3 ms·
The text does a decent job of not saying smoking weed causes psychosis: "Compared with non-cannabis users, the daily use of high-potency, skunk-like cannabis i
by njarboe 9y ago
The text does a decent job of not saying smoking weed causes psychosis:
"Compared with non-cannabis users, the daily use of high-potency, skunk-like cannabis is associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of someone developing psychosis."
But the photo caption below a picture of someone smoking weed explicitly states (not supported by a study; how could one possible do a double blind test on cannabis in the current regulatory environment) a causative effect:
"Smoking skunk every day increases your odds of developing a psychotic disorder fivefold"
- KyeRussell 9y agoGiven how carefully written that aspect of the actual article text was, I'm assuming that the photo + caption was added later on by someone else who was more interested in clickbait than differentiation between cause and correlation (or didn't understand the difference in the first place). Journalism is dead, rabble rabble.
- dx034 9y agoOr just not aware of the difference. Not everyone helping with layouts is evil and just wants clickbait. They're just not always experts on the field.
- jacobush 9y agoIndeed. Also keep in mind, that though someone might realize, on an abstract level, that ”correlation is not causation”, they might not be used to actively looking for that distinction in text. Everyday discussions tend to be more fluid and inexact.
- thinkloop 9y ago> skunk-like cannabis Why don't they just go with the "sticky icky"