Paul Stamets on the interrelationship among mushrooms, consciousness, and nature(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Paul Stamets on the interrelationship among mushrooms, consciousness, and nature
http://nautil.us/issue/90/something-green/how-psilocybin-can-save-the-environment
154 comments
As you say, there are risks and benefits. "How" matters a lot.
I think you exaggerate though. A lot of the risk is down to extremely irresponsible use... many steps removed from the high level of medical supervision you laid out.
The basics are some mental preparation, a trip sitter, correct dosage and a proper set. I don't consider psychologists the only or necessarily best guides.
Like all drugs (including alcohol), they can interact with preexisting susceptibilities to mental illness. Being an experience, it can also cause trauma. So can non drug experiences, like rock climbing. Dosage, set, setting & preparation mitigate these a lot.
Psychedelics are not a danger free activity, but like most dangerous activities most of the irl dangers are from ignoring safety entirety. FWIW, I think the more normalised, discussed and non judgemental psychodelic drug culture becomes, the more responsible users tend to be.
..And for comparison, it's a lot safer than many sports and hobbies.
I think you exaggerate though. A lot of the risk is down to extremely irresponsible use... many steps removed from the high level of medical supervision you laid out.
The basics are some mental preparation, a trip sitter, correct dosage and a proper set. I don't consider psychologists the only or necessarily best guides.
Like all drugs (including alcohol), they can interact with preexisting susceptibilities to mental illness. Being an experience, it can also cause trauma. So can non drug experiences, like rock climbing. Dosage, set, setting & preparation mitigate these a lot.
Psychedelics are not a danger free activity, but like most dangerous activities most of the irl dangers are from ignoring safety entirety. FWIW, I think the more normalised, discussed and non judgemental psychodelic drug culture becomes, the more responsible users tend to be.
..And for comparison, it's a lot safer than many sports and hobbies.
> it's a lot safer than many sports and hobbies.
What is the basis for this claim? How do we measure mental injury? What quantities are we talking about?
What is the basis for this claim? How do we measure mental injury? What quantities are we talking about?
> As ACMD chairman Nutt repeatedly clashed with government ministers over issues of drug harm and classification. In January 2009 he published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology an editorial ("Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms") in which the risks associated with horse riding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) were compared to those of taking ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every ~10,000 exposures).
> In 2012, he explained to the UK Home Affairs Committee that he chose riding as the "pseudo-drug" in his comparison after being consulted by a patient with irreversible brain damage caused by a fall from a horse. He discovered that riding was "considerably more dangerous than [he] had thought ... popular but dangerous" and "something ... that young people do".
Brain injuries in American football over the past decade probably show that to be an even more dangerous sport, but I haven’t run the numbers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#%22Equasy%22
> In 2012, he explained to the UK Home Affairs Committee that he chose riding as the "pseudo-drug" in his comparison after being consulted by a patient with irreversible brain damage caused by a fall from a horse. He discovered that riding was "considerably more dangerous than [he] had thought ... popular but dangerous" and "something ... that young people do".
Brain injuries in American football over the past decade probably show that to be an even more dangerous sport, but I haven’t run the numbers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#%22Equasy%22
Is the only allowable statement one that can be backed by quantifiable analysis?
I didn't even specify which hobby, so lets go with alpine mountaineering. Hard to be more dangerous than this. Gridiron football has some good quantification, with ways of measuring mental injuries.
sheesh.
I didn't even specify which hobby, so lets go with alpine mountaineering. Hard to be more dangerous than this. Gridiron football has some good quantification, with ways of measuring mental injuries.
sheesh.
I certainly had no intention of precluding non-quantifiable basis for the claim. I had no idea what basis you were basing your claim on. Beyond that I really couldn't begin to imagine how the attributes of the bases might be compared to one another.
In different words I asked because sports and hobbies seem like apples to the oranges of psychedelic experiences. In that context I wondered how one would build the basis for comparison, not to mention generate the confidence to make such a bold assertion about the end result.
It would probably be easier to say that the inferential distance was too high for me to follow and I was curious about how you got there.
