Sayonara

No, it's not "my reason". It's an observation - that's all. No causal route was specified. You already put your words in my mouth; don't compound the mistake by misrepresenting my own words. Here's an idea: don't "reword it". It's fine the way it is, and communicates precisely what I wanted it to communicate, thanks very much. One would think the answer is in the question there, seeing as an observation on its own cannot have those attributes. The difference between this observation and mine is that you are drawing two pan-population generalisations, and I drew none. I would go as far as to suggest that the idea that any given marijuana smoker can be considered smarter or more morally considerate than any given non-smoker is not sustainable based on any of your personal observations.

In a word, marketing. It would be nowhere near as commercially profitable.

Episode I had a really good story - it was the frigging Gungans that made it suck. The best part about I and II is that the most important plot developments are never actually seen. A bit like the Shadow threat in Babylon 5.

The 19th May release date is global, same as it was for Eps I and II.

That's all well and good, but not relevant to this thread, where the O/P asks a question which explicitly requires personality exists as a condition of the discussion. What you need is a new thread.

It's not an analysis. As I said, it's merely my observation. Having said that, the observations have been consistent between all people I have ever known who regularly smoke cannabis for recreation. They all have self-serving tendencies - and little interest in the needs or feelings of others - when compared to non-users.

Typically you can expect to be asked for something banal that smacks of a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, like some sort of magical shark-donkey transitional fossil form.

Or "who can afford the best...".

Afraid not, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. I think you have a point, just that it won't be that evident yet. Give it another hundred years and the conditions you have described will be causing significant selective pressure.

...except that it's not made-up.

Ah hah, that puzzle's quite funny in a "basic maths indeed" kind of way

Hence me using words like "usually".

The average diet has been steadily improving over the past hundred years, if you ignore the fast food explosion in the past ten, which is why I don't see where you are going with this. Change your original statement to "a handful of diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle" and it is possibly true. However you'd need sample groups covering significantly longer periods of time to demonstrate a good causal link.

And that the source information is usually a pile of crap for two.

A series of statements. Useful.

You disagree that that is what I have observed?

Isn't this basically the same as one of the questions asked in http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10968 ?

Is this some kind of paleontology joke?

I don't dispute that. Never mind the "self" thing - I'm ignoring the fact that Ramin wants to have his cake and eat it, and am continuing the discussion about personality, which is the subject of the thread. Either Ramin's reasoning is horribly flawed or he is completely off-topic.

It has been my observation that (in general) people who are dependent on pot are more actively antisocial and insular than the average person. The only people they seem to be genuinely interested in socialising with are people with whom they might exchange pot. That seems like the opposite of being shunned to me.

Please search the forum for other threads on time travel. They are numerous and often quite thorough.

Have you actually established that there's a reason he shouldn't, or are you Americamorphising Venezuelan politics? (reply to a post made in 2003. yeah good luck sayo)