Why I Changed My Mind On Weed - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/ <comment><USER3> I am a medical marijuana user. I have fibromyalgia (a catch all label for constant pain), and it helps some with neuropathic pain. My doctor is kept informed about how much I am using, and I have to get my card renewed each year. MJ works, but at best it dulls the pain, and also helps to make the pain less 'front and center' and instead kind of makes it more something that is in the background.

I was never a stoner, and did not use it until I was 38 years old. I am happy it exists, because I was being treated with Vicodin for pain and was on a schedule of 6 pills a day. Enough that liver damage and addiction started to be a concern. I am allergic to pills in the Percoset family (hives and skin lesions) and I consume about 5 joints a day worth of weed. I don't even get high anymore, but it does help with the pain. It is costing me about $100 per week, compared to the $3 per month the Vicodin cost on my medical insurance. I could buy a new car with the weed money, but couldn't buy a coffee at Starbucks with the Vicodin money.

I hope the government gets around to reclassifying the drug soon. In the current situation, Child Protective Services would take my kids away if I was to consume the drug in front of them. A reclassification would enable more research, more research would lead to easier ways to ingest it. I find food products make me stomach sick, vaporizing doesn't work as well as smoking, and smoking is unappealing and difficult to do with any discretion.

I am fortunate that I can afford it, and can fit it into my schedule (I own my business). Many people need something like MMJ and can neither afford it, nor can they keep their employment with it because of widespread drug testing. While the state I live in says that card holders can't be fired for holding a card, it is a state that has 'right-to-work' laws and you can fire someone for no specified reason at all. (source- I employ ten people).

<comment><USER4> Interesting that you don't get high any more. I wondered whether MMJ would fall into the category of "do not drive or operate machinery" whilst using.

<comment><USER3> I believe most states have rules that are about "driving under the influence" and the influence could be alcohol, drugs, illness, or basically anything that would alter your mental state. I have had days when the pain alone would make me fail a roadside sobriety test (slurred words, can't walk a straight line). I don't recommend consuming drugs or alcohol and driving, prescription or otherwise.

At work I avoid operating the forklift, milling machine, or anything else that could cause injury to me or my people. I still get a very slight buzz, but nothing at all like when I first started using it (think 5 or 10% of previous effects). I have had times when I consumed what I needed (four or five bowls) when friends were in the same room, and they have gotten high from just being there while I had no change. In general I consume in the very early morning and at night when I know I won't be leaving again before sleep. I avoid using during the day because most days I have to drive and work.

MMJ is certainly not a perfect solution, but it beats constant never ending pain (no drugs) or addiction and liver failure (opiates with acetaminophen) [http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html](http://www.drugs.com/vicodin.html) .

<comment><USER5> Once your tolerance has been built up to such high levels, taking a week off (in my experience) is all you need to get a "90% reset."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm glad that Gupta has made this public apology. It takes a lot of courage to make that statement especially for someone with great public influence.

I'm just curious as to why it took him this long. Medical marijuana has been prescribed in hospitals for some time with great benefit. I mean, just from a clinical standpoint, he should've seen the great upsides and limited downsides to using the drug. Patients, typically the elderly, with cachexia from cancer are often given marijuana to stimulate their appetite, and it works. Given its possible links with the development of Schizophrenia and the rest of its relatively mild side-effects, a quick and simple benefits/costs analysis should show that in many cases, its efficacy far outweighs the potential risks.

A _huge_ percentage of physicians today, as indicated in the article, would be supportive of a move to legalize it. And it has been this way for several years. I just do not understand why it took Gupta so many years, having to go to the ends of the earth to dig up research from various countries to come to that conclusion.

My suspicion is that his initial viewpoint was more rooted in irrational bias and ignorance than in scientific evidence proving the drug's inefficacy. You can tell that by his mentioning of his children and how he wouldn't let them try marijuana, which is both irrelevant to the issue and an ignorant emotionally-charged argument commonly used when the topic of legalization (for medical use) is brought up. It's effectively "but remember the children!" The same could've been said for legalization of opioids and a myriad of other medications that have much more severe side-effects. And that really saddens me, because I've got great respect for the guy. I'm glad he's on what I believe to be the right side, but as someone with great influence in this country, with such an accomplished background, I feel he could've arrived to this conclusion much earlier, with much less data, and pushed for its medical legalization when the conversation was happening.

All in all welcome aboard, Dr. Gupta. Please be a little more forward-thinking from here on out.

<comment><USER7> Being a bit pedantic here, I'd just like to point out that development of schizophrenia is _not_ a mild side effect. With higher THC% strains, we have no idea the extent of latent mental disorders we're stimulating.

<comment><USER8> As a person who had a roommate whose schizophrenia was likely induced by heavy marijuana use (along with his tripping on multiple bottles of Robitussin), the fact of the matter is that the harm done to this small percentage of people is vastly outweighed by the damage done to people who can't get access to it for their medical needs. And that's ignoring the huge harm caused by prosecuting recreational users due to an absurdly ineffective prohibition policy.

The higher % strains, by the way, are a direct result of prohibition. If a drug dealer is caught with an ounce of high grade that sells for 400, vs. an ounce of low grade that sells for 100, he gets the same penalty. Take a wild guess which one brings more reward for the risk. And this, my friend, is why you have higher THC %.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that there are two simultaneous arguments happening.

The first is whether cannabis should be legalized and available as a business opportunity. You'll find very few people here to disagree with about this; there's a practically universal belief that cannabis should be legalized.

The second is whether cannabis is benign. There is a valid discussion to be had about how safe cannabis is. Having it does not imply that anyone thinks cannabis should be outlawed. Trans-fats, tobacco, and sugar are also not benign, and few people jump to the conclusion that critics of those substances are pushing for their prohibition.

<comment><USER7> Very well stated, this is essentially what I'm getting at. I'm all for legalization/decriminalization, but there are serious issues with chronic marijuana use that need to be addressed.

<comment><USER9> Here's the question as far as I am concerned.. are the medical risks associated with chronic use of marijuana greater than, or less than other less than universally beneficial and completely legal substances (tobacco, alcohol, trans-fats, hfcs, etc)?

I'm not a pot head, and for that matter, I only have a drink a handful of times a year.. that said, I don't think that marijuana should be illegal for recreational use, let alone medical use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the biggest issues with marijuana in this country is the lack of research behind it. Here in Michigan where over 60% of the people voted for medical marijuana, they just outlawed medibles. Meaning no pot brownies for patients. Which makes no sense when applying medical marijuana.

Caregivers and patients are outraged because they feel like they know more than the judges or politician do, and I have to agree.

On another more general note about marijuana, I think most peoples perception of the drug is that out of a hollywood movie. In my own experience you can use marijuana to lose weight, as opposed to inducing the munchies, but generally people don't know that or expect it.

Medical marijuana is legal in more states than gay marriage and growing in all 50+ Canada and Mexico. I am so tired of the US lagging behind the rest of the world and not listening to the people.

Marijuana is safer than alcohol, and its time we treated it that way -quote from pulled commercial that was going to play of Nascar event..

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8Cz9woC2A)

Edit-- Additionally, here in Michigan we have real doctors that refuse to sign marijuana recommendation forms for fear of their contracts with hospitals and insurance agencies. Meanwhile we have doctors from states close and far recommending patients come to medical states to get marijuana. This leads to dingy doctors signing medical forms for patients they have little interaction with, which makes the law seem abused.

<comment><USER11> The US is not lagging behind. When it comes to marijuana liberalisation, it is definitely leading the way. With the exception of Netherlands, attitudes to marijuana is pretty strict in Europe. The US has the most pot smokers/capita by a long shot.

Also, Hollywood movies seem to portray it as some cool party drug, that hippies and pseudo-intellectuals use. The drug is present in most American Pie-style movies, many sitcoms and animated series like Family Guy.

Personally I believe marijuana going mainstream is an engineered phenomena. Hollywood is able to create perceptions and demands where none was before. Older generations weren't miserable all the time because they couldn't smoke pot. New generations found out about it by the marketing.

<comment><USER12> I don't necessarily disagree with your post but you should be careful with generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence. "The US has the most pot smokers/capita by a long shot" sounds a lot like some assumption you just made up based on your own personal experience. A study like marijuana users per capita is inherently difficult because people don't like admitting that they partake in illegal activity. The only statistic to go on for that study is how many people were arrested for marijuana crimes, which only shows how many people were caught breaking a law, not how many people use.

Also I think your marijuana/drug law knowledge is a little behind. There are a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere who are changing to more relaxed drug policies similar to the progress in the US (including Portugal who effectively decriminalized all drugs in 2001).

<comment><USER13> The "how many arrested" statistic is completely useless because the level to which marijuana possession results in arrest varies wildly between countries and even states or cities. Equally the frequency of searches, the criteria for selecting people to search all vary wildly.

