Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Thought I'd show you guys this question from my psych test

Ms_Muffintops

Ms_Muffintops

Supernova
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Location
Drury Lane
So I am taking a psychology class this semester and my teacher is very obviously a right-winged republican Christian. Not that any of these are necessarily bad, but I feel like he is subtly pushing his views and opinions on us. Just yesterday he lectured us (and he said we were free to disagree with him) about how life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage is wrong.

He gives us take home tests and I'm working on mine now and there is this question...

Which statement is correct concerning marijuana?
a. There is evidence that marijuana is physically addictive.
b. There is evidence that marijuana is psychologically addictive.
c. There is evidence that marijuana causes cancer.
d. Marijuana usage can lead to psychological dependence.
Click to expand...

D is the changed answer. On the original I found online it says "There is no evidence that marijuana is psychologically or physically addictive." And his choice for D is basically the same as B...

I don't know. I just think it's a subtle way of misinforming us. Or perhaps he is misinformed. Either way it feels wrong. Obviously D is the less of the evil options as A-C are just plain wrong.

What do you guys think? I suppose you could argue addiction vs. dependence if there is a difference. So much could be brought up here.
 
Indeed; I don't really see much difference between addiction and dependence though. But perhaps one could argue from a more subjective viewpoint about how addiction is an overwhelming desire for something and dependence is one one absolutely needs something to function and survive.

For example, people can become addicted to food that they consume unnatural amounts of it, but the fact is we're dependent on it from the start. But when it comes to substances like marijuana and other party drugs, those meanings seem to take on similar identities. It really comes down to how the body and mind respond to the substance in question. And he's even wrong in his terminology: It's not 'physical addiction', it's 'physiological addiction'

But yeah, that seems like a subtle push for people to believe that marijuana's evil. Especially given the fact that this test had an answer altered from the original, based on what you're saying. And 'C'.....Just no.
 
As I have said before, psychology is basically another way of saying "common sense".
And this is coming from a guy who got a 5 in AP Psychology without any out-of-class studying.

There is a very, very quick way of going over the problem:
The first three answers use the word "is". The last uses "can".
"Is" states that something is bound to happen. "Can" states that it is capable of happening.
"Is" there any scientific evidence that marijuana is addictive? No.
"Can" someone like Ni want to smoke a blunt so badly he is willing to fail a test? Sure.

Hope that helps.
 
I'll agree to pretty low attempt at making his tests reflect his own beliefs. But, in the interest of fairness of information!

There is inconclusive evidence on either side of this argument about both dependency, and cancer for marijuana. Common difficulties inthe studies of marijuana users are as follows:
Many people who smoke marijuana actually mix it with tobacco, making it difficult, if not imporssible to determine the effects of the marijuana alone.
The THC levels that are in marijuana varies greatly, and has increased over time as the marijuana today is actually much stronger than it has been in the last few decades. Inconsistant materials make it difficult to draw consistant evidence.
The biggest barrier is recruitment. With it being illegal in many of the countries interested in performing this research, many people are reluctant to come forward, and those that do may falsify how much they actually do smoke.

As for the addiction issue, this one is also very up the air. While I don't believe that marijuana deserves the demonization that it so often gets in the media, I also don't believe it's quite as benign as others might claim. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Osychological dependancy is almost impossible to determine empirically, sine so many factors come into play that vary greatly from person to person. I do know one man who has a rather addictive personality, and is routinely in a tough place. He relies of his multiple doses of marijuana to make it through the day, often becoming very erratic, aggressive, and irritable if he goes more than 4-6 hours between doses. He doesn't go into shock, or harsh detox, but he's grown to feel comfortable in the feeling he gets from his smoking.

Now, this is only one piece of experience, which is a pretty small smapling, I admit. But with psychological dependancy relying on so many variables, I do believe that a similar set of circumstances would likely produce a similar result. That being said, I'm not about to go buy the next person I meet that's in a similar place a bg of weed and see what happens.

So in closing:
Is changing the test answer bullshit? Absolutely and completely. No good excuse exists for it.
Is weed a terrible gateway drug that will ultimately doom you to a life of addiction? No. Highly unlikely.
Is weed a perfectly harmless little way of relaxing? Also no. The trusth is somewhere between the two points. Like any substance, used in moderation, weed is reasonably safe. Many compare it to alcohol, and I don't see this as a bad comparison really.
 
wow, that's a really astute observation you made o .o
i don't think i would've noticed

but yes, that seems extremely manipulative. i feel like someone higher-up should know
i suppose since you're in college, though, you're not as impressionable as younger people =/ so, i don't know
 
Well it's legal here in Colorado.

Just don't get caught driving while HIGH.
They'll treat it like a dui.
Which is self-defeating in it's own right. Who speeds when stoned on just MJ?

Anywho I still can't have any because CDL's are federally regulated and Feds still says: " It's illegal, angry noises... period..."

Meh.
 
The Adventurer said:
wow, that's a really astute observation you made o .o
i don't think i would've noticed

but yes, that seems extremely manipulative. i feel like someone higher-up should know
i suppose since you're in college, though, you're not as impressionable as younger people =/ so, i don't know
Click to expand...

Plus there is tenure, which means unless they're a complete nutbag they can teach whatever and however they want.
 
Ms_Muffintops said:
The Adventurer said:
wow, that's a really astute observation you made o .o
i don't think i would've noticed

but yes, that seems extremely manipulative. i feel like someone higher-up should know
i suppose since you're in college, though, you're not as impressionable as younger people =/ so, i don't know
Click to expand...

Plus there is tenure, which means unless they're a complete nutbag they can teach whatever and however they want.
Click to expand...

true that. D= and any disciplinary action otherwise -- if it is possible -- would probably just make your life a living hell so long as you're in that class =/
it's still not right. but, i suppose it could be a lot worse?
*sigh*
 
Well, we're at a point where everyone with Internet access knows that pot is not only relatively safe, but has some medical benefits, too. But teachers aren't alliwed to say that, because public and private schools (and some colleges, I think) generally discourage such a contradiction to everything they... well, I'm not going to rant. But I'll leave it at this: teachers can't permit their kids to even consider seeing marijuana in a positive light.
 
I guess when you hear any opinion, the magic phrase is "consider the source." For example, a used car salesman might express different opinions about a car he is selling than a mechanic with no interest in making a sale.

The fact that your teacher has obvious right-wing Christian views would suggest that his opinions are colored by his particular cultural slant, and I would suggest any opinion he expresses be studied very carefully. Since people of his mind-set follow a particular set of assumptions I would check any statement he makes against external sources.

There is also the question of "fact" vs "opinion." "Abortion is bad," is an opinion, which of course cannot be definitively proven either way. "Marijuana is psychologically addictive" is a statement, which might be able to be proved or disproved by statistical research. My suggestion is that you be prepared to defend whatever answer you give with facts and figures. I'm sure there's been research on this subject somewhere, with results available on the net. Google is your friend :^)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom