Comment by guard-of-terra | Hacker News Reader

Comment by guard-of-terra | Hacker News Reader

Steve Yegge comes to rescue:

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...

So... one minor, teeny-weeny almost insigificant caveat before I continue: I have smoked marijuana (and inhaled it, deeply) on more occasions than I can count. And yet I'm almost undoubtedly smarter than your kid that you're so goddamned worried about. I skipped three grades (3rd, 7th and 8th), entered high school at age 11 and graduated at age 14, took A.P. courses, had stellar SAT scores, was a U.S. Navy nuclear reactor operator, went to the University of Washington and earned a Computer Science degree, worked at major corporations like Amazon.com and Google for many years as a senior staff engineer and/or senior development manager, and now I'm an internationally famous blogger.

I don't usually dwell on that, but today it's relevant. It's relevant because I've smoked a LOT of pot, and I dare you to prove that it has impaired me in any scientifically detectable way. We would debate, and you would lose; nevertheless I double-dog dare you.

It's interesting. I was just thinking a little while ago about the tendency for smart people to equate being smart with being right. A while ago I was mentoring a young colleague of mine and I warned him that it is often the case that when we experience one failed project after another, we tend to think, "People should listen to me. I've seen every way to make a project fail and so I know how to make a project succeed." In reality, unless you have experienced success you are unlikely to know how to create that success.

He replied with one of the most interesting things I've heard in a while: "But I have lots of good ideas. Not all of them can be wrong". I had to step away and think about that for a long time, but eventually I realized that, yes, he could be wrong every single time. The search space is huge. And the tricky thing is that it doesn't really matter how smart he is. He can still be wrong every single time because there are a lot more wrong answers than right ones. A lot of the wrong answers really look like they should be right too. Even to otherwise brilliant (though wrong) people.

In a similar vein, I think you will find that despite your great intellect and professional success, there are many, many areas where you are wrong. In fact, there are likely to be a lot more areas where you are wrong than areas where you are right. There's just a huge search space out there.

I have no idea if you are right or wrong about marijauna use. I'm am absolutely convinced that you would beat me in a debate on the subject (I can't even spell the damn word correctly). Beating me (or anyone) in a debate makes absolutely no difference to whether or not you are correct.

It's not like I am immune to the occasional (umm... possibly a lot more than occasional... :-P) egocentric outburst, but I have found that admitting that I am likely wrong actually improves my credibility. I mean a brilliant, internationally famous blogger with a CS degree might very well be right about the effects of marijuana on the brain. Researchers on the effects of marijuana on the brain may just have the edge though, despite a possible lack of comparative brain power. It's something to consider.

The thing about being wrong is interesting.

It reminds me of something i read about a bright young developer that joined a company, got assigned tasks, completed them brilliantly, until the day that one stumped him.

Afterwards he claimed that the experience had been the best he could have, because until that day he had not really faced failure.

Steve Yegge is not a scientist and prone to highly emotional rants. Further, your situation, whatever it is, is an anecdote, not sufficient to draw a conclusion.

I wonder if the same is true of alcohol, given the two substances are so close. Whatever the conclusion, it's not justification to ban either of course. There are many other facets of the problem to consider.

Cannabis and Alcohol share just about nothing in common. Not the chemical structure, the method of consumption, the neuro-physical effects, nor the after-effects. They both do get you a high in their way, but aside from that, nothing. They don't feel much alike, and are very different in terms of long term and short term cognitive effects.

That doesn't even make sense. Who's to say he would not have done even better if he had not smoked pot? How can he assume his case generalizes across the population? How does someone who is So Very Smart not realize this? Did his AP courses not give him an inkling of the scientific method?

For what it's worth, that blog post caused a tiny increase in my propensity to believe marijuana is harmful.

And maybe Yegge would had accomplished less without weed? The point is, he still accomplished all that while having smoked a lot of weed. True you can't generalize across the population but his story is still relevant. Maybe Francis Crick would had invented time travel if it wasn't for LSD.

I know 10 doctors and surgeons, and the majority smoke weed and do cocaine (not everyday / nor every week). I wouldn't say they are great people though.

Yes, precisely. So many times a debate is about whether or not something does measurable harm. People or policies with a measure if success are often cited as evidence of lack of harm. Whether it's taking drugs or raising the tax rate, if the subjects in question continue to prosper, it is assumed no harm is done.

However people forget to ask the question whether the outcomes are maximised? Could the blogger have been the next Steve Jobs but for the weed use? I don't pretend to have the answer but I see the question is rarely asked.

I can't quote a source, but I recall one study correlating higher IQ with higher risk of psychoactive drug usage. Maybe your brain is amazing enough to not be hindered by smoking pot. Maybe the performance decline is not noticeable and you continue to function well. Maybe you've smoked so much marijuana that you have a strong resistance to its effects. But then again, maybe you are the exception - that's the problem with anecdotal evidence. If a more average person is given easy access to THC, maybe their chance at greater academic performance would go up in smoke (ha).

Either way, as a recreational smoker, I prefer to keep my habit away from my work and study. That would be the worst way to multitask - can't enjoy the high due to work, can't be as productive at work because of the high.

Good point, people brain and psyche structure can respond differently to substances. To some it might free the system of some problems, balances things so you can focus or be more relaxed longer, but for others it might just trigger 'unproductive' fun.

Yet for me a few months of pot gave me a stutter for two years, and I'm pretty sure killed my motivation in my final school year. I eventually got my act together and got an engineering degree, but I'd definitely recommend against pot use.

As would I. I missed my late teens and early twenties while sitting in a haze of pot smoke, and while I did have some interesting experiences, the time would have been far better spent learning to deal with life in healthier ways. Ten years on, and I'm still dealing with the aftermath of those poor decisions.

Every time I ever got high on weed I felt lingering effects for about three days. I've never experienced this with anything else. It always seemed to me that people who smoke weed a couple times a week or more often might be slightly under the influence almost continuously and not even realize it.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/...

Posted for the list of data sources. Read all of the articles on the site if you can. Conclusion: If you are fked up you are fed up and one would be showing poor judgement at the least and be legally liable at the most if they trusted you with ther child, finances, or company, regardless of how functional a drug-addict you are.

The abstract clearly points out that the observed (negative) effect is stronger for low performers and women.

Furthermore, Yegge's rant is a bit short on actual facts that would show possible effects. For example, did his career changes happen due to increased pot consumption at the time? Did he abandon his PhD plans because of it? Did he even smoke before high school (at the age of 11)? We don't know.

He describes how undeniably exceptional he is, and then implies that his experience should be a guide for unexceptional people.

There will always be outliers.

Well endowed smart kid is not wrecked by drugs? Common entertainment drugs in general are not disastrous for mentally healthy well off people. As per rats -

http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/

I have nothing to say about drugs, but neither does Steve's anecdote.

P. Diddy has been known to go for 4 days without sleeping, seemingly with no ill effects according to assistants who have had to stay awake and by his side during these times.

I'm sure this self-reported N of 1 study is extremely relevant to sleep researchers all over the world.

Are people not realizing that everything after the first sentence is a direct quote from the Yegge rant?

This really has nothing to do with the study but congrats ... I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com