Anecdotally, marijuana usage was _much_ more prevalent amongst students I knew when I lived in Canada than it is in the UK. My experience (admittedly while travelling through) in the US was similar to Canada. This drug-use map[1] corroborates that (US 14%, Canada 12%, UK ~7%), although I do agree that any survey about drug use will probably not see completely truthful answers.

[1]: [http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/ju...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/02/drug- use-map-world)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Better late than never I guess, but what changed his mind really? "I actually did more research and was shocked, _shocked_ by what I found!" or "I'm making a documentary and the tides of public opinion continue to shift, writing's on the wall, time to change my tune..."

Maybe (probably) I'm being overly cynical, but people like him have lent support and legitimacy to a machine that literally destroys people's lives for their involvement with a fairly innocuous plant. Oops!

<comment><AUTHOR> He wrote that he's "shocked, shocked" at what he found as a device to get more people to read the piece. I'm sure that editorial decision was commercial and not public-spirited, but still.

Yes, you are being overly cynical. My guess is that you agree with virtually everything in the article, and, instead of being pleased that someone has not only come around to your position in the most public fashion possible, but also _apologized for previously disagreeing with you_ , you manage to be unhappy about the prominence of the piece.

The impression you leave is that you'd be happier if he slunk off to hide somewhere like a petulant bridge troll. That might be more satisfying for you, but it's an outcome that serves the public poorly.

<comment><USER15> Being pleased about a new opinion and being cynical about its motivations are not mutually exclusive.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.

<comment><USER16> Correlation does not prove causation.

<comment><USER17> Prove? No. Suggest? Absolutely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> After I saw Gupta in Japan talking about protection against gamma radiation ([http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative- while-t...](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative-while- talking.html)) I stopped listening to him at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> He's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiological safety; therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?

That seems like a surprisingly dumb argument for you, John, but maybe I just misunderstood it.

At any rate, the importance of the piece isn't Gupta's authority on the subject. After all, vis a vis cannabis, Gupta is best known for his former opposition to legalization, which is a self-evidently dumb position for him to have taken.

The importance of the piece is that Gupta was Obama's first nominee for Surgeon General, and the best known medical reporter in the country; he's doing a very public about-face on the issue just as the US appears to be reaching a tipping point on legalization.

Also: it's just a good piece, or at least an atypically good one for CNN. That's why I posted it.

<comment><USER18> _He 's a practicing neurosurgeon with published research, but, like half of HN, doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to radiologic safety; therefore, his opinions on pharmacology are irrelevant to you?_

I guess. I guess you are right. I probably should listen to his opinion about this. I just have a hard time with media personalities who are willing to spout crap when they don't know what they are talking about instead of simply shutting up.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not saying it's a good thing the guy was CNN's subject matter expert on camera for radiation safety, just that he's got a legit claim to subject matter expertise regarding pharmacology. CNN is still awful.

<comment><USER19> What are his pharmacology credentials?

Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i looked at the facts before i really didn't but this time i did!". Makes me take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt.

Does seem clear indication that the american mainstream is getting acceptance for the idea of medical ganja though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going to go with his license to prescribe drugs and his neurosurgery practice on that one.

<comment><USER20> The license to prescribe drugs is largely useless as an indicator of pharmacological expertise. We let _chiropractors_ prescribe drugs in this country (Edit: I was mistaken; we don't). The government has no idea what it's doing in its process for deciding who gets that power. I have encountered plenty of doctors who clearly had no idea what they were doing when it came to pharmacology, to the point of prescribing drugs together with dangerous interactions and not informing the patient of the risk.

As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella of "medicine"?

Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems incredibly shaky here.

<comment><USER21> _We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country._

What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors that have received "advance practice" training.

In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to heal itself.

Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic)

<comment><USER20> Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.

<comment><USER21> _Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that 's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands._

I have to take issue again with what you have said.

You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States)

 _Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and D.O. is virtually indistinguishable._

To quote the American Medical Association:

[http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education- careers/becoming-...](http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education- careers/becoming-physician/frequently-asked-questions.page)

 _Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO?_

 _A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a physician._

Please do more research before you continue to spread additional misinformation. Thank you.

<comment><USER20> >You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science)

No, osteopathy is _not_ completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is absolute pseudoscience. Please do _your_ research.

Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.

<comment><USER21> If you are outside the U.S. then I understand your belief that osteopathy is quackery because outside the U.S., it is. Inside the U.S. though a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.

You would know this if you bothered to read either of the citations I provided. You and the person downvoting me apparently disagree with the American Medical Association that says a D.O. is equivalent to an M.D.

For failing to read my citations before you replied to them and for providing no citations of your own other than "every experience I have had with a DO." you are currently in the category of Ignorant Fool. If you would like to provide a citation or two for what you say and perhaps if you actually respond to my citations instead of around them I might be able to upgrade you to Misguided Goof.

EDIT: Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are just as suspicious of medical doctors. I have no further desire to discuss this with you.

<comment><USER20> > Never mind, I see in another comment below you are saying that you are just > as suspicious of medical doctors.

You accuse me of not reading your citations (I did), did not actually read my response to your comment, and then somehow you got _that_ out of my comment below?

I said that MDs don't have _immunity_. If I find out that my doctor believes in pseudo-medicine, I will find a new doctor. If you think that's unreasonable, then I guess this "no further desire to discuss" feeling you mentioned is mutual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have no medical issues that marijuana could treat, but I still want to use it for recreational purposes without being persecuted for breaking the law. I am a functional member of society. I have a job and a college degree, and I love to get stoned as shit and play video games. The fact that medical research is increasingly supporting decriminalization is great; however, I am wary of the movement to pigeonhole the substance into the realm of prescription drugs while stopping short of full-scale legalization. I believe that society has more or less struck the right balance between structure and self-regulation on the issue of alcohol consumption, and I see no reason why marijuana cannot exist similarly - especially given that it is a considerably less harmful substance. Policy should be concerned with preventing kids from smoking it and preventing people from driving under the influence, but aside from that I think the people can figure it out for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed."

Good luck with that.

<comment><USER16> Show them the research, summarize it in plain language if needed, then let them make their own choice. Really, you can't do much more than that.

I wonder if one could synthesize cards that change color when exposed to MJ fumes? I bet you could sell those like crazy.

<comment><USER4> I should imagine it's a bit like cigarettes. I have one friend that was stupid enough to start smoking in his 20's, but he's an outlier. I'd imagine if you did without fags or dope until your mid-20's, you'd be unlikely to bother starting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > "We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the > United States, and I apologize for my own role in that."

It takes a large soul to admit, in public, that you've been wrong about something that has to do with your profession.

And he's right, Americans have been misled about hemp and its products:

[http://cannabis.neocities.org/](http://cannabis.neocities.org/)

<comment><USER24> As an aside, I love how neocities has emerged as simple, anonymous hosting.

<comment><USER23> I love neocities. Kyle is my new favorite geek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> the headline should read "over-credulous member of establishment is finally swayed by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, although he has to travel to the ends of the earth to be convinced"

<comment><AUTHOR> Or, "it's not enough that he agrees with me, agrees publicly with me, and apologized for disagreeing with me; the manner in which he arrived at his agreement with me is offensive, so let's make that a topic of conversation."

<comment><USER26> I love this argument. It needs to become a reflexive and memetic response whenever anyone places someone in a damned-if-you-do situation for improving their position.

<comment><USER27> He's an extremely visible character expressing medical opinions on a regular basis to a large portion of the US population, shouldn't he have already done his research instead of being a tool? Does the past no longer exist, no such thing as "damned _because he did_?"

<comment><USER26> Gupta's defense is the sort of defense that will reach people like my mother convincing them that marijuana is not evil and has real medical uses. That outcome is a good thing and I do not wish any harm to his reputation now because it will be against my interest and I'm hoping/assuming having "done the research" this time will give persons like you ammo for pushing him to defend his position in the future.

I don't think the past goes away but generally I'd rather not condition people to not admit mistakes. And here I'd rather win now than be right now. Then maybe be right in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Honest question: How many drug companies' bottom lines would be affected if marijuana was legalized right now?

Reminds me of the quote: If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

<comment><USER29> The problem with drug and tobacco companies is that marijuana is a garden weed. Anyone can grow it (if it becomes legal). Or rather, no large investment to start a weed farm.

Tobacco and drug manufacturing plants require a significant larger investment. So the lobby for anti-marijuana is strong and controlled by rich people.

<comment><USER30> Eh, I dunno. Brand names are powerful. Standardization is powerful. If marijuana were legal I could see there being a lot of money in being the McDonald's of pot. Low price, universal availability, and lots of advertising can lift a mediocre product quite high.

<comment><USER31> The thing is, we are not talking about "brands" but "strains". You could get seeds for the best marijuana strain that is out there and grow it yourself. No need for "brands".

<comment><USER32> You can, but you can also make the value calculations in your head and decide that instead of learning how to properly cultivate it, keeping bad plants out, and the time/money consumed in a quality growing op, you'd rather just throw a bit of cash at someone else and use all that time for other things.

