PD.com: We're like the bugs in the Starship Troopers movie: infinite, unceasing, unstoppable....and our leader looks like a huge vagina
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Last year the mainstream media was quick to highlight a study from Northwestern University that implied there were structural changes in the brains of people who smoked marijuana, even occasionally. The dubious research was sponsored by groups biased against marijuana including the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Now a new, study published in the Journal of Neuroscience has completely debunked those claims. Researchers at the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder and the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville created a trial to attempt to replicate the earlier results but could not.
Participants in the new study were were both adults and adolescents. They were given brain MRIs and carefully selected as those who consume cannabis and those who do not. But this time people who use alcohol were excluded from the study.
The results were clear, "No statistically significant differences were found between daily users and nonusers on volume or shape in the regions of interest," the authors stated.
A cornerstone of modern medical science is not just a single experiment but results that can be replicated again and again.
The researchers in Boulder and Louisville put the issue to bed with their conclusion; "In sum, the results indicate that, when carefully controlling for alcohol use, gender, age, and other variables, there is no association between marijuana use and standard volumetric or shape measurements of subcortical structures."
I STAND BY MY DECISIONS.
This is the second time someone has found that out of the blue.
Normal is arbitrary by consensus and varies by location and chronological era.Yes. But I want to find out, from people in my local area, what practices are acceptable, if only to avoid getting my ass kicked for insulting the wrong football team or whatever, or better yet, to find out how to find people I would enjoy talking to.
But the word normal does not communicate this. And when I spend a good few sentences on defining what I mean, their eyes glaze over, and then I still do not receive the information I desire.
...also, I think I have posted this thread in the wrong forum?
It always tickled me that, in physics, perpendicular is referred to as "normal"
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there fromQuoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.