In different words I asked because sports and hobbies seem like apples to the oranges of psychedelic experiences. In that context I wondered how one would build the basis for comparison, not to mention generate the confidence to make such a bold assertion about the end result.
It would probably be easier to say that the inferential distance was too high for me to follow and I was curious about how you got there.
> Like all drugs (including alcohol), they can interact with [...]
Interesting aside, some mushrooms contain the mycotoxin coprine. Coprine is normally harmless but can make you quite ill if combined with alcohol. Common ink caps are generally considered edible but contain this toxin. This toxin can be used to treat alcoholism and a similar substance (disulfiram) has been approved by the FDA for this purpose.
Interesting aside, some mushrooms contain the mycotoxin coprine. Coprine is normally harmless but can make you quite ill if combined with alcohol. Common ink caps are generally considered edible but contain this toxin. This toxin can be used to treat alcoholism and a similar substance (disulfiram) has been approved by the FDA for this purpose.
The ‘more of what you already are’ idea seems very reductionist and unhelpful to me.
There are definitely real risks that need to be made known around pre existing mental conditions and psychedelic use. Those are appreciated.
But your thesis suggests that transformative experiences are unlikely to happen which from personal experience I can say is false. The impact of a breakthrough psychedelic experience can be profoundly positive especially for those starting from a less enlightened place.
BUT everyone knows that guy who has the “I’m Jesus” moment instead of “we’re all Jesus” and it’s usually easy to see it coming in retrospect.
There are definitely real risks that need to be made known around pre existing mental conditions and psychedelic use. Those are appreciated.
But your thesis suggests that transformative experiences are unlikely to happen which from personal experience I can say is false. The impact of a breakthrough psychedelic experience can be profoundly positive especially for those starting from a less enlightened place.
BUT everyone knows that guy who has the “I’m Jesus” moment instead of “we’re all Jesus” and it’s usually easy to see it coming in retrospect.
> transformative experiences are unlikely to happen which from personal experience I can say is false. The impact of a breakthrough psychedelic experience can be profoundly positive especially for those starting from a less enlightened place.
I don’t think they are downplaying the transformative potential, but saying that you don’t get to choose what you transform to. Increase in neuroticism is also a type of transformation that occurs with psychedelics that seems to be downplayed or exclusively attributed to set and setting.
Anything that gets you out of your default mode network and amplifies your brain activity non-selectively will indeed be that “more of you” as OP claims, and where you land or how much of that experience you can integrate heavily depends on your original psychological organization.
I don’t think they are downplaying the transformative potential, but saying that you don’t get to choose what you transform to. Increase in neuroticism is also a type of transformation that occurs with psychedelics that seems to be downplayed or exclusively attributed to set and setting.
Anything that gets you out of your default mode network and amplifies your brain activity non-selectively will indeed be that “more of you” as OP claims, and where you land or how much of that experience you can integrate heavily depends on your original psychological organization.
“This isn’t something you can do on your own”
I’m gonna have to push back here. Go rent a cabin in the woods and eat some mushrooms and I guarantee you can work thru issues on your own.
I’m gonna have to push back here. Go rent a cabin in the woods and eat some mushrooms and I guarantee you can work thru issues on your own.
I used to think like that, then I met someone who's best friend committed suicide while under the influence of psilocybin mushrooms.
Psychedelics are powerful, and it is irresponsible to suggest, let alone guarantee, that they will benefit everyone.
I met someone who's best friend committed suicide while sober. Those stories of suicide on psychs usually turn out to be fabrications, exaggerations or miscalculated cause and effect.
Most of the suicides I know of happened because of booze. And the drug is available for mass purchase at the store down the block...
I think one of the biggest fallacies is that alcohol "shows who the person really is".
It definitely loosens you up, to a point. Maybe 3-8 drinks in it is definitely closer to "the true self".
But in large amounts it definitely creates an over-emotional person. In it's own way it creates emotional reaction spirals that could cause suicide, or lashing out at people, irrational love or hatred of self, etc.
Like i said, biggest fallacy.
It definitely loosens you up, to a point. Maybe 3-8 drinks in it is definitely closer to "the true self".
But in large amounts it definitely creates an over-emotional person. In it's own way it creates emotional reaction spirals that could cause suicide, or lashing out at people, irrational love or hatred of self, etc.
