?

Log in

No account? Create an account
frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Tobacco Centuries
frank_davis4
frank_davis
After I'd carried bits of a Danish article which cited evidence that smokers performed a variety of mental tasks up to 30% better than non-smokers, Stewart Cowan suggested that banning smoking was an integral part of the modern dumbing-down process. Leg-iron continued the theme last night.

Today I wondered whether 30% increased mental acuity translated into 30% increased IQ. I couldn't see why it shouldn't. If your mind works better under the influence of tobacco smoke, you're likely to solve puzzles quicker. And that's all an IQ test consists of.

Lewis Terman (1916) proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:
Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

Normal or average intelligence measures about 100 on the IQ scale. So if IQ is boosted 30%, an ordinary guy of average intelligence will find he has a very superior intelligence of 130 once he starts smoking. If he's a smarter than average guy with an IQ of 110, he becomes a genius with an IQ of over 140. And if he's a bit feeble-minded, with an IQ of 70, a 30% increase of intelligence will boost him to IQ of 90, which is almost normal.

Today I found myself wondering what happens to a society when, almost overnight, it gets 30% smarter. I figured there'd probably be a great flowering of science and philosophy and art and music and literature. But the gains wouldn't just be in outstanding scientific discoveries and inventions and works of art, but in the performance of everybody, right the way down to the butcher and baker and candlestick maker.

Well, we can just take a look at history. The New World (and tobacco) was discovered in 1492 by Columbus, sailing from Spain, and funded by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. This time corresponds to the period of the High Renaissance in Europe. In Spain, the Spanish Renaissance is dated from exactly 1492. Assuming that tobacco spread rapidly from Spain to the aristocracies of neighbouring countries, then since Leonardo da Vinci lived from 1452 to 1519, he could have smoked tobacco for the last 30 years of his life, while painting the Mona Lisa. Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) could have picked up the habit when he was about 25, and lit up every now and then while painting the Sistine Chapel. Nicholas Copernicus (1473 – 1543) could have lit his first pipe at age 30, while pondering the motion of the planets. The Reformation is kicked off by Martin Luther in 1517. What set him thinking? And whatever induced that larger-than-life king Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) to write poetry and music and theology? None of his predecessors did. Ah, he had a Spanish wife. By 1530, tobacco had become popular with the Spanish lower classes (which suggests that there was already a lot of it around).

It's not as if absolutely nothing was happening before 1500. But there does seem to be a veritable flood of artists and philosophers and scientists and engineers after that date. Francis Bacon was a smoker. Very likely William Shakespeare was too.

And it's not just that many of the key figures in the Renaissance could have smoked tobacco, but that many of the main players in the subsequent Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution most definitely were smokers. Isaac Newton was a smoker. Charles Darwin was a smoker. Isambard Brunel was a smoker. Johann S Bach was a smoker. Albert Einstein was a smoker. Pablo Picasso was a smoker.

The Renaissance and the Reformation and the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution were all intellectual revolutions. There's really nothing equivalent to them in the previous 1000 years or more. What could have made that happen? Climate change? In the 16th century Europe was entering the Little Ice Age. It's a bit difficult to think when you're freezing cold. Rising living standards? The Industrial Revolution didn't really get under way until about 1800. The arrival of tobacco, raising almost everyone's intellectual performance by 30%, offers an excellent explanation of this rolling series of intellectual revolutions. The timing is perfect.

Add to this that America was built on tobacco. The original colonies of Virginia grew and exported tobacco. Probably almost every single one of America's founding fathers were tobacco smokers. The US Constitution is wreathed in tobacco smoke. The most successful political experiment of the past 300 years was founded on tobacco.

This won't be the first time that a large claim has been made for a drug. Anyone who was familiar with the 1960s will remember the large claims that were made first about cannabis and later about LSD. "Feed Your Mind" was one of the mantras of the late 60s.

And maybe minds do need feeding, and humanity has long been starved of the nutrients that nourish thought, just as much as it has been starved of the nutrients that nourish physical vitality. Maybe what drives all drug experimentation is the search for the elixir not of immortality or eternal youth, but of genius. Tobacco has been one of the best.

If smoking tobacco substantially increases mental performance, then why would anyone want to prohibit tobacco? It probably just boils down to one simple thing: jealousy. Smokers have a 30% intelligence advantage over non-smokers. Not because they're inherently smarter, but because they're using performance-enhancing drugs, just like olympic athletes cheat by using steroids. It's not a level playing field. Banning smoking gives non-smokers an equal chance of winning prizes, gaining advancement, and getting the girl. If you can't speed up your own racing car, your only recourse is to demand changes in the rules to slow down the other guys' cars.

If we might want to know what a smoke-free world would be like, all we need do is wind back the clock to before 1492, when nobody smoked. Almost all intellectual inquiry is restricted to monks in the Roman Catholic Church, and if they're thinking about anything, it's most likely theology. It's an authoritarian intellectual world, where questioning almost anything is heresy. Sound familiar?

And in this world where more or less everyone is 30% less intelligent than in previous generations, there will be incompetence at all levels of society. Politicians will make stupid decisions, science will decay, philosophers and intellectuals will disappear, the arts will degenerate. Nothing will work properly. Most people will be feeble-minded. Again, sound familiar?

Ours is increasingly a world without vision and without imagination. It's a frightened world. It's a world in which people are frightened of their own shadows. Frightened of tobacco smoke. Frightened of carbon dioxide. Frightened of Terror. It's a world in which people readily accept the authority of doctors and scientists who are all too ready to exploit and dupe them. It's a world in which the Holy Father, il papa, the pope, is returning the nanny superstate is emerging, to regulate everything that anyone does, in the smallest details.

For a few centuries - the Tobacco Centuries - people were 30% smarter than they were in centuries before or after. For a few centuries science and reason triumphed over superstition and credulity, before it all came rolling back in a tidal wave of joss sticks and Vegan diets and global warming and windmills.
Tags:

  • 1

IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

It is always refreshing to read anti-smoking propaganda declaring smokers being of sub-average intelligence as well as socially incompetent; desperately seeking to control society's behaviour according to their own model.

Aren't we often surprised at decisions made without apparent long term thought?

Perhaps the anti-smoking fanatics concentrate too much on IQ (even though smokers appear to beat them there) and probably have never even heard of this thing EQ, which is the scale of emotional intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm

Just one example:

Do not a great deal of anti-smokers' comments show a distinct lack of
EMPATHY?

Q: - What about the elderly/terminally ill people being sent outside if they wish to smoke?

Anti-smoker answer: - if they are well enough to get to the pub/club/bingo hall, they are well enough to go outside!

What a self-serving abuse of the emotion empathy.

It looks like smokers do have the advantage of not only a nicotine enhanced IQ; perhaps nicotine enhances also our EQ - after all, we are not asking to smoke everywhere, however, we would like our smoking lounge in pubs back - and there is no excuse for not doing so.


Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

It's one of the things that I find absolutely jaw-droppingly stunning about the antismokers - all of them - that they seem unable to empathise with smokers. They don't seem to understand at all that they are destroying communities and networks of friendships with their bans.

I don't think that, at the top level, they actually hate smokers at all (unlike the rabble who follow them, who genuinely do hate smokers). I think that it's simply that, at the top level, they are focused solely on 'health' - where 'health' is some sort of physical measure (weight, strength, temperature, blood pressure, BMI, etc). They can and do measure these things with scales, thermometers, and so on. At the same time they have no measures of community, or friendship, or social cohesion. So they can't measure those things, and they discount them. They might say that 'friendship' doesn't really exist, because it has no mass or temperature or pressure, and is illusory. So they are not bothered if they destroy communities. They can't 'see' them.

I say this because I used to know one of them (and on one occasion met Sir Richard Peto (who wasn't a 'sir' back then) through her). She was never bothered by people smoking. She didn't hate smokers at all (because if she did she would have hated me, and she didn't). She was not in the least devoid of empathy. We even used to go on holiday together, the two of us. However, I never knew that she was working on 'smoking cessation', and had been doing so for almost as long as I'd known her. Because she never talked about it with me (I don't usually talk about the work I do with people who aren't co-workers either). She kept her smoking cessation work separate from her social life. One result of that, I now think, is that, not being a smoker herself, she never got any feedback from any of the smokers she knew. She certainly never got any from me. So she had (and probably still has) got no idea of the effects of smoking bans on smokers.

As I think of her now, I think of someone who belongs to a closed antismoking community, with its own mindset and its own language and its own measures of success and failure, but whose measures exclude things like friendship and community. I see them as having become profoundly disconnected from the real world, and calling for things (e.g. bans) which are deeply destructive of human well-being (which they are unable to measure accurately or even at all).

When I think of her, I don't think of someone without empathy, or without intelligence. I think of her as someone who has become deeply caught up in the mindset of the modern cult of antismoking. She probably regards herself as an authority on it all, when actually she is almost entirely oblivious to what she and her colleagues are doing.

We are, needless to say, no longer friends.

Frank

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

(Anonymous)
"the antismokers - all of them - that they seem unable to empathise with smokers"

Well they wouldn't would they, their brains are short of nicotine and they can't understand secondary effects or consequences of their obsession.

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

I think some of the top level antismokers do in fact hate smokers. I also think they hate a lot of things as part of their general character makeup.

I'm thinking of Stanton Glantz and John Banzhaff here. Banzhaff is the genuine article, a complete and utter asshole through and through. He's a major league control freak. I doubt if his own mother likes him.