There are only so many hours in a day, and outsourcing those hours for a little money is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how a real industry will pop up around this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a surprisingly thoughtful article for CNN.

<comment><USER33> I too am surprised to see such an article on CNN.

The one thing it doesn't touch on is the cost we have incurred as a nation by making it illegal. We have seen this before with prohibition, it didn't stop people from drinking it just made better criminals. Once we legalize it we can stop spending money fighting it and start taxing it!

Of course the funny thing will be watching all the farmers in Illinois plow down their corn fields to crow weed! Yes I am aware of what it takes to grown corn in terms of resources, time, and cost and at the current market rate for weed those fields would be plowed under in record time!

<comment><USER34> It's unlikely that the end of prohibition would have a large impact on agriculture; growing weed usually requires an indoor or greenhouse environment to prevent pollination, it doesn't really lend itself to large-scale production, and the amount that people smoke is minuscule compared to tobacco/cigarettes. Of course, tobacco companies could roll out some industrial processing machines and drive the price of production down near to zero, but as long as the government uses taxes to keep the price high, people will demand the kind of quality that requires more of a greenhouse type of a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > _" I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young, > developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than > adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years > leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible > heightened risk of developing psychosis."_

The same is actually true of alcohol. Unfortunately, the discussion has become so black and white (legalization vs. prohibition) that no one is even pausing to consider what is actually optimal.

I wish I could get this message through clearly: the crowd on Reddit could benefit from learning the actual risks. Yes, I am in favor of legalization or decriminalization. No, young people should not use pot or alcohol often.

It's hard not to scream at kids as I pass them in a part of the city where they - some of them not even old enough to drive - are burning away up to 10 IQ points. Perhaps if their teachers and parents taught them the real risks rather than fear-mongering nonsense, we would see fewer kids throwing away precious intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a fine article, as are the other front page stories on e-cigarettes in New York and cycling in the Netherlands. It's submitted by one of HN's most respected participants from a major US media source. While obviously "of interest to Hackers", it's far from exclusively so. It's also currently the top story on Reddit. I like the discussion of this topic better here than Reddit, but there are some good points on Reddit as well: [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jy7xa/dr_sanjay_g...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jy7xa/dr_sanjay_gupta_explains_why_he_changed_mind_on/)

Thomas: how does this article accord with your comments here? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6158093)

As this is also a contentious legal, social, and political issue, I worry that the currently 'better' level of discourse will be hard to maintain.

<comment><USER37> I too would ask - "et tu, tptacek?"

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought it was a particularly good article that contained a thoughtful examination of an issue that was careful to present both sides, from a reported source. But I wouldn't have gotten mad had it been flagged off the site, either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I dont smoke but I drink. I think alcohol is a more dangerous drug in terms of causing addiction and inciting violence. When was the last brawl you saw started when weed was the agitator? Nicotine in cigarettes are far more addictive than thc.

</comment><comment><USER39> I saw a short news report (over a decade ago) about a Swiss heroin addict who daily attended a clinic to be given heroin (not methadone) for free (the cost of legally available heroin would be minimal).

She was able to hold down a job, pay rent and had no need to beg or commit crime to fund the habit.

She also could afford to eat properly and was no longer at risk of acquiring disease through contaminated drugs, dirty needles or prostitution.

Also methadone is an absolute destroyer of teeth not least because of the slowness to provide a sugar free variety. It's also highly addictive in its own right I believe.

<comment><USER40> I think a lot of problems in the world can come down to whether you try to force people to act in an ideal fashion, or whether you try to deal with people as they are. Drug policy certainly qualifies, anyway.

From the latter perspective, your heroin addict is a massive success story. She's contributing to society instead of being a burden, and the cost is low.

From the former perspective, this is a terrible story. You're supporting drug addiction!

The former perspective rarely works, but it's extremely common, on subjects ranging from drugs to crime to tax policy to education. It is IMO a cop-out, where you simply rely on vague principles rather than actually applying thought and study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think people are forgetting his target audience, which is probably older. I doubt many young people watch CNN. Even the title "Why I Changed My Mind On Weed" sounds like it was written for the Readers Digest, which I used to read as a kid because my grandmother would give me her copies.

<comment><USER27> What does his audience have to do with him being unprincipled and self- promoting?

<comment><USER41> I think being borderline unprincipled and very self-promoting comes with the territory of being a TV personality, so if we factor that out, he's actually doing marijuana advocates a huge favor by speaking to the older generation of voters who have endured decades of propaganda against marijuana and who now, by listening to the most credible TV doctor in America, might vote to legalize.

<comment><USER27> "Sure, he's a tool...but now he's _our_ tool."

<comment><USER41> has Gupta let you down some how? You sound bitter. I'm not that much interested in him or the issue. He's getting on the marijauna train or to quote some Dylan: The times, they are a changin'... You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows... Gotta serve somebody ;-)

<comment><USER27> You're damn right I'm bitter. Did you know there are actual people languishing in _actual prison_ due to the incurious mindset he supported for _years_? You're inhuman if you don't see a problem with that without speculating that I'm affected personally by this jackass.

On the contrary, I stay the hell away from people like him, and he has a lot more to answer for than is satisfied by his upper-crust PR-driven atonement assigned to him by the church of TV for the purpose of lining his wallet. Same goes for Obama and AG Eric Holder.

How's this for Dylan?

        Let me ask you one question
        Is your money that good?
        Will it buy you forgiveness
        Do you think that it could?
        I think you will find
        When your death takes its toll
        All the money you made
        Will never buy back your soul.

<comment><USER41> Now I understand your point of view, which I share. Much of this nation's drug war is an outrageous assault on civil liberties, from "we'll drop the charges if you forfeit assets" to swat teams breaking down the wrong door and shooting the family dog. People are still in prison for convictions long ago on outdated marijuana laws. Gupta is not hugely guilty here, but "choom gang" Obama and Holder are for continuing this madness, and now we're finding out the NSA data is being shared with local law enforcement.[1]

[1] [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a7_1375808882)

<comment><USER27> NSA data is also being shared with the IRS:

[http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/](http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs- snowden-216/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> [I'm not talking about most parts of the US, where weed is harder to obtain; I'm talking about most poor countries, where it is readily available]

I've seen many of my friends waste years of their college lives running around like stoned hippies, overeating junk food, and watching absolute trash with loud sounds and bright colors. To make things worse, it's considered a great "social activity", much like going to a bar to get sloshed with friends. Only weed is _much_ easier to get hooked onto, because it's much cheaper than alcohol, and you don't need much more than rolling paper (as opposed to refrigerator, soft drinks etc).

That said, many of them have had very eye-opening experiences where they learn a lot more about the world and themselves. They have formed strong social bonds on the basis of meaningful experiences, and have learnt moderation. They've also found it to be an extremely good analgesic and laxative. Ofcourse, there are sections of society that need it more than anything: chemotherapy patients take it for increased appetite, and people with chronic headaches take it to reduce occurrences (although LSD has been shown to work with an even more extreme form: cluster headaches).

Every substance in the world has a potential for abuse: there are plenty of "sugar junkies" who will live horrible lives and die a painful death, for instance. All in all, the issue is that of education: we need to legalize all these substances, and objectively explain how people can practice moderation. In general, enforcing hard-abstinence is a very poor solution; only repressive regimes should practice them.

<comment><USER40> Weed is easier to get hooked onto than alcohol? Do you mean in some hypothetical universe where weed is legal and widely available? Because that's definitely not the case right now.

<comment><USER43> I'm from the same place as the artagnon. Anti-weed laws are almost never enforced, and weed is incredibly cheap (you'll get enough weed to get 10 people stoned out of their minds for the price of a bottle of beer). And the ease of storage means you can easily maintain a huge stash.

<comment><USER17> Where is this wonderful place?

<comment><USER42> Any Indian village.

Come over sometime ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It's encouraging to see public opinion and the medical community evolve on the issue of medical marijuana. However, there still remains an ambiguous interpretation to the way the substance is treated between State and Federal governments. For example, in my home state of Oregon the laws on medical marijuana possession are quite liberal, yet the consequences at the Federal level make progress on the issue nearly void. Furthermore the consequences at the state level in Oregon for illegal possession of marijuana remain quite harsh [1].

My biggest concern is that people who otherwise wouldn't be criminal are becoming lifelong criminals by getting locked up for a relatively harmless substance. From a financial standpoint, our government needs to tax the substance so we aren't treating a large portion of the economy differently than any other industry.

[1] [http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon- marijua...](http://www.robertcrowlaw.com/blog/drug-crimes/oregon-marijuana- possession-laws/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool. Can we have a dispassionate review of Performance Enhancing Drugs now? I'd be interested to see how harmful they are compared to alcohol, tobacco, MJ etc.

</comment><comment><USER45> I found it interesting they did not comment on the means of using weed. Smoking it cannot be much better for you than smoking cigarettes.