Like i said, biggest fallacy.
> Maybe 3-8 drinks in it is definitely closer to "the true self".
3-8? 8 drinks in and I'd be passed out on the floor.
3-8? 8 drinks in and I'd be passed out on the floor.
Well they did say 3-8. A petite short person won't be able to drink as much as a tall heavy person, all else being equal.
Tbh one or two beers is all I drink these days, but six or seven is what it takes for me to be 'properly drunk' (which I don't enjoy.)
Tbh one or two beers is all I drink these days, but six or seven is what it takes for me to be 'properly drunk' (which I don't enjoy.)
Agree w/the other poster. It really can depend on the person. And not everyone has the self-awareness / background knowledge to prepare themselves well.
Not unlike how some people don't handle alcohol well.
Once or twice seen folks in bad places on mushrooms.
Because of the shift in perspective caused by psychedelics, I think beginning, if nothing else, with a friend is a very, very good idea. Plus the benefit of an informed outside perspective is one of the pluses of therapy.
Not unlike how some people don't handle alcohol well.
Once or twice seen folks in bad places on mushrooms.
Because of the shift in perspective caused by psychedelics, I think beginning, if nothing else, with a friend is a very, very good idea. Plus the benefit of an informed outside perspective is one of the pluses of therapy.
> Especially when "bad" people take them they just become even more of an asshole, or dare I say when stupid people take them they just revel in the intoxication
How terribly narrow minded this statement is when faced with the complexity of the experience.
And to state the obvious -- "bad" people are often victims of trauma, and working with these substances in a directed way can get to the root of these traumas in a way that frees the person from said trauma. It's a process that doesn't happen overnight, but sometimes it does, and miraculously so.
How terribly narrow minded this statement is when faced with the complexity of the experience.
And to state the obvious -- "bad" people are often victims of trauma, and working with these substances in a directed way can get to the root of these traumas in a way that frees the person from said trauma. It's a process that doesn't happen overnight, but sometimes it does, and miraculously so.
> working with these substances in a directed way can get to the root of these traumas in a way that frees the person from said trauma
I believe this to be true, but op has a valid point. Many people take these drugs for purely recreational reasons, in uncontrolled settings, with no intention of seeking a transformative experience. They are "reveling in the intoxication", although I don't think that necessarily makes them stupid.
I believe this to be true, but op has a valid point. Many people take these drugs for purely recreational reasons, in uncontrolled settings, with no intention of seeking a transformative experience. They are "reveling in the intoxication", although I don't think that necessarily makes them stupid.
> The problem with psychedelics is they only make you "more" of what you are
And when you're ready to surrender your ego for a while, and realize that 'what you are' is star stuff, the experience is amazing. I agree with your sentiment, and set and setting are very important. I know people who prepare for months before they trip, making sure nobody's going to be calling their phone, curating the right music to listen to, maybe attending some art exhibitions beforehand, etc
And when you're ready to surrender your ego for a while, and realize that 'what you are' is star stuff, the experience is amazing. I agree with your sentiment, and set and setting are very important. I know people who prepare for months before they trip, making sure nobody's going to be calling their phone, curating the right music to listen to, maybe attending some art exhibitions beforehand, etc
So what about all the bad people becoming peaceful after a weekend with some mushrooms/ayahuasca/san pedro? Are we just going ignore people who had a complete personality flip?
Although.. some truth lies here. These plants and experiences can help attune you to your real nature. In your heart you might be softy, but a meanie in usual life. The plants can maybe help you express your softy side better and become more attuned to that nature, until it is your dominant expression. Which means the person might have had a false meanie personality expression for some reason (coping/defence mechanisms to trauma/abuse/hard life).
I think maybe the whole point to these plants/experiences are to teach us it is impossible to get clear cut black/white answers that our brains so easily digest and accept. It might help us accept that we won't have good answers for certain things and to accept certain things for what they are (broken family, disability etc).