Glantz of San Francisco, is a classic example of the what I call a Nazi-Hippie type. I met scores of them when I lived nearby in Santa Cruz from 1970-1983. Beneath the peace signs, the longhair and the granny glasses lurks a terminally grouchy individual who is constantly angry at the state of the world. They always manage to outwardly appear 'cool' but, beneath the thin veneer of their faux-friendly countenance (kind of like a Have a Nice day yellow smiley-face) they hate everyone and everything. They tend to take life way too seriously.

If there was some way to measure and quantify the Hateful EQ of a given geographical area, the Bay Area of California would rank right up there with Nazi Germany without a doubt.

C. Everett Koop is another one. The more I read about this jackass the more convinced I am that he's nothing but a ham-handed, power-drunk bully by nature. He's proud of engendering universal hatred for people that smoke. His defenders always cite his conscientious stand during the emergence of the AIDS crisis while forgetting that he has effectively pitted two-thirds of the world against the one-third of the world that like to smoke. That is some heavyweight hatred. He's ruined billions of people's lives and it suits him just fine.

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

(Anonymous)
Ooh, I like "EQ," Brigitte. Never heard of it before, but I like it just the same!

I’ve long said that what tobacco does is not so much make people more intelligent than they naturally are (because some people will always be brighter than others), but it sort of broadens them as a person – it broadens their mind, as Frank points out here, but it also broadens their capacity to, as you say, empathise with others, and to think outside of their own little limited existence. In short, it makes them nicer, kinder people to be around – as has been mentioned on many a comments board, by both smokers and non-smokers, in the wake of the ban.

Perhaps this explains why smokers have been such easy targets for the antis and why they have been so compliant in the face of the ban. Because, contrary to what the antis would have you believe, it isn’t just because of the law that smokers go outside to smoke. I know of no smokers at all who, pre-ban, would have dreamed of lighting up in a non-smoking area, or at a non-smoking table, and I know many, many smokers who, way before the ban was enacted, would voluntarily go outside to smoke if they were visiting the home of a non-smoker; whereas I know few non-smokers, even the most tolerant ones, who would think of voluntarily getting out an ashtray when a smoker visits and saying: “Feel free to smoke – I don’t mind it at all.” Smokers, it seems are aware that some people don’t like smoke and will take appropriate action to avoid upsetting them, even though they clearly aren't bothered by it themselves; non-smokers, on the other hand, seem to have absolutely no understanding at all of how unpleasant it is to be somewhere and unable to smoke at all if one is a smoker, even when they (the non-smokers) are actually pretty tolerant and don’t object to it at all.

Even my own partner, a lifetime non-smoker and a very smoker-friendly chap (he’s very much against the ban) can’t really see it and often just “forgets,” when making arrangements, that for me an event might be more of a trial than a pleasure. It just doesn’t occur to him. Whereas whenever I am organising something I always make sure that there will be some facility for the consumption of at least a moderate amount of alcohol (his most beloved vice!), even though I myself might not be bothered one way or the other. Love him as I do, I cite this as an example of the “smoker mentality” over the “non-smoker mentality.”

Perhaps the root of the matter, then, is that smoking makes people more human. For what qualities, in essence, can be more human than creativity, inventiveness, concern for strangers and a broad application of the awesome power of the human mind? Which, of course, would go a long way towards explaining why the anti-smokers are doing their level best to paint smokers as inhuman. There we go again, with that “getting their lies in first” tactic!

Oh, Frank, how I love your blog. Slowly, slowly, everything is starting to make some semblance of sense at last …..

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

Slowly, slowly, everything is starting to make some semblance of sense at last …..

Perhaps you could tell us all what it is?

Frank

Re: IQ and EQ Smokers/Anti-smokers

(Anonymous)
Brigitte,

The low Emotional quotient and lack of empathy is consistant with studies of the Insula, which turns sensory perceprions into feelings of like/dislike, love/hate, etc.

Naqvi et al(2007). found that a stroke in the Insula is highly related to abrupt smoking cessation. His "example" subjet descriobes a classic anti-smoker.

His follow up studies are focused on how the Insula of those who smoke can be changed mimick that of an insular stroke pt, ...in the human laboratory. Yes, if tou add enough "stress" to peoples lives, cardiovascular disease (and stroke) increases. The incidence of stroke _is_ increasing in the middle aged folks. SCARRY!!

This study and the Insula's influence on regulation of hypoxia led to my hypotheris.
This whole is worth looking into.

Jay R.


REFERENCES:
Naqvi NH, Rudrauf D, Damasio H, Bechara A.
Damage to the insula disrupts addiction to cigarette smoking.
Science. 2007 Jan 26;315(5811):531-4.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5811/531.short

A Strong Negative Attitude Against Smoking Is Associated with Insular Stroke
Science 2007 (Comment to Naqvi et al.)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5811/531.short/reply#sci_el_9771

Schrand JR.
Does insular stroke disrupt the self-medication effects of nicotine?
Med Hypotheses. 2010 Sep;75(3):302-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20350784



  • 1