Even after the Feds remove it from the list there will be regulation governing its sale. You can grow tobacco all you want; most people don't because prep is much harder than marijuana; but run afoul of a few laws should you try to sell it.

It would certainly reduce the jailed population of this country and possibly even reduce the usage of harder drugs, after all if there was a legal outlet most people take the easy route

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched, domestic violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.

In many major metro areas, you're more likely to be ticketed for cannabis than arrested.

I haven't taken the time to come up with a conclusive answer for myself on the extent to which cannabis criminalization imprisons people in the US; maybe it's as bad as people think it is. I just think it's worth doing some research on.

<comment><USER46> > It's an article of faith that cannabis is a major contributor to US > incarceration, but I think that's a belief worth questioning. I looked into > this briefly for a thread a year ago and in the states I researched, > domestic violence was far and away the leading cause of incarceration.

Its been a while since I saw figures, but last I did domestic violence was at the top of the reasons people were sentenced to incarceration (that is, if you did a ticker at the door, it would be the most common reason) but narcotics were the most common reason people were incarcerated (that is, if you did a count _of the currently incarcerated population_ , drugs would be the most common reason.)

The difference, of course, is length of sentence.

I don't think marijuana is all that high a share of those incarcerated for drugs, but if you are using the prominence of the reason people _get_ incarcerated rather than the prominence of the reason people _are_ incarcerated as your standard, you aren't looking at the right issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's a good point that I hadn't considered when I was looking at the stats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I really can't understand it when people claim to be addicted to weed. From what I hear, it's not chemically addictive, so can it really be claimed so if the addiction is placebic?

<comment><USER48> Part of that is a kind of devil's bargain where "offenders" are put into a treatment program that's doomed to be quack medicine for most of the participants who have no addiction. Better than jail I suppose.

<comment><USER47> So if they say that they are addicted to weed, they skip jail and instead go to rehab? Makes you wonder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I know this is a classic libertarian argument, and I hope you will forgive me that, but this whole thing is just silly. Medical considerations around marijuana are at best tertiary considerations. Far more important are 1) personal freedoms and the elimination of the standard of a victimless crime and 2) the incredibly damaging effects of the War on Drugs. Deal with these two and it is obvious that marijuana should be legalized. Who cares about the medical benefits.

<comment><USER50> Exactly right. Treat it like lettuce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Starkly absent from the discussion of state-legal pot is the relevance of the US Supreme Court verdict in _Raich_. That case concluded that regardless of state legality and medical prescription & supervision, the federal government is still justified in executing armed raids on citizen possession of federally-declared contraband - even if the contraband in question never moved inter-state (by any stretch of the imagination), such possession could be regulated (including confiscation) on grounds that _intra_ -state production & possession _reduced_ demand in _illegal inter_ -state commerce therein (as it _affected_ inter-state commerce). [No, I'm not kidding. The ruling is, in fact, that deranged.]

I suspect the DEA will sit back for a while on the subject of state legalization of pot, but at some point they're going to return to exercising intense control over the subject. This will not end well for many.

</comment><comment><USER52> As someone who does have schizophrenia and did smoke weed heavily (once a day, an eighth a week), I support its legalization with the caveat that people should be screened for its use and people with likely predisposition for schizophrenia should avoid it, and if Big Pharma (which I hate) wants to develop a version which lowers the likelihood of developing schizophrenia (which I do not believe is likely), I'm all for it. I would not say marijuana use caused schizophrenia in my case, there's a possibility that I would've developed schizophrenia later in life when I had a career, and it might've been worse for me, or might have been better.

I'd also like to add that stimulants, alcohol, and psychedelics are some other classes of drugs to avoid, if you feel you are predisposed to schizophrenia.

</comment><comment><USER53> I am wondering why British employers are testing employees for drugs usage.

Is this justified? Are cannabies, etc. really affecting badly people? If yes, then it makes sense for the employer to spend its money on tests. If no, it means that employers in UK are victims of some kind of paranoia against cannabies.

<comment><USER54> Which UK companies are carrying out drug tests on their employees? I've never experienced that first-hand, nor heard of it happening second- or even third- hand. It is _definitely_ not widespread practice, and is probably a statistical insignificance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of "medical marijuana" is actually used for the treatment of medical conditions? The de facto medical marijuana regime in California seems to be that anyone who wants marijuana goes to a doctor, says they're anxious or have trouble sleeping, and gets a card. I'm sure some people with legitimate medical problems get relief from using marijuana, but it seems to be a distinct minority.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Recreational users having a steady supply has no real social cost, and sick people getting the care they need has real benefit. But as long as we're going to be talking about medical marijuana in the context of science, it seems like we should compile some kind of statistics on this.

<comment><USER56> What benefit is there to compiling statistics to say that x% of patients have legitimate medical reasons, and y% don't? Trying to exert tight control on this issue has achieved nothing but disaster and failure, at great expense.

There are legitimate medical uses of alcohol, too. A great many people self- medicate, but it does provide them relief.

Investigating the medical science of the drug is important, yes. But perhaps investigation of the socio/psychological reasons is a red herring.

</comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands This is a great article, but how can you mitigate the abuse of the system by people who just want to smoke weed and complain of headaches or glaucoma?

I'm all for easing the pain of people who have real pain issues, but it's abundantly clear people are abusing the system.

<comment><USER57> Even if what you are saying is correct, what exactly is the harm in that?

There is obvious harm in preventing people from having access to a drug which mitigates their symptoms. There is obvious harm when you imprison someone for a drug related crime. There is obvious harm when you prevent a business from legally existing and profiting from the sale of the substance.

Where is the obvious harm when a user recreationally uses a substance, whether they got it under the false pretext of migraines, or not?

<comment><USER58> This is a reasonable question if you think of medical marijuana like most prescription drugs: primarily serving medicinal users, where some recreational users might get it by posing as medicinal users.

But this is not the case, at least not in California. Medicinal marijuana primarily serves recreational users. Medical users get it by posing as recreational users.

By that, I mean that you don't get a prescription for MMJ by going to your normal doctor. You go to the doctor advertised in that shady free newspaper by the bus stop, in the classified section, just past the escorts. That doctor almost certainly "specializes" in medical marijuana, which means that he doesn't actually practice medicine, or do any real evaluation of patients. He just writes prescriptions all day, $70 a pop. Nice gig if you can get it.

(A Colorado doctor landed in trouble for prescribing MMJ to a pregnant woman. He didn't even bother to take her basic medical history.)

This article shares one couple's experiences, with one sick person attempting to go through Kaiser, and one healthy person going through "Dr. Herb Smoker" (the actual name on the nametag): [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california- medic...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-medical- marijuana-pot-card)

An excerpt:

 _...medical pot is readily available to recreational users while it remains inaccessible for many truly sick people who might benefit from it. My wife has no plans to visit Price-Less Evaluations, and I suspect that many people like her wouldn 't consult the likes of Dr. Herb Smoker._

So there's your harm. The medical marijuana industry is targeted towards recreational users, in every way - from the decor in the dispensaries, to selling strains bred for getting high instead of getting healthy. Medicinal users are an afterthought.

<comment><USER57> I don't see how you've demonstrated any harm whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The interesting part of this article for me is the illumination of the weakness of Science as it's practiced and commissioned by the government today.

For political reasons, the government decided that marijuana was bad - <USER2> almost all of the approved research went into confirming that decision. If you'd naively look at the number of papers or scientists who've published the opinion that marijuana is "bad", the evidence would appear overwhelmingly confirmative.

</comment><comment><USER60> Fuck Sanjay Gupta. There is no debate to be had. It is not up for discussion. I don't have to justify what I do to my body to fucks like this guy or anyone else.

</comment><comment><USER61> Marijuana doesn't hurt you. I smoke it on occasion and I _don 't_ use it for medical reasons. Here's why:

It allows me to land my spaceship. I see where I'm getting things right in life and where I'm getting them wrong. In essence, it's a great tool for gaining perspective on a myriad of things. It's not something to abuse, but rather, to enjoy.

It's time to let people make their own decision about it. They're fully capable.

</comment><comment><USER62> The discussion needs more balanced voices like this. There are a ton of voices already overhyping the harmlessness.

Besides the damage to developing brains, there are more immediate effects on the mind, which are less predictable than alcohol.

Make no mistake: The "learning process" of a society that legalizes weed will involve deaths.

</comment><comment><USER63> If MJ is so useful medically, wouldn't it be healthier (and easier to control dosage) to injest it, rather than expose your lungs to all that smoke? Hot smoke can't be good for your airways.

And eventually, can't the active substances be put into pill form?

</comment><comment><USER64> I had no idea the startup community was so interested in the subject of marijuana. Well, I guess it's just about as interesting as reading a daily blog about somebody's impressions of the Go programming language.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is Hacker News the new reddit now? Should I start posting graphic memes?

</comment><comment><USER66> Have you ever changed your mind...ON WEED?!

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkA9rz-1YoA)

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm quite fascinated by the fact this is on the first page so quickly.

It's evident what all of you get up to in your free time :)

<comment><USER68> I swear I thought Weed was the name of a startup, and the guy was the name of a tech guru lol, thats why I skipped the article first time it was on first page. If I knew , i would have clicked it the first time hehe

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I love the ambiguity in the headline.

</comment><comment><USER70> Isn't any effect that marijuana has on patients going to be confounded with the placebo effect? Not that I disagree with what is being said, I still have my doubts about the actual medical usage of marijuana, and the studies that have been done on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> 300 seizures a month -> 3 seizures a month is unlikely to be a placebo affect, but plural of anecdotes and all that, sure.

For pain management and quality of life, we probably don't need to worry about the placebo effect too much; instead, we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates.

<comment><USER71> "we should just measure whether cannabis gets people off opiates."

This is something that could be major. My wife was in the hospital off and on this summer with stomach pains. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong (ran all of the tests, put her on liquid diet and the pain continued) so her doctor put her on OxyContin until the HMO approved a referral to a research university. The insurance declined the referral stating they wanted a second opinion, so my wife went to get one and the doctor wanted her to get off all of the medications. She did and almost killed herself the day after; the withdrawal from the OxyContin was terrible. If there was a way to manager her pain without constantly worrying about her becoming addicted or worrying that when she stops the med she will end up doing something drastic, it would be amazing!

<comment><USER72> I had back surgery following a few months of severe debilitating nerve pain. The surgery fixed the pain, but I was hooked on prescribed opiate painkillers. I quit the pills cold turkey rather than tapering, because tapering just prolongs the horrible withdrawals... less severe, but longer lasting, and more chances you'll just say F-it and not really taper but stay hooked. I used MJ edibles to zonk myself out silly during the 7 days of the withdrawals so that they would be more tolerable, and that REALLY REALLY helped, and I succeeded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I am a marijuana user with no medical condition. This is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER74> I've already said: stay away from my kids.

</comment><comment><USER75> Better late than never?

</comment><comment><USER76> Man, I didn't even know who Dr. Gupta was but I fucking love this guy after what his article did to the public.

</comment><comment><USER77> Just a hype for his movie.

This all reminds me of how some famous supposed atheists convert to a religion X and then write books about it selling millions of copies.

Same shit. You're being manipulated.

We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK. Any idiot with internet access knew that for the last 15 years.

<comment><USER78> >We don't need a mediocre surgeon to tell us weed is OK.

We don't. The US government does. Who do you think they listen to more: the people or the rich and famous? I've certainly never been asked into Congress to testify for anything.</comment></comment>


Want Better Pay? Learn to Sit in Front of a Computer - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2017/11/16/want-better-pay-learn-to-sit-in-front-of-a-computer/ <comment><USER3> Want Better Pay? Stand next to a person having a heart attack with a scalpel in your hand. Our research shows that these persons ("surgeons" in the vernacular) make many hundreds of thousands of dollars each year!

<comment><USER4> radiologists make good money without blood and knife.. well at least in the u.s. :)

<comment><USER5> Until their skills are outsourced to imaging clinics abroad (maybe you mean interventional radiology, dunno)…

<comment><USER6> Turns out there aren't all that many radiologists outside the US the are US qualified. And to release the results in the US, it has to come from a US qualified pathologist.

<comment><USER7> Deep learning tho

haha literally the next page: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15709199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15709199)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I saw this and I'm like "oh shit this is going to tell me to fix my posture". Thank god it didn't

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems like if you want startup ideas, it would be good to look at these "low screen time" jobs and figure out how computers could make workers more productive, e.g. automated lawn mowers for gardeners.

<comment><USER10> > and figure out how computers could make workers more productive

Meh. Why half ass it? Figure out how computers could make workers obsolete. Cause someone else will/is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links (...)

I'm surprised that wsj.com spam is doing so well on HN.

<comment><USER12> One of the moderators said that news organizations like wsj and nytimes were "standard" on HN. So they get special treatment - even when the articles are behind paywalls or post clickbait nonsense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Want better pay? Kill the intelligent robots or kill our current forms of capitalism.

<comment><USER14> USSR crash survivor here. Believe me, there are things worse than the current form of capitalism.

Besides, the trouble isn't about capitalism per se, our economy is simply in another stagnant stretch, where the corporations with formalized models and piles of cash perform better than lean and smart startups. As soon as another disruptive tech appears on the horizon, the history will repeat itself - <USER2> dinosaurs will be too slow to follow and new Microsoft and Apple will arise.</comment></comment>


Paly student tells of school stress - <AUTHOR> http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/03/26/guest-opinion-on-school-stress-students-are-gasping-for-air <comment><USER2> I went to Homestead High School (and have friends that went to Gunn/Paly) and the experiences I've witnessed have been similar.

One of my friends has parents that worked at Adobe. During his junior year, he was taking AP Calculus BC, AP Physics C E&M, AP Physics C Mechanics and AP Computer Science. He got straight A's both semesters, and got a 5 on all of the AP tests. I went over to his house during the summer and found that there was a huge hole on the bottom of the door in his room. He told me it was because his mom was so angry at him for something school related (something trivial like getting _only_ a 2100 on the SAT) that she kicked the door in.

Another one of my friends' dad works at Intel. My friend ended up getting accepted into UC Davis (but rejected from UCLA/Berkeley/MIT), and, while I was in the room, his dad told him that UC Davis is for failures.

This problem has little to do with the schools themselves. It has to do with the parents, and the reason why people come to live here in the Silicon Valley. People don't move here to live a great life, settle down and have kids. They come here to advance their career, and ultimately, to make money. Here in the valley, if you don't have marketable skills, you are trash. And the kids who grow up here know that all too well.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, the parents are outliers, and rose above their peers. Would you expect them to be happy if their children were mediocre? After all, what are genes for?

<comment><USER4> _Would you expect them to be happy if their children were mediocre? After all, what are genes for?_

I hope you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, my answer is "yes, I would expect them to be happy if their child is mediocre." It is my hope to not have to explain why.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Education in Asia, especially the main cities in the developed nations (Shanghai, Singapore, Seoul etc. ) is pretty much exactly the same. There's many purposes to an education, manifest and overt ones. For example, keeping youths neatly congregated and managed in singular locations, socialisation into specific social archetypes of value etc. We may say that an education is about Finding Your Passion and Being An Educated Person or to Engage Civil Society. But that's pretty much just what we're saying. Tax dollars are the votes at hand, and capitalist society really doesn't value An Education over a populace well-educated to obtain economically-productive jobs that produce tangible wealth.

We want to reverse this trend (overly competitive schooling systems) as much as we want to value philosophers and humanities scholars and artists. Enough to say it, but not quite enough to pour copious amounts of money into it. As students we're told to shoot for the sky. Study harder. Get straighter As. That's best for (capitalist) society. Every human resource neatly and fully expended. Maybe things will change when the data illustrates how people who like their jobs or areas of study are more productive. But that's a big if. The status quo seems easier.

<comment><USER6> The irony is that it's actually appallingly bad for capitalist society.

That is, it was good for capitalist society in the nineteenth century when what the economy needed was people who were literate enough to read an instruction manual but broken enough to spend all day everyday on an assembly line carrying out the same hand motion over and over again without going mad from boredom.

These days, the repetitive work has mostly been automated. The value in a modern economy is people who can think, make decisions, find creative solutions. But that requires leisure time, play, rest. So the economy is glutted with broken people desperate for jobs while it's hard to find a good manager, a good programmer or a good plumber for love or money.

<comment><USER7> I agree that schools are doing a poor job at educating for practical applications but most of that comes from rewarding for satisfying arbitrary metrics and norms that don't really correlate with real world skills. Students being motivated and competing isn't really a bad thing if they were actually learning useful things.

Historically education-performace correlation worked because it turns out that smart kids are generally good at most things so having higher barriers to entry meant higher education was a good filter for general competence and motivation.

Nowadays the "everyone gets to college" system made the filter much less reliable but still left expectations from all those kids that entered college that they will be treated as previously top percentile. Also it decreased the value of college networking as now you're less likely to meet the top percentile students of your generation.

I don't think schools were ever that good at educating for real world but they were a good signal. Leading students to believe that just by imitating the signal will lead to success is bound to leave a lot of kids disappointed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I went to Ithaca High School in upstate New York which I think got this right, at least more right than a lot of other places. The freshman and sophomore classes were like Carolyn describes in that they had lots of homework and I felt very overwhelmed. However as I got in to the higher level classes homework became optional. Most people don't believe this but I actually had an AP Calculus course with 100% optional homework, I didn't do a single assignment the whole year. The reason our teachers gave for this was that it was teaching us manage our learning, something that would become crucial next year in college. Of course, this puts a huge emphasis on the test since it's almost 100% of your grade, which is stressful too. But that felt a lot more fair to me. Our teacher gave us concepts that he was expecting us to have mastered by test time, great lectures on those concepts and homework containing problems which were similar to what we'd face on the test. The rest was up to us.

In my opinion this system really works, I was already a strong math student coming in but this class solidified my love of it and I wound up majoring in Math. People have a certain cynicism about topics like this, because on some level it's a zero sum game. Everyone wants to be above average but that's clearly not possible. I don't think you can completely remove this stress, nor should we want to, it wouldn't be preparing you for life if we did. But we can substantially reduce it with different teaching methods and I fail to understand why these teaching methods are beyond considering for most high schools.

</comment><comment><USER9> I pretty much coasted through H.S. ... There was pressure, but I mostly ignored it and did what I wanted. Depending on how much of my grade in a given class was testing vs. homework, which I rarely did, I would get an A/B usually. I played varsity football two years, band a year and jr rotc for three.

In the end, I didn't go to college, straight out of H.S. or later. I spent a couple years doing artwork, and BBSing got me into graphics design. I fell into programming, and now 22 years out of high school, I work as a very senior software developer. I've dabbled in management and didn't like it. All of that said, you don't necessarily need to overly stress out in H.S. if you are smart and some level of self motivation towards something that works as a career.

I'm just anecdotal evidence and probably more the exception to the rule. I never quite understood the level of stress that some teenagers seem to feel. It always seemed to me it didn't take that much work to do well enough academicly, and unless you're trying for a top school with a full scholarship, there are lots of options.

<comment><USER6> Most humans find it very hard to resist social pressure. A whole society doing crazy things in lockstep - until the society is destroyed or otherwise comes to grief as a whole - is unfortunately a recurring theme in history.

I've seen it said that there are now helplines for teenagers in the position of 'I'm gay, and my crazy fundamentalist parents have kicked me out of the house or threatened to kill me'. Maybe things are at the point where we need helplines for teenagers in the position of 'my crazy helicopter parents are putting so much pressure on me that I'm thinking of committing suicide just so I don't have to go to school anymore'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There was an essay sent from student to student around finals every year at my university. It reminded us that success takes many paths. It reminded us that for some, this may not be their path, and that was okay.

Success isn't about getting straight A's. It's about finding what you love and being the best you can be at it. Ignore the toxic culture and find yourself.

<comment><USER11> I think you're missing the point of the article. Teenagers are under attack which they can't handle well - including bailing out of it. This is not particularly unique to PAUSD, AFAIK; this is systematic deficiency.

We're not talking about success here.

<comment><USER12> > Teenagers are under attack which they can't handle well

Not all teenagers give into the stress of school. My high school had students whose reply to "Make sure you come to school on time tomorrow because if you miss the ASVAB testing you won't be able to graduate" was "What does graduating have to do with being a car mechanic?". My high school class also had a student who dropped gym because taking a normal (non-AP/honors) class would lower their weighted GPA (which was almost perfect). When I graduated I had just as many friends go to Ivy Leagues as community college. This was all within the same friend group.

Palo Alto High School obviously has serious problems [0], but those problems don't apply to every school or even to students within the same school. I don't know what the solution is (maybe cut excessive testing that doesn't measure anything [1] to start) but it should take into account that not every student needs to be pushed in the same direction.

[0] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-are-Palo-Alto-s- ki...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-are-Palo-Alto-s-kids-killing- themselves-6270854.php)

[1] [http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...](http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=mathcs_honors) [https://www.google.com/search?q=college+test+score+academic+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=college+test+score+academic+success)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article seems to blame teachers as needing more "punishments" and using large homework workloads to teach material because they cannot. I graduated from Gunn (the other PAUSD high school) in 2013 and it was definitely a time I remember as a very happy and excited time of my life. I had excellent teachers, especially in Math/Science/CS, who really connected with students and got us excited about learning difficult topics past the point that would be expected from a public high school. The workload was quite manageable, even with multiple AP classes, and I always got my 8 hours of sleep. Most students I knew never really personally felt the level of stress that is so publicized online.

Perhaps my experience is different from the ones posted online because I had parents that, both because our aspirations were aligned and because they were always very supportive, let me choose what choose what I wanted to focus on in school and after school. Perhaps its because I took mostly 'advanced' classes, where teachers are more likely to focus their attention, and did well in them without expending an unhealthy amount of effort. Perhaps me and others who enjoyed Gunn were just lucky, but I have a sneaking suspicion that these articles are written because they are easy: the alarmist pieces repeat what's been said before and always end up quickly becoming hugely popular.

I just wanted to make that the takeaway is not that the teachers are unqualified or need to be reprimanded; the teachers at Gunn are excellent and very much appreciated.

<comment><USER14> Yes, I think it really does come down to the parents. It is clear that many of these parents put inordinate pressure on their kids. Glad to see that there are exceptions. Thanks for posting your experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Context: cluster of suicides in Palo Alto schools

Recent article in the Atlantic:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the- sili...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-silicon- valley-suicides/413140/)

An article from Vice in September:

[http://www.vice.com/read/student- teaching-0000748-v22n9](http://www.vice.com/read/student- teaching-0000748-v22n9)

NPR interview with a student from May:

[http://www.npr.org/2015/05/10/405694832/in-palo-altos- high-p...](http://www.npr.org/2015/05/10/405694832/in-palo-altos-high- pressure-schools-suicides-lead-to-soul-searching)

SF Magazine article in May:

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-are-Palo-Alto-s- ki...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-are-Palo-Alto-s-kids-killing- themselves-6270854.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a bigger picture happening here, something to do with ever-present parental guidance that didn't exist in my childhood and is outlined by the work of Kennair and Sandseter [1] and documented by Roger Hart. [0],[2],[3]

[0] "The Overprotected Kid" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10605059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10605059)

[1] "The Anti-Phobic Effects of Thrilling Experiences" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10605272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10605272)

[2] "Interview With Roger Hart" [http://www.licweb.com/hpcc/v4n1/roger.html](http://www.licweb.com/hpcc/v4n1/roger.html)

[3] Shorts from Roger Harts film taken in Vermont '75 ([http://www.der.org/films/vermont- kids.html](http://www.der.org/films/vermont-kids.html))

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgzZN9aM8A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgzZN9aM8A)

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6wLhxm4dg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te6wLhxm4dg)

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobQ3EnHI8o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobQ3EnHI8o)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't want my kids to grow up in the Bay Area, period. I'll probably move to Europe when I have them. Sure, that means some career sacrifice (and wages) but it doesn't matter, I don't want them to grow in such an environment.

<comment><USER17> I'd never raise kids here either.

I overheard two coworkers talking a few months ago - one parent saying that she didn't want to send her kids to PALY because she didn't think so much homework and stress was necessary - and referenced the suicide epidemic that's been occurring this year.

Another co-worker responded to her, 100% seriously, "Yea but if they survive, they'll probably get a great job"

It was sickening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yes! This article will make a great addition to her college application!

(Joking aside, this is literally the mentality a school system like this encourages)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm five years out from this and still remember the stress. Students are now asked to give up their present for a chance at a good future.

<comment><USER20> > Students are now asked to give up their present for a chance at a good > future.

So... an investment?

<comment><USER21> It's more than that, unless you consider investing your physical health part of the deal too.

As a current mechanical engineering junior, the expectations have gotten really quite insane. In order to graduate on time you have to be taking 15-18 credits of the hardest classes offered at university. Right now I'm in an 18 credit semester, and next I will be taking 17 credits. Currently I'm in fluid mechanics, finite element analysis, engineering statistics, thermodynamics, and advanced multivariable calculus.

I average about 4-5 hours of sleep. The level of stress associated with this major is making me lose my hair at 20 years old, and I've also developed this weird problem where I profusely vomit several times a day.

<comment><USER22> You should talk to a school counsellor about the load. What is the worst that can happen if you don't graduate on time? I'm asking because i don't actually know...

Talk to a doctor about the other problems you're having - if it's stress related you'll at least have some evidence to back you up if you discuss workload with your school.

<comment><USER21> But you don't understand: that's what everyone else in the program is doing too.

<comment><USER23> What does what "everyone else is doing" have to do with _your_ personal physical and mental health?

Take an honest appraisal of what you think you can do and talk it over with both your major counselor and a school nurse. If your body or mental health can't handle it, take it down a notch and consider dropping a course and retaking it the next semester/quarter.

Half of the controversy of the suicides based on parental+peer pressure and competition is that the demands will never plateau or fall. They will continue to rise above the abilities of more than 99% of the people who enter the competition. There is no supply/demand curve where parents/peers and you will magically find an equilibrium. Learn to have your own expectations, independent of your parents and peers.

<comment><USER24> The other thing to remember is that only a few years after you finish your education, the specifics of it will matter little. What you show on your resume for your first job completely swamps where you went to school, and especially how you did there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The kids bust their asses, all day and late into the night, and it's still not good enough. They watch their peers get the top grades, top scores, and top admissions.

The parents bust their asses at startups, working late and weekends in their tiny rental, and it's not enough. They watch others their age and younger striking it rich with their acquisitions and IPOs.

