Why Intelligent People Use More Drugs

The human consumption of psychoactive drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, is of even more recent historical origin than the human consumption of alcohol or tobacco, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people use more drugs more frequently than less intelligent individuals.
The use of opium dates back to about 5,000 years ago, and the earliest reference to the pharmacological use of cannabis is in a book written in 2737 BC by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung. Opium and cannabis are the only “natural” (agricultural) psychoactive drugs. Other psychoactive drugs are “chemical” (pharmacological); they require modern chemistry to manufacture, and are therefore of much more recent origin. Morphine was isolated from opium in 1806, cocaine was first manufactured in 1860, and heroin was discovered in 1874.

Given their extremely recent origin and thus evolutionary novelty, the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume all types of psychoactive drugs than less intelligent individuals. Once again, as with alcohol consumption, the fact that the consumption of psychoactive drugs has largely negative health consequences and few (if any) benefits of any kind is immaterial to the Hypothesis. It does not predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to engage in healthy and beneficial behavior, only that they are more likely to engage in evolutionarily novel behavior. As I point out in an earlier post, more intelligent people are often more likely to do stupid things.

Consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the analysis of the National Child Development Study shows that more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children. Net of sex, religion, religiosity, marital status, number of children, education, earnings, depression, satisfaction with life, social class at birth, mother’s education, and father’s education, British children who are more intelligent before the age of 16 are more likely to consume psychoactive drugs at age 42 than less intelligent children.

The following graph shows the association between childhood general intelligence and the latent factor for the consumption of psychoactive drugs, constructed from indicators for the consumption of 13 different types of psychoactive drugs (cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD, amyl nitrate, magic mushrooms, cocaine, temazepan, semeron, ketamine, crack, heroin, and methadone). As you can see, there is a clear monotonic association between childhood general intelligence and adult consumption of psychoactive drugs. “Very bright” individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals (with IQs below 75).

GRAPH

The following graph shows a similar association between childhood intelligence and the latent factor for the consumption of psychoactive drugs among Americans. The data come from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The childhood intelligence is measured in junior high and high school, and the adult drug consumption is measured seven years later, and constructed from indicators for the consumption of 5 different types of psychoactive drugs (marijuana, cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin). The association is not monotonic, but nevertheless, “normal” (90 < IQ < 110), “bright” (110 < IQ < 125), and “very bright” individuals consume more psychoactive substances than “very dull” or “dull” (75 < IQ < 90) individuals. Once the social and demographic variables are controlled, however, the positive association between childhood intelligence and adult drug consumption is not statistically significant in the American Add Health sample.

GRAPH

People – scientists and civilians alike – often associate intelligence with positive life outcomes. The fact that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs tampers this universally positive view of intelligence and intelligent individuals. Intelligent people don’t always do the right thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.

Click to expand...

Given their extremely recent origin and thus evolutionary novelty, the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume all types of psychoactive drugs than less intelligent individuals.

Click to expand...

Inoxia said:

I think they're right but that statement really makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Equal Observer said:

The only 2 natural psychoactive drugs are cannabis and opium? That's not right.

Click to expand...

phrozen said:

How does one go about testing such hypotheses? I don't know much about evolutionary psychology, but it seems that it's full of such things that make sense and fit, but can't really be tested. I mean, it doesn't take much to come up with an evolutionary theory, that can't really be tested, to explain a shitload of behavior. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?

Geoffrey Miller⁎, Joshua M. Tybur, Brent D. Jordan
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
Initial receipt 16 April 2007; final revision received 26 June 2007

Abstract

To see whether estrus was really “lost” during human evolution (as researchers often claim), we examined ovulatory cycle effects on
tip earnings by professional lap dancers working in gentlemen's clubs. Eighteen dancers recorded their menstrual periods, work shifts, and
tip earnings for 60 days on a study web site. A mixed-model analysis of 296 work shifts (representing about 5300 lap dances) showed an
interaction between cycle phase and hormonal contraception use. Normally cycling participants earned about US$335 per 5-h shift during
estrus, US$260 per shift during the luteal phase, and US$185 per shift during menstruation. By contrast, participants using contraceptive
pills showed no estrous earnings peak. These results constitute the first direct economic evidence for the existence and importance of
estrus in contemporary human females, in a real-world work setting. These results have clear implications for human evolution, sexuality,
and economics.

Click to expand...

In the meantime, there's earth-shattering science being done at strip clubs:

Click to expand...

phrozen said:

How does one go about testing such hypotheses? I don't know much about evolutionary psychology, but it seems that it's full of such things that make sense and fit, but can't really be tested. I mean, it doesn't take much to come up with an evolutionary theory, that can't really be tested, to explain a shitload of behavior. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...