I like the word "attune" when it comes to this stuff. I feel that we have an internal nature/essence that wants to be expressed. We can attune our minds to resonate or be on the same channel as the inner state (or soul or god being or whatever you want to call it). The first thing I like to do when relaxing (without any substances (or with them)) is to try and shake off my personality and step into the attuned state - step into the shoes of the inner child/being and feel it's energy, and try and have a conversation with it, ask it how it is, does it need anything, is it happy, and tell it that you love it with all your heart and thank it for giving you energy and love. In that moment I/you can become fully attuned with it and feel your power and creativity as cosmic being. While you are at it, imagine you and this being are made of light and that you are travelling through the cosmos together at light speed, that you feel the energy/intent of the universe flowing over and into you and it makes you happy. While sitting, raise your hand and feel the cosmic wind through your fingers and feel them grasp through the fabric of reality...
Sounds silly, I know. But do it the next time while under the influence, and see what you feel. It might change your life to commune with your inner being.
fyi I'm not relgious, it's just fun thought experiments that might feel nice.
Although.. some truth lies here. These plants and experiences can help attune you to your real nature. In your heart you might be softy, but a meanie in usual life. The plants can maybe help you express your softy side better and become more attuned to that nature, until it is your dominant expression. Which means the person might have had a false meanie personality expression for some reason (coping/defence mechanisms to trauma/abuse/hard life).
I think maybe the whole point to these plants/experiences are to teach us it is impossible to get clear cut black/white answers that our brains so easily digest and accept. It might help us accept that we won't have good answers for certain things and to accept certain things for what they are (broken family, disability etc).
I like the word "attune" when it comes to this stuff. I feel that we have an internal nature/essence that wants to be expressed. We can attune our minds to resonate or be on the same channel as the inner state (or soul or god being or whatever you want to call it). The first thing I like to do when relaxing (without any substances (or with them)) is to try and shake off my personality and step into the attuned state - step into the shoes of the inner child/being and feel it's energy, and try and have a conversation with it, ask it how it is, does it need anything, is it happy, and tell it that you love it with all your heart and thank it for giving you energy and love. In that moment I/you can become fully attuned with it and feel your power and creativity as cosmic being. While you are at it, imagine you and this being are made of light and that you are travelling through the cosmos together at light speed, that you feel the energy/intent of the universe flowing over and into you and it makes you happy. While sitting, raise your hand and feel the cosmic wind through your fingers and feel them grasp through the fabric of reality...
Sounds silly, I know. But do it the next time while under the influence, and see what you feel. It might change your life to commune with your inner being.
fyi I'm not relgious, it's just fun thought experiments that might feel nice.
I hope more people read what you wrote. While I do think some people actually can do this on their own, everyone is different. When people have profoundly positive experiences on psilocybin or other substances, it can be tempting to feel they've tapped into some kind of universal truth and they naturally want to share that with others. Psychedelics affect people differently at different times and it's certainly not always a beautiful trip into cosmic consciousness and love - even at low doses. It's cliche, but set and setting matter, especially to measure any kind of clinical benefits.
The article above is discussing psilocybin not LSD. Those are two completely different substances with different effects.
I highly recommend you read Michael Pollan's book "How to Chnage Your Mind" if you wish to become informed on the use and effects of psilocybin along with other psychoactive compuonds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Change_Your_Mind
I highly recommend you read Michael Pollan's book "How to Chnage Your Mind" if you wish to become informed on the use and effects of psilocybin along with other psychoactive compuonds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Change_Your_Mind
While your post has some truth I have to reject your general premise that an individual can't derive any value without some sort of formalized framework. It's simply not true.
The parallel I was making in my mind was sex. There are all kind of risks and corresponding safety measures, preparations... you can write a comment like the gp without changing too much.
So many times it happens in suboptimal conditions, specially the glorified first times.
So many times it happens in suboptimal conditions, specially the glorified first times.
And is that bad? Sex is a natural process, just like taking psychedelics. We don't need to regulate or control sex beyond some very simple ground rules (age limits), so why do we have to regulate or control psychedelic use?
Just like sex, taking psychedelics is a (mostly) safe, natural process, with an important effect on the individual's maturation.
Just like sex, taking psychedelics is a (mostly) safe, natural process, with an important effect on the individual's maturation.
Bad? I'm all for sex, but STDs and unwanted pregnancy are very real. The perfect regulation is unrealistic, if at all desirable (it is for therapy), it just happens because humans want what we want.
> Especially when "bad" people take them they just become even more of an asshole
Is this true? I have not partaken, but everything I have read is that people see the interconnection and interrelatedness of all things, which would seem to cause a “bad person” to become less of an asshole. Am I wrong on this?
Is this true? I have not partaken, but everything I have read is that people see the interconnection and interrelatedness of all things, which would seem to cause a “bad person” to become less of an asshole. Am I wrong on this?
It can go both ways. Some people watch their memories and realize they’re not the hero of the story, not even the villain, but just a jerk. And some people come back even more full of themselves. They’re so proud of this amazing thing they did and how amazing it makes them.
Personally, I have never seen a person become a worse person after a psychedelic trip, and I've been around this a lot. I have seen many selfish and hateful people seeing outside their perceptions for the first time and finally realizing that they are a human just like everyone else, not some perfect saint free of flaws, or whatever else they had concocted in their head through the lens societal norms.
There are people, particularly among the younger, that take the drugs to "get f'd up". And I've seen those people have great times and come back more grounded and with more respect for reality, and I've seen those people have horrific experiences, in which their ego's are stripped and they are forced to see the impact their behavior has on the whole. Those experiences usually affect for much longer and are more immediately negative. But from what I've seen of those, the people who change most for the better are the ones that have the most to change, and the one's that have the most to change usually have the more intense/difficult realizations. There are such things as bad trips and there are people that come out worse, I won't deny that. But what I've seen is that the difficult experiences end up being the most valuable. It usually hurts to realise your whole life has been meaningless chasing of someone else's dream, or that you've been an asshole to everyone and making the world a worse place. But you can't intentionally change what you don't know exists.
There are people, particularly among the younger, that take the drugs to "get f'd up". And I've seen those people have great times and come back more grounded and with more respect for reality, and I've seen those people have horrific experiences, in which their ego's are stripped and they are forced to see the impact their behavior has on the whole. Those experiences usually affect for much longer and are more immediately negative. But from what I've seen of those, the people who change most for the better are the ones that have the most to change, and the one's that have the most to change usually have the more intense/difficult realizations. There are such things as bad trips and there are people that come out worse, I won't deny that. But what I've seen is that the difficult experiences end up being the most valuable. It usually hurts to realise your whole life has been meaningless chasing of someone else's dream, or that you've been an asshole to everyone and making the world a worse place. But you can't intentionally change what you don't know exists.
> old research literature on LSD like stuff from James Fadiman
True, much of the research before we knew about set and setting approached the substances as psycho-mimetic, or substances that induce psychosis.
Aldous Huxley described them as the "gates to heaven and hell".
> The problem with psychedelics is they only make you "more" of what you are.
I think that's oversimplifying, the drug is a serotonin agonist, it tends to have some pretty predictable results. For example a large number of trips go in the general direction of "love is all we need"(Sam Harris, Waking Up).
> nobody talks about the very real possibility of having PTSD flashbacks
There are risks of bad experiences for sure, yet there are benefits for many people too. At the end of the day, "controlled substance which can be used under supervision" is not a bad place to be. Michael Pollan points out that psilocybin was highly ritualized in the cultures which used them, they were sacred and non-recreational.
True, much of the research before we knew about set and setting approached the substances as psycho-mimetic, or substances that induce psychosis.
Aldous Huxley described them as the "gates to heaven and hell".
> The problem with psychedelics is they only make you "more" of what you are.
I think that's oversimplifying, the drug is a serotonin agonist, it tends to have some pretty predictable results. For example a large number of trips go in the general direction of "love is all we need"(Sam Harris, Waking Up).
> nobody talks about the very real possibility of having PTSD flashbacks
There are risks of bad experiences for sure, yet there are benefits for many people too. At the end of the day, "controlled substance which can be used under supervision" is not a bad place to be. Michael Pollan points out that psilocybin was highly ritualized in the cultures which used them, they were sacred and non-recreational.
>The problem with psychedelics is they only make you "more" of what you are.
I've personally seen redirection, or orienting toward one's best self, more often than simply 'amplification of who you already are'.
I've personally seen redirection, or orienting toward one's best self, more often than simply 'amplification of who you already are'.
> The problem with psychedelics is they only make you "more" of what you are.
Not sure about "only" but I do think it's a valid thing to be aware of. It's only one half of the classical "set and setting" and the latter is really key. Are you doing it alone / who are you doing it with?
> these are extremely dangerous substances that can cause trauma and other serious psychological problems if not used extremely specifically and carefully
Don't know about this one either. I think it's certainly true that it can trigger latent trauma that hasn't been dealt with. But that's by no means a guarantee.
My take with this sort of stuff is that it's not really healthy to have an absolutist prohibitionist approach nor a free for all. I think the right approach is for interested parties to gently ramp up in the setting of an experienced sitter who can help reorient them.
> This isn't something you can do on your own.
This is probably the only part of your statement I'd categorically disagree with. Again, depends on the person, the set and the setting. Highly situational. Don't know if it's helpful to try and oversimplify this kind of thing.
Not sure about "only" but I do think it's a valid thing to be aware of. It's only one half of the classical "set and setting" and the latter is really key. Are you doing it alone / who are you doing it with?
> these are extremely dangerous substances that can cause trauma and other serious psychological problems if not used extremely specifically and carefully
Don't know about this one either. I think it's certainly true that it can trigger latent trauma that hasn't been dealt with. But that's by no means a guarantee.
My take with this sort of stuff is that it's not really healthy to have an absolutist prohibitionist approach nor a free for all. I think the right approach is for interested parties to gently ramp up in the setting of an experienced sitter who can help reorient them.
> This isn't something you can do on your own.
This is probably the only part of your statement I'd categorically disagree with. Again, depends on the person, the set and the setting. Highly situational. Don't know if it's helpful to try and oversimplify this kind of thing.
The only idea conveyed in your message that has any factual basis is that psychedelics should be taken with a lot of care, preparation, and consideration, including pre existing susceptibilities.
Everything else you said builds on top of this idea as if they are also fact based, but they are not. Let’s not make the social acceptance of psychedelics even harder than they already have been made to be.
Everything else you said builds on top of this idea as if they are also fact based, but they are not. Let’s not make the social acceptance of psychedelics even harder than they already have been made to be.
You have noticed something very interesting about the nature of human consciousness and the way it conceptualizes the world, and the events, ideas, people, etc within it. Other examples of this phenomenon can be observed in this thread, and all other threads on any topic.
I propose that this phenomenon can be productively explored and ~understood with the usage of psychedelics if one goes in with this specific intention.
I propose that this phenomenon can be productively explored and ~understood with the usage of psychedelics if one goes in with this specific intention.
Have you ever taken psychedelics?
I've paid attention over the last few years to what is being said about psilocybin in pop media. It seems that the problem isn't as you said but rather that it isn't being used in a clinical setting with a qualified therapist where a patient under the influence may break through barriers preventing recovery.
Yes, psychidelics are more dangerous than alcohol. /s
I received some very helpful wisdom on this topic, many years ago in my early teens, from a random guy I met on a beach.
He said "if you are interested in tripping, you'll almost surely do it. Just be sure to never feel pressured to do it at any one time - it'll always be there. When you do, just be sure you feel comfortable, not tense, and are in a good situation, among friends, and so on. ", basically how to avoid bad trips.
Only did a handful of times, but every time was totally worth it, mind expanding, and enjoyable. Definite thanks in no small part to the wisdom from a random stranger.
He said "if you are interested in tripping, you'll almost surely do it. Just be sure to never feel pressured to do it at any one time - it'll always be there. When you do, just be sure you feel comfortable, not tense, and are in a good situation, among friends, and so on. ", basically how to avoid bad trips.
Only did a handful of times, but every time was totally worth it, mind expanding, and enjoyable. Definite thanks in no small part to the wisdom from a random stranger.
I think that because psychedelics are illegal part of why people do them is to satisfy their need for danger. This is the person who thinks “why the hell not!” when taking acid for the first time from a stranger at a party. They’re in this rule breaking mindset already, so stuff like “set and setting” is just one more rule to break.
It’s like if scuba diving was illegal. I’m doubtful that people would do it as carefully.
The advice you got from that stranger seems like a good antidote to that mindset. “It’ll always be there.” That sentence alone seems to take the edge off. You don’t have to take it just because you were offered. It’ll come by again.
It’s like if scuba diving was illegal. I’m doubtful that people would do it as carefully.
The advice you got from that stranger seems like a good antidote to that mindset. “It’ll always be there.” That sentence alone seems to take the edge off. You don’t have to take it just because you were offered. It’ll come by again.
yup, peer pressure is probably the worst reason to do anything!
Related: Berkeley launches new center for psychedelic research
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/14/uc-berkeley-launches-ne...
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/14/uc-berkeley-launches-ne...
It can't save the environment from cultures that will bulldoze over incapacitated and non-competing westerners who buy this hippie nonsense.
Is there any good data on the effects of taking psychedelics on aggression / ambition / aggreableness / conscientiousness? The "becoming one with Nature" theme seems to be pretty common among enthusiasts, although I personally didn't notice a lasting effect after eating shrooms. I'm curious if there's a cause-effect relationship or it's just bias in people who gravitate to this.
Is there any good data on the effects of taking psychedelics on aggression / ambition / aggreableness / conscientiousness? The "becoming one with Nature" theme seems to be pretty common among enthusiasts, although I personally didn't notice a lasting effect after eating shrooms. I'm curious if there's a cause-effect relationship or it's just bias in people who gravitate to this.
Usually users on HN are conscientious and civil, until they are out of their comfort zone or world view, then it becomes like any other trashy forum with insults like "hippie nonsense".
Science and data are some of the best tools humans have ever found, but they are not the sole arbiters of truth and efficacy.
Science and data are some of the best tools humans have ever found, but they are not the sole arbiters of truth and efficacy.
I was curious and decided to look it up. Turns out there is a peer reviewed Journal of Psychopharmacology that has many published papers on topics that you mention.
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jop
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jop
> One celebrated study found that drug-naïve volunteers who were given psilocybin experienced lasting increases in openness to experience that were evident more than a year later.
> Openness to experience refers to the breadth, depth and complexity of a person’s mental life. People high in openness to experience tend to be intellectually curious, artistically sensitive, interested in new experiences, and have an active imagination.
None of these are direct counters to aggression, but I’d argue that they all contribute to keeping one’s bulldozers at bay.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-els...
> Openness to experience refers to the breadth, depth and complexity of a person’s mental life. People high in openness to experience tend to be intellectually curious, artistically sensitive, interested in new experiences, and have an active imagination.
None of these are direct counters to aggression, but I’d argue that they all contribute to keeping one’s bulldozers at bay.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-els...
In the article Stamets very clearly uses the term "heroic dose" -- meaning, he's differentiating from the experience one has when casually dabbling.
(Note I am not recommending that one takes a heroic dose -- experience and a guide is absolutely required here -- only that transformative experiences tend to happen during high dose experiences and that lower dose experiences are mostly just topical, relaxing and fun.)
(Note I am not recommending that one takes a heroic dose -- experience and a guide is absolutely required here -- only that transformative experiences tend to happen during high dose experiences and that lower dose experiences are mostly just topical, relaxing and fun.)
Stamets himself is quite a successful entrepreneur, as one data point. He funds much of his research out of the proceeds from his business selling mushroom-based products.
His mushroom-based products are well known for containing only trace amounts of the active ingredients. They are a scam and beg question of Stamet's claims and motives.
Could you provide some evidence of this?
[deleted]
I would highly suggest reading "The Immortality Key" by Brian C. Muraresku before dismissing this all as "hippie nonsense"
Paul stamets is also the name of the Astromycologist on Star trek discovery.
Obviously. The ship has an experimental drive based on mushrooms.
He even consulted with the writers on that technology.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Stamets_(mycologis...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Stamets_(mycologis...
Yeah, I have a feeling that's why I see his name so often on HN these days. The show propelled him to wider recognition.
Joe Rogan did more for his general populace celebrity status than Star Trek
Lol, sure, must be from Star Trek.
