evidence as to how many actually had increased frequencies, that’s fine- just say so- but the report is indicating a ‘Strong connection’ between the two- Common sense tells you thatr a strong connection shows that it’s much more than .01% icnrease in events- (or whateverl ow figure you want to throw out urnealted to the article)
[[I will make no further posts in this exchange.]]
If you can’t answer the question I aske,d then fine- because All I’m gettign fro myou is an irrelevent argument to apaprently prove thigns that were not stated i nthe article-
Not sure why you’re gettign bent over by the simple question? Is there evidence that icnreased use doesn’t correlate to increased events? The study seems to indicate there is a connection between the two-
[[in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.]]
ou know, you can claim anythign you like- it doesn’t make it so- if you want to get nasty without providing any answers to back up your claims, then whatever, I tried to keep this civil, but your trying to drag this into the gutter with petty insults- You’ve faield to ansdwer the simpel question- and you’re accusing me of failing to ‘udnerstand’? whatever dude- if you don’t know the answer to the simpel quesiton, there’s no neded to get nasty about it=-
[[Marijuana use may speed psychosis Using marijuana, or cannabis, may cause psychosis to develop sooner in patients already predisposed to developing it, and in other patients the drug may even cause psychosis, according to a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.]]
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/07/marijuana-use-may-speed-psychosis/
[[March 1, 2011 — Adolescents and young adults who smoke marijuana have an increased risk for experiencing psychotic symptoms, according to a new study.
The new findings appear online in the journal BMJ.
Researchers assessed marijuana use during a 10-year study of 1,923 participants aged 14 to 24 in Germany.
Those participants who had no psychotic symptoms and had never tried marijuana when the study began and then started using marijuana had nearly double the risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms in the future.
And those who used marijuana before start of the study and who continued use over the study period had an increased risk of persistent psychotic symptoms, the study shows.
“Our study confirmed cannabis as an environmental risk factor, impacting on the risk of psychosis by increasing the risk of incident psychotic experiences and if use continues over time, increasing the risk of persistent psychotic experiences,” ]]
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20110301/marijuana-use-linked-to-risk-of-psychotic-symptoms
All these symantics abotu the ‘increase of magnitude frequency’ seem to me to be a rabbit trail mneant to veer off the main issue of whether or not pot use can cause more frequent psychotic events- and accordign ot hter studies and researchers in the abovel inks, they seem to indicate pot use may infact be a direct cause- it has certainyl been shown to be a direct cause of more frequent events as several studies show-
And let’s now go back to the oringinal statement you cited:
[[“With higher doses and with certain unstable or susceptible individuals, marijuana can produce extreme euphoria, hilarity, and overtalkativeness, but it can also produce intense anxiety and depression as well as delusions, hallucination, and other psychotic-like experiences]]
You do know that ‘produce’ means to ‘cause to exist, or yeild,’ right?
Then you first say “Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done - the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t. “
But in the next breath say “Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.”
do you see why it’s hard to try to follow what you’re thinking and saying? First you imply that no link can be made between drug use and increassed pscho events because htere were no ‘longitudinal studies done’- then in another post say that longitudial studies have nothign to do with establishign a link?
Then we go off onto another rabbit trail talking about the “the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect.”
Now we’re apaprently discussing ‘magnitude of effect’ or rather how strogn an effect is? Then we go to ‘Magnitude of increase in frequency’? Which point are you arguing?
[[As I’ve explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency.]]
Then you state [[If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that’s a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.]]
I’ll ask it again- where does the study indicate that magnitude of increase was so low? (not that stregth of ibncrease is not what the study is even about- the study was about increased episodes- not the stregth of htose episodes-
[[It’s frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings]]
I’m not askign you to- I’m simpyl askign you to provide soem evidence that the events are rare liek you claiemd i nthe first place, when the study does NOT indicate any such hting?
[[I will make no further posts in this exchange.]]
Perhaps it’s best you don’t because you’ve goen down so many damn rabbit trails that the original claim and quesitons have been lsot in all the confusion caused by your tryign to introduce issues that have nothign to do with hwat was beign discussed and asked- just like the aqrguments on wiki’s site have nothign to do with copntrolled studies- to imply that peopel claiming they wake with headaches after wearign shoes to bed somehow is a valid comparison to a cotnrolled study where all the variables are known and accoutned for, is simply assinine- Their informal examples throws in a ‘gotcha’ at the end by now introducign the idea that hte people ‘could have been drunk’ and hterefore thsi must be taken itno concideration too- so the other conclusio ncan not be made with any amount of reasonable certainty There were no ‘gotchas’ i nthe studies on pot and psychotic events- the variables were known and accoutned for- and a reasoanble conclusio nwas that there IS a strogn conenction between pot and drug use and icnreased psychotic events REGARDLESS of how strogn the events were- you can’t just try to wiggle otu of it by changign hte discussion to the strength of events