(of course, both are doing just fine, and amazingly well compared to the rest of the world. But the toxic mentality remains)

</comment><comment><USER26> Suggested solution: round up all grades above 95% to 100%. Re-practicing the same material 100 times because you only score perfectly on the practice tests 9 times out of 10 (meaning, 1 time out of 10 you get 98%) is an incredibly inefficient use of time. Let people get 95% in each of their classes and if they still want to overachieve, let them take an additional class. That's still HARD but at least it's not so wasteful.

Similarly, what about university admissions "capping" the number of extracurriculars etc. they consider? Okay, you've already got your 4.0, you're already in a sport, you already play violin. It's great that you also have three other activities, but we're just going to add until we get you to 100% and stop counting. Enough with the wars between 140% and 150% overachievement.

You get what you measure. If it requires a perfect SAT score to get into Harvard, then people are going to take hundreds of hours from their young life that could be better spent learning something else or having a slightly balanced life and instead spend it studying and re-studying the SAT. It also unreasonably biases entrance against students who needed to work a little bit rather than study 24/7.

At some point when you're measuring the top 1% the margin of error becomes greater than the precision of the measurement. The real problem, as has been discussed elsewhere, is that the brand name schools haven't grown to accommodate as large of a population (by percentage) as they did in the past, to the point that they reject thousands and thousands of students who would have been accepted eagerly 50 years ago. In school and in life there seem to be fewer and fewer positions near the top, that provide lifestyles that seemed attainable not that long ago, given hard work.

</comment><comment><USER27> from anyone out there feeling the pressure - i did only well enough in highschool to get into a halfway decent college (good public school), and then graduated there with a 2.0 out of guilt of wasting my parents' money. i literally had the minimum required GPA to graduate - not a coincidence. i'm not saying you should do this, but it's what happened, and those were the choices i made at that (very) young age.

i'm doing just fine. people end up all over the map and it usually has very little to do with what they did in school. i know academic overachievers who never got anywhere in life, and total slackers who found their niche a few years later. my co-founder is a drop-out, not because of grand ambitions but because he just said 'fuck this' a few months into it.

the trick is to find something to do something well (and do well in), it doesn't have to be school. it doesn't even have to be making money

(and if you follow the logic when rationalizing over-pressuring kids in school, it always goes back to money. always.)

<comment><USER28> > from anyone out there feeling the pressure - i did only well enough in > highschool to get into a halfway decent college (good public school), and > then graduated there with a 2.0 out of guilt of wasting my parents' money. i > literally had the minimum required GPA to graduate - not a coincidence. i'm > not saying you should do this, but it's what happened, and those were the > choices i made at that (very) young age.

>

> i'm doing just fine. people end up all over the map and it usually has very > little to do with what they did in school.

Absolutely. I went to a pretty dang small school in Kansas (18 in my graduating class), which offered no AP classes and barely even had a calculus class. Followed this up by attending a state college (almost automatic admission for decent students) and now I have a fulfilling job, at an established company I had never heard of, straddling the line of software and hardware that I look forward to going to (almost) every day. I did not push myself 10% as hard as most of the comments on this very thread, even. Life goes on.

Now, I may not have the same opportunities available as if I had gone to an engineering school everyone has heard of, but is that worth the cost?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> About the time I was doing my GCSEs (16 yrs), Oblivion was released. Revision wasn't a priority when Tamriel was in danger. I'm still glad I spent my time playing Morrowind and Oblivion rather than spend my evenings overanalysing English literature.

On a more serious note, tne thing that surprised me about doing a PhD and attending undergrad classes* was that without the pressure of exams and homework, I listened and was interested. Far more interested than I was at undergrad when each hour was spent scribbling down notes.

*My undergrad was in physics, my PhD is in computer vision which I knew absolutely nothing about when I started.

</comment><comment><USER30> Coming from a high school that is usually considered one of the top 10 in my random European country, I simply cannot imagine this. Granted, this country is one of the cyan countries in [1]. High school was easily the most fun time of my childhood.

I feel incredibly lucky now. I'd never want to expose my child to an environment like this.

[1] [http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/sxn.png](http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/sxn.png)

</comment><comment><USER31> Competition is a choice. Some say it's for losers[1].

Either way, this is melodrama. Certain goals really do require sacrifices. But everyone choses their own personal goals. I do remember being a teenager, and I do remember that it was difficult to realize this. That doesn't make it any less true.

[1] WSJ, "Competition is for Losers" [http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel- competition-is-for-l...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition- is-for-losers-1410535536)

<comment><USER32> Agreed. Everyone perceives the world from the tip of their own nose. Life could be much worse. As a counter point of view, my brother went to a high school just outside of Detroit. During his senior year the district ran out of money, most of the teachers quit but the students still had to "attend" class. The grad rate was < 65%. There were no after school programs or accelerators to attend. Most students and their families are living on welfare and/or working to help support their family. Homework is the last thing on their mind. Public education is flawed in many ways and it's usually those who show the most resourcefulness that survive in any scenario.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh dear US citiziens...as a European reading things like this is hilarious. Here it doesn't matter what High School you attend, you go to any university you want because basically everyone is free and with no need to apply. Nobody ever asked me about my HS Diploma or my university grades. In the end the only thing that matters is what you can do/know (global truth).

<comment><USER34> There's also a reason why you see countless European international students in the American higher education system. While Europe has some great universities, many of them are lackluster. What you can do/know can be greatly impacted by the people you're around and the people teaching you. When people are competing for slots at places where you can network with the best and brightest, competition will be fierce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Reason #368 not to have kids. Seriously what state of mind compels people to bring new humans into the world and force them through this gauntlet? I remember being a teenager and the experience sounds even worse today. I think most unborn babies would just not consent to birth if they knew this was ahead of them.

</comment><comment><USER36> I find this deeply disturbing, particularly because there has never been a better time in recent history to NOT give a damn about how you perform in traditional school systems, if you are unlucky or ignorant enough to be imprisoned in one in the first place. Competitive anxiety is one thing when it compels people to achieve amazing things, and another entirely when it clouds judgment and makes people miserable and on edge so they can merely out-compete the next person, even if the entire competition is largely just a contrived and futile ego game to begin with. People should first think long and hard about _why_ they are striving for whatever it is they are stressing over.

But the truly disturbing thing is that traditional schools still exist, and a frightening number of people -- even some smart people! -- still consider the system humane and somehow necessary. I sometimes can't believe that my younger self was effectively forced to do push-ups, run laps, eat lunch in a crowded cafeteria (that is, navigate the social landscape as someone with anxiety), and memorize court cases, poems, and Greek column types because some older person decided that it was good for me. Because overall it wasn't, and the reason I managed to finish K-12 as a reasonably educated human being instead of a sheep is that I realized the contrived nature of traditional education very early -- like, second grade -- and placed _actual_ education (and, maybe unfortunately, silly but outrageously fun MMORPGs) above "school for the sake of grades". I learned a lot from school, and even plenty from coursework, but I can hardly imagine the superior human I might be had I been allowed to focus on my personal interests and learn at my own pace.

School is a _really bad_ place for smart kids. It's disgusting. For every would-be gang member or fry cook who turns out significantly better because he was forced to attend school, there are probably many thousands of bright young people who would much rather be inventing something, experimenting, productively socializing, or studying what they find interesting. If I do one meaningful thing in my life, it will be helping to make that the norm. It's really a sad thing that some kids with plenty of potential are misguided into thinking that a GPA is more important than knowledge, experience, curiosity, and comprehension. And it's an _atrocity_ that staggeringly gifted young people can grow up thinking they're poorly endowed weirdos because, instead of memorizing their way through school, they struggle to actually understand things since their minds refuse to take "that's just how it works" for an answer, and they bother to "waste time" wondering, "What if...?"

There are far more humane ways to criminally detract from the most important years of young American lives, if that's the goal of compulsory education.

<comment><USER37> Such a great comment!

"And it's an atrocity that staggeringly gifted young people can grow up thinking they're poorly endowed weirdos because, instead of memorizing their way through school, they struggle to actually understand things since their minds refuse to take "that's just how it works" for an answer, and they bother to "waste time" wondering, "What if...?"

This is exactly how I felt through school and did poorly because of it. I see these issues with my son too but he is excelling because I heavily encourage his curiosity and he has been lucky enough to have some great teachers that appreciate his obsessive need to have to know "why" or dig in deeper. I do worry though that he won't be so lucky as he moves into high school.

"It's really a sad thing that some kids with plenty of potential are misguided into thinking that a GPA is more important than knowledge, experience, curiosity, and comprehension."

This is so true. Something that recently really stood out to me was the lack of critical thinking or troubleshooting skills in kids. I discovered the lack of this in a summer workshop I was part of. Only about 10% of the kids (ages 8 to 12) had decent critical thinking or troubleshooting skills. The rest just wanted to be told what to do and how to do it. Why? Is it because we are so focused on getting kids to reach certain milestones that we are not teaching them or even encouraging critical thinking?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I get what these articles are trying to imply but I'm not seeing hard figures.

