Why are intelligent people more likely to abuse drugs?
The downsides of drug abuse are so clear that one would imagine smarter folks would stay away from them. The research suggests otherwise.
- Numerous studies have confirmed the link between intelligence and substance abuse.
- However, the mechanism for this correlation has been difficult to pin down.
- Why would more intelligent people, who should ostensibly know better, practice such a risky habit?
No mathematician has ever published more papers than Paul Erdős. The 20th-century mathematician was brilliant, eccentric, and prolific, publishing a record 1,525 papers. By the age of four, Erdos could calculate the number of seconds someone had lived if they gave him their age. He contributed to a wide variety of mathematical disciplines, including discrete mathematics, probability theory, Ramsey theory, graph theory, and others.
He worked 19-hour days. And, among other things, he loved amphetamines.
When Ronald Graham, a concerned friend and fellow mathematician, bet him $500 that he couldn't stay off his drug of choice for a month, Erdős accepted and easily won the challenge. When the 30 days was up, Erdős said to Graham, "You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month." Erdos resumed taking amphetamines and did so for every day of his life until his death 17 years later.
Numerous studies have documented the relationship between intelligence and substance abuse. This relationship should be a negative one. After all, recreational drugs can damage your health, addiction costs huge amounts of money, and the legal consequences can be dire. But in fact, intelligence and substance abuse have a positive relationship: intelligent individuals are more likely to abuse drugs than less intelligent individuals.
Evidence for a link between intelligence and substance abuse
A 2011 study conducted on nearly 8,000 people measured their IQ scores at ages 5 and 10. Then, the study followed up with these individuals at ages 16 and 30. Individuals from this group with higher IQ scores were more likely to use cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, or a combination of these drugs. Women with IQ scores in the top third, for instance, were more than twice as likely to have used cannabis or cocaine by 30 than those in the bottom third. Men with high IQs were nearly twice as likely to have taken amphetamines and 65 percent more likely to have taken ecstasy compared with men who scored less.
The same relationship exists for alcohol consumption. Even accounting for religion, social class, parental education, and satisfaction with life, intelligence has been found to be the second-greatest predictor of alcohol consumption, the first being gender. Even boozier countries tend to have higher than average daily wine and beer consumption.
It's clear that there is some kind of positive relationship between substance abuse and intelligence, but why does this relationship exist?
There are several different theories.
First, it could be a side effect of the conditions that give rise to a high IQ. You're more likely to have a high IQ if you grow up in a socioeconomically advantageous environment — there's less stress, better access to education, better healthcare, and other factors that facilitate the growth of intelligence. This kind of environment shields people from the downsides of drug use.
People growing up in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments, however, can't afford drug treatment, highly capable lawyers, or the funding their habit requires without resorting to unsavory activities, so they're exposed to the dangers of drug use far more frequently.
Despite this, an intelligent impoverished person might look at their (wealthy) peers, see that their real-life experience doesn't back up the messaging of anti-drug campaigns taught in schools and, therefore, feel more comfortable taking recreational drugs. This theory is corroborated by the fact that — out of nearly all other drugs — individuals with higher IQs are less likely to smoke cigarettes. The downsides of cigarette smoking are so patently obvious that it's more reasonable for an affluent (and influential) person to avoid it than, say, cannabis or ecstasy.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has a different theory: the Savanna-IQ Interaction hypothesis.
Life evolves to become better adapted to a certain environment. Giraffes, for instance, have long necks so they can see predators (and eat lofty fruit), dogs spin around in circles before they lie down to check their surroundings, and some birds migrate to avoid the winter. These adaptations are positively selected for because the creatures that possess them are more likely to survive and reproduce.
However, environments are dynamic; the entire spectrum of useful behaviors can't be hard-wired into animals. The Savanna hypothesis contends that general intelligence — which IQ tests routinely measure — evolved as an adaptation to solve evolutionarily novel problems — that is, the unexpected challenges of the environment.
The Savanna hypothesis suggests that outside of the savanna — Homo sapiens' "natural" environment — general intelligence would be selected for, since there are more evolutionarily novel experiences than evolutionarily familiar experiences, or situations in which we have a hard-wired response to. It would also stand to reason that humans who were both intelligent and inclined to try novel things would leave the savanna and become biologically successful across the globe.
So, the humans that left the savanna and succeeded outside of it would be both intelligent and inclined to try new things, such as drugs. This hypothesis proposes that this link between intelligence and novelty is why intelligent people do drugs. The fact that drugs are unhealthy would be less relevant than the fact that drugs are a more novel experience than, say, being charged by a predator, a scenario for which we have a hard-wired response to.
Criticisms of the Savanna-IQ Interaction hypothesis
Kanazawa hypothesis has been popular in the media, but it has also attracted some criticism from other scientists. (In addition, any article discussing Kanazawa would be remiss not to point out his more problematic positions, some of which he derives from the Savanna Principle; regardless, the science should be criticized on the basis of science rather than character). First, the association between intelligence and seeking novelty may be more easily explained: Other research has shown that variations in the dopaminergic system are associated with corresponding variations in novelty-seeking (or openness to experience) and intelligence.
Another criticism of the Savanna-IQ Interaction hypothesis is that intelligence likely evolved long before humans began traveling outside of the savanna and migrating across the globe. There's also the fact that humans have been consuming drugs for thousands of years, suggesting that their use might not be so novel after all. There are numerous other points of contention against the hypothesis, but very few other proposals have been able to satisfactorily explain why intelligent people seek out novel experiences like substance abuse.
It may simply be that intelligent people are more easily bored and that drug use is the easiest way to alleviate boredom, or that intelligent people find more utility in their drug experiences and can incorporate lessons learned from altered states into their worldview. Ultimately, the research simply doesn't have an iron-clad reason for why intelligence and substance abuse are related, we simply know that they are.
Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had some understanding of this connection — Sherlock Holmes isn't an opium addict for no reason.
To create wiser adults, add empathy to the school curriculum.
- Stories are at the heart of learning, writes Cleary Vaughan-Lee, Executive Director for the Global Oneness Project. They have always challenged us to think beyond ourselves, expanding our experience and revealing deep truths.
- Vaughan-Lee explains 6 ways that storytelling can foster empathy and deliver powerful learning experiences.
- Global Oneness Project is a free library of stories—containing short documentaries, photo essays, and essays—that each contain a companion lesson plan and learning activities for students so they can expand their experience of the world.
Philosophers like to present their works as if everything before it was wrong. Sometimes, they even say they have ended the need for more philosophy. So, what happens when somebody realizes they were mistaken?
Sometimes philosophers are wrong and admitting that you could be wrong is a big part of being a real philosopher. While most philosophers make minor adjustments to their arguments to correct for mistakes, others make large shifts in their thinking. Here, we have four philosophers who went back on what they said earlier in often radical ways.
Numerous U.S. Presidents invoked the Insurrection Act to to quell race and labor riots.
- U.S. Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act on numerous occasions.
- The controversial law gives the President some power to bring in troops to police the American people.
- The Act has been used mainly to restore order following race and labor riots.
It looks like a busy hurricane season ahead. Probably.
- Before the hurricane season even started in 2020, Arthur and Bertha had already blown through, and Cristobal may be brewing right now.
- Weather forecasters see signs of a rough season ahead, with just a couple of reasons why maybe not.
- Where's an El Niño when you need one?
Welcome to Hurricane Season 2020. 2020, of course, scoffs at this calendric event much as it has everything else that's normal — meteorologists have already used up the year's A and B storm names before we even got here. And while early storms don't necessarily mean a bruising season ahead, forecasters expect an active season this year. Maybe storms will blow away the murder hornets and 13-year locusts we had planned.
NOAA expects a busy season
According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, an agency of the National Weather Service, there's a 60 percent chance that we're embarking upon a season with more storms than normal. There does, however, remain a 30 percent it'll be normal. Better than usual? Unlikely: Just a 10 percent chance.
Where a normal hurricane season has an average of 12 named storms, 6 of which become hurricanes and 3 of which are major hurricanes, the Climate Prediction Center reckons we're on track for 13 to 29 storms, 6 to 10 of which will become hurricanes, and 3 to 6 of these will be category 3, 4, or 5, packing winds of 111 mph or higher.
What has forecasters concerned are two factors in particular.
This year's El Niño ("Little Boy") looks to be more of a La Niña ("Little Girl"). The two conditions are part of what's called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, which describes temperature fluctuations between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific. With an El Niño, waters in the Pacific are unusually warm, whereas a La Niña means unusually cool waters. NOAA says that an El Niño can suppress hurricane formation in the Atlantic, and this year that mitigating effect is unlikely to be present.
Second, current conditions in the Atlantic and Caribbean suggest a fertile hurricane environment:
- The ocean there is warmer than usual.
- There's reduced vertical wind shear.
- Atlantic tropical trade winds are weak.
- There have been strong West African monsoons this year.
Here's NOAA's video laying out their forecast:
ArsTechnica spoke to hurricane scientist Phil Klotzbach, who agrees generally with NOAA, saying, "All in all, signs are certainly pointing towards an active season." Still, he notes a couple of signals that contradict that worrying outlook.
First off, Klotzbach notes that the surest sign of a rough hurricane season is when its earliest storms form in the deep tropics south of 25°N and east of the Lesser Antilles. "When you get storm formations here prior to June 1, it's typically a harbinger of an extremely active season." Fortunately, this year's hurricanes Arthur and Bertha, as well as the maybe-imminent Cristobal, formed outside this region. So there's that.
Second, Klotzbach notes that the correlation between early storm activity and a season's number of storms and intensities, is actually slightly negative. So while statistical connections aren't strongly predictive, there's at least some reason to think these early storms may augur an easy season ahead.
Image source: NOAA
Batten down the hatches early
If 2020's taught us anything, it's how to juggle multiple crises at once, and layering an active hurricane season on top of SARS-CoV-2 — not to mention everything else — poses a special challenge. Warns Treasury Secretary Wilbur Ross, "As Americans focus their attention on a safe and healthy reopening of our country, it remains critically important that we also remember to make the necessary preparations for the upcoming hurricane season." If, as many medical experts expect, we're forced back into quarantine by additional coronavirus waves, the oceanic waves slamming against our shores will best be met by storm preparations put in place in a less last-minute fashion than usual.
Ross adds, "Just as in years past, NOAA experts will stay ahead of developing hurricanes and tropical storms and provide the forecasts and warnings we depend on to stay safe."
Let's hope this, at least, can be counted on in this crazy year.
Got any embarrassing old posts collecting dust on your profile? Facebook wants to help you delete them.