Your IQ in High School Can Predict Your Alcohol Use Later in Life \ stacker news ~science

pull down to refresh

Your IQ in High School Can Predict Your Alcohol Use Later in Life www.sciencealert.com/your-iq-in-high-school-can-predict-your-alcohol-use-later-in-life

683 sats \ 19 comments \ @south_korea_ln 20 Oct science

For every one-point increase in IQ score, researchers found a 1.6 percent increase in being a moderate or heavy drinker as opposed to an abstainer.

Those with higher IQ scores, however, were less likely to report binge-drinking episodes.

The results do not necessarily mean that your IQ as a teenager "controls your destiny", explains psychiatrist Sherwood Brown from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center. But it does suggest that IQ scores are linked to social factors that may influence drinking in mid-life.

Drinking at university was definitely more common in the STEM curriculum than in social sciences in my experience. In our case, more often than not as a necessary lubricant to socialise.

view all related items

153 sats \ 3 replies \ @DesertDave 21 Oct

So the more we think we know the more miserable we are. I don't know what IQ really means but I know I am a lot happier now that I forgot all that I thought I knew.

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 21 Oct

So the more we think we know the more miserable we are

One of the smartest guys I know is chronically unhappy.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DesertDave 21 Oct

For sure. It's tough being smart.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 21 Oct

Not surprising, they must feel so alone and so misunderstood!

106 sats \ 2 replies \ @OriginalSize 21 Oct

I never knew everyone in my family was so smart!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 21 Oct

lol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 21 Oct

91 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 20 Oct

This is interesting. I know the football players in high school drank. And communication majors seemed to be partying every weekend. Engineers on the other hand...rarely had time to drink and party. Maybe it was different where you went?

114 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 20 Oct

I guess that since I went to university when I was 10 years senior to most of the other students, I didn’t see much of the party life. I was more concerned in how to pay the rent, pay the tuition and buy food. I guess that is the difference when you do it on your own hook.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 21 Oct

Yeah, that makes sense. My observation is also not representative of all STEM students; I was more active in the university's fraternity-style environment which does not encompass all kinds of students.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 21 Oct

That was one thing I never did either time I was at the university. Just never had the time. One quarter I took 23 credits and in all the others, I went over 15 credits per quarter. (I was a cheapskate and every credit over 15 was FREEEEEEE!!!!!)

73 sats \ 6 replies \ @000w2 20 Oct

No, it can't.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 21 Oct

There is a high likeliness one may find methodological flaws. I didn't read the original paper.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 21 Oct

I just wonder who financed the research and what outcome that they wanted to buy. As is often the case, since The ScienceTM is often for sale to the highest bidder, until I see the results replicated, outside of the peer-review process, I won’t quite believe it. I don’t trust the peer-review process, at all, either.

83 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 21 Oct

I understand where you come from.

I think these observations on who financed the research are very field-dependent too. Any big pharma-related research warrants a high amount of scrutiny and skepticism. In other fields, it really depends on the financial incentives. I can say for a fact that I never got pressured to publish in one direction or the other. I might have better chances at funding if I publish on the latest hot topic (quantum computation, machine learning, etc), but once I have secured funding, I can publish on any topic I want with any results I observe. But that's probably a perk of doing fundamental physics kind of stuff. Potential monetization is usually decades down the road.

I would prefer more recognition were possible in terms of publishing negative results (when a piece of research does not confirm your initial assumptions and ends up being a methodological contribution more than anything else) whereas positive results are usually more likely to get you into high-impact journals.

There is much to be said about the flaws of peer-review, for-profit journals, scientific fraud, etc... but that's a topic for another time ;)

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nym 21 Oct

It was an interesting paper, but I don't think the sample size is large enough, like with a lot of papers.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 21 Oct

One question I would ask would be if it were a random sample, large enough to statistically be relevant.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 21 Oct

Yes, that would be for a whole different conversation at another time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 21 Oct

Also interesting are the IQ — criminal activity, poverty, and income links.

Even more interesting is the suggestion that IQ is largely genetic (I've heard estimates ranging between 50 to 80% heritability). If true, which I suspect it is, the implications would be massive and could profoundly reshape how we see the world/society.