Is it really worse in these locations and is it really worse than the old days?

Poor rich kids and the poor youth of today is a meme that's decades old, I need hard figures that this time it's different.

</comment><comment><USER32> Tl;dr

Adolescence is hard.

[http://25iq.com/2015/11/14/charlie-munger-ama-how-does- charl...](http://25iq.com/2015/11/14/charlie-munger-ama-how-does-charlie- munger-recommend-dealing-with-adversity/)

<comment><USER39> Except, the article details specific conditions of the ultra-competitive environment in Palo Alto high schools. As someone raised in Iowa, I can assure you that this is not the universal adolescent experience.

<comment><USER32> You're completely right. And as someone raised in Detroit she will never have to experience my environment. You or I cannot truly understand how she feels. What is hard for her may be trivial to us and vice versa. Everything is relative.

 _"When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves…. Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."_ \- Viktor Frankl

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's been a long time since I was in education, but it seems to be that the source of the stress is having to take endless exams. Something imposed from on high on the teachers as demonstration of their competency.

</comment><comment><USER25> The author only briefly touched on this, but the attempted suicide rate is alarmingly high in this school district. A lot of people here are making light, but something scary is happening there.

I'll try to find a reference....

</comment><comment><USER41> My experience through high school was very similar. From grades 9 to 11, I woke up at 6 each day to take a bus to another school to take an engineering class. I then had 7 other periods of the day, each with a 43 minute class (by 11th grade, I gave up lunch to take another class, so I had 8 consecutive periods of class), where teachers assigned ridiculous amounts of homework and made incredibly difficult tests to somehow test us.

In twelfth grade, I stopped having to wake up at six, but I then replaced that with six AP classes. Somehow, I managed to do well on all the exams, but I was always stressed, always on edge, always anxious. On top of this, I had all of those college apps, and since I was overly ambitious, I applied to like 20 schools, almost all of whom had lengthy, frustrating supplements.

Then, of course, there were the extracurriculars, all those bullshit clubs and activities I did to plaster on my college application, and the added pressure of every other honors student competing for grades, classes, research positions, internships, and leadership positions, and all the other nonsense that seemed to matter so much back then. School would feel like a pressure cooker, where the tension would just build and build without reprieve.

And then there were all the normal social pressures of high school. Were you invited to parties, or were you not? Did you drink? Did you smoke? Were you getting laid, or were you not? Who were you taking to prom/junior prom/spirit week dance/freshman dance? Were you "cool," or were you not? This dissipated a bit by senior year, as people matured, but the underlying tension was always there.

I thought that March of senior year would be my happiest moment. All my efforts, all of my sacrifices, would pay off. And they did, in a way. I got into multiple fantastic Computer Science schools.

But that joy I thought I'd feel never materialized. I'd idealized accomplishing something, of getting into a top university, so much, that the actual accomplishment could never really compare. All I really felt was emptiness, and I sinking feeling that I'd wasted a fuckload of time.

Now, here I am in college, where everything feels pretty similar. People compete over internships instead of colleges, but nothing has really shifted. The competition is just a lot harder. But, I'm a junior now in college, and I think my experience here has been much better. I've learned to finally stop giving so many fucks about everyone else, and focusing on what I want. I think its brought me better results too.

Sometimes though, I do wonder: what's the point of all of this? Why do we chase after prestige and money as if they're all-solving panaceas? And what am I going to do after I graduate, get that "amazing" job I've been striving for, and don't have any set goals to lust for? What will I do next?

<comment><USER42> Have you read Peter Thiel's book _Zero to One_? He talks about the problem with pursuing tournaments, where people are competing over a fixed opportunity. He used his own experience as a student, a student at Stanford's law school, and then as a hopeful Supreme Court clerkship appointee. At each level he succeeded and found only fiercer competition at the next. Finally, he failed. He didn't get the prestigious appointment as a Supreme Court clerk.

Not long after, he left and did something almost nobody else was doing and the result was Paypal, which made him wealthy and lead to his future as one of the most successful VCs of our era.

Essentially, he said, "Competition is for losers. Go create something nobody else is and build it into a defensible business (i.e. a monopoly on something)."

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Weirdly enough, high school in Palo Alto sucks for the same reason recruiting is hard.

Relevant anecdote: I had beers tonight with a friend who was going through some strange feelings about some acqui-hire interviewing with Google. (To be clear, Google's acquiring his company, not the other way around.) He's brilliant, and he's got literally a couple decades of experience in engineering, product, design, etc -- and yet he walked away not knowing why some of the team members were acqui-hired and others were a 'pass.'

So why does Google's interview process feel like the SATs, or this girl's description of high school? Perhaps our 'measurement' systems for 'human quality' are really, really bad. Probably because human 'quality' isn't really quantifiable (or even well-defined, or static under observation), definitely because there is no clean test for such things, and because intelligence is a slippery, poorly-defined quality, and definitely not a quantity.

High school is the worst example of this: it can be weirdly competitive, the stakes are irrelevant/stupid (scores on standardized tests?), and everything is scaled incorrectly.

For my own son (he's 4), I hope he just finds something he wants to do. I will be hugely proud if he figures out what makes him happy and does it. I would definitely have fun if he enjoyed building things, because that's something I enjoy, and I'd love to share it with him. But I swear I'd love him just as much if he became a lawyer. (No, HN, seriously, even a lawyer! if you have been sued and don't have kids you wouldn't understand; I've had both.)

Now, Palo Alto is a weird case, but I grew up in Mountain View (granted, a generation ago), and there was a little of the same competitiveness going on. But it wasn't institutional, it was parent-driven. Get enough like-minded parents in one spot, well, then I guess it feels like reality. But I think the central fiction of the entire affair is that grades, top colleges, some sort of context-free "achievement" is a first-order good. But it's not a filter for anything that really matters... for example: empathy, thoughtfulness, humility, etc. Or being able to create value for the world.

Or even capital-A achievement (which is only a poor proxy for value-creation). These qualities (and others) are more important for getting something done than pure intellect... if such a thing even exists, frankly -- I'm more inclined to believe in domain-specific aptitude than some sort of pure 'IQ' score, like a D&D character attribute... far too reductive to be real. Testing well on the SAT is a reliable indicator of being good at taking standardized tests... full stop.

And being good at interviews is 100% correlated with being good at interviews. I can't say much beyond that.</comment>


Google Voice will Integrate with Hangouts - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2014/03/18/google-voice-to-hangouts/

<comment><AUTHOR> G+ is taking over every service. Hopefully this time it doesn't make it suck (my favorite examples: Latitude & YouTube).</comment>


Where the 'real' Silicon Valley is - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7984489/silicon-valley-startup-entrepreneur-concentration-map

<comment><USER2> >the model showed that corporations are six times more likely to do well compared with companies that aren't incorporated.

Perhaps they have this backwards. Those companies are incorporated because they are doing well, they aren't doing well because they are incorporated.

</comment><comment><USER3> Direct link to a related paper (Massachusets not SV) by the authors since there's no reference in the article: [http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13493.pdf](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13493.pdf)

Science article: [http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13493.pdf](http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13493.pdf)

[Beware here be paywalls etc.]

I'm not sure what to think overall. EQI strikes me as a somewhat strange idea. But then again I'm interested in all approaches that go byound my crude: networking and investors are there as are other tech companies so gogogo. Also weather is fine but internet connections may suck :P

Edit: Nevermind, the link is at the bottom of the article. The "Source" thingy is kind of hard to see.

</comment><comment><USER4> At first I was a bit confused by this article, and it looked like there was likely a large correlation/causation bias in determining quality.

Especially since the two outcomes they were looking for were IPO and potential for acquisition.

But after thinking a bit more about the topic, I think they have basically determined how to detect tech companies as a proportion of new business registrants per county. (Especially tech companies have a higher potential for some form of exit, over the typical company given the pervasiveness of acqui- hires)

As they said law firms (i.e. firms with the name of the founders in the name) had less positive outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Some of this is simply looking at the characteristics of companies that are more mature (eg. incorporated, trademarks) as a predictor of success.

I wonder if the data takes into account the companies that incorporate in DE.

<comment><USER6> _> > I wonder if the data takes into account the companies that incorporate in DE._

Yes, in fact they use it as a data point.

So if you have a short techie name, an office in Menlo Park, and incorporate in DE, you are practically _assured_ of success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> with quotes like "we were able to 'find' silicon valey" and findings like "the best indicators of entrepreneurial quality were characteristics like a company's name", it is surprising that the article does not discuss the role that 'correlation' and similar phenomenon might have played in this study.

<comment><USER8> The study is really saying that getting these factors "wrong" hurts a company's marketing and bizdev.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> why would you ever do a startup that was not "incorporated" being a joint stock company with limited liability has too many adavatges not to go that route</comment>