This is intentional, and the real Stamets had input on the show.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Stamets_(mycologis...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Stamets_(mycologis...
What an absolute random coincidence! What are the chances? ;)
One of the weirdest things about that show. Who does that? Did they ask him for permission first?
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Stamets_(mycologis...
Yes, and he had input into the show.
Yes, and he had input into the show.
Yes, they consulted him and got his permission: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/paul-stamets...
i don't like this argument at all. protecting the environment is an immense responsibility that we all share, so the argument veers close to implying that choosing not to take psychedelic drugs is morally wrong -- willfully choosing to inhibit "evolutionary intelligence".
i've noticed that in the last couple years, psychedelic advocates have shifted from advocating for legalization and increased research (very good in my view), to being very defensive about possible dangers, to applying social pressure against people who don't want to take psychedelics. of course this only happens right now in certain limited social circles, but it is spreading.
not a good trend in my view, and not very reassuring if psychedelics are supposed to help people be more enlightened and open-minded.
i've noticed that in the last couple years, psychedelic advocates have shifted from advocating for legalization and increased research (very good in my view), to being very defensive about possible dangers, to applying social pressure against people who don't want to take psychedelics. of course this only happens right now in certain limited social circles, but it is spreading.
not a good trend in my view, and not very reassuring if psychedelics are supposed to help people be more enlightened and open-minded.
At least one psychedelic advocate said that living a life without having a psychedelic experience is like living a life without having sex. He didn’t say that was a morally- wrong decision, only that you miss out on a deeply human, deeply significant experience which has a profound effect on how you view the world.
The choice to do either of these should be made freely and consciously, and each of them can be culturally restricted or promoted in healthy or unhealthy ways. The line between “healthy” and “unhealthy” is going to be different for everyone. I think a good thought exercise is to compare and contrast modern psychedelic advocacy with the 20th century’s sexual revolution.
The choice to do either of these should be made freely and consciously, and each of them can be culturally restricted or promoted in healthy or unhealthy ways. The line between “healthy” and “unhealthy” is going to be different for everyone. I think a good thought exercise is to compare and contrast modern psychedelic advocacy with the 20th century’s sexual revolution.
I would place myself solidly into this category of people, although I try to avoid the negative behaviors that you validly point out.
In response, I ask: how confident are you in your (as I see it) perception/estimation that psychedelics do not (or, are highly unlikely to) have some genuine (in fact) quality that could bring immense value to the world? If we were to find a way to use them in the proper ways (which would include close integration with scientific study of the ongoing process), does it seem reasonably plausible to you that some sort of a significant achievement could be achieved?
In response, I ask: how confident are you in your (as I see it) perception/estimation that psychedelics do not (or, are highly unlikely to) have some genuine (in fact) quality that could bring immense value to the world? If we were to find a way to use them in the proper ways (which would include close integration with scientific study of the ongoing process), does it seem reasonably plausible to you that some sort of a significant achievement could be achieved?
i think if they really work well as part of treatment for PTSD and other aftereffects of trauma, and perhaps other mental illnesses, that would be of profound value for humanity.
as far as people taking them in general: from looking at people who take psychedelics, it doesn't seem to me that they're any more or less enlightened or emotionally mature than people who don't. whatever the subjective experience, it seems like all the flaws and foibles of humanity are still there just as much.
it does seem like it teaches people a particular outlook or way of relating to the world -- but I don't think it's one that is superior or inferior to other perspectives. Probably society needs people who relate to life in many different ways.
I would worry about living in a society where it is the norm for everyone to take psychedelic drugs multiple times per year. I think things would get pretty weird.
as far as people taking them in general: from looking at people who take psychedelics, it doesn't seem to me that they're any more or less enlightened or emotionally mature than people who don't. whatever the subjective experience, it seems like all the flaws and foibles of humanity are still there just as much.
it does seem like it teaches people a particular outlook or way of relating to the world -- but I don't think it's one that is superior or inferior to other perspectives. Probably society needs people who relate to life in many different ways.
I would worry about living in a society where it is the norm for everyone to take psychedelic drugs multiple times per year. I think things would get pretty weird.
I think you're missing an idea I'm trying to get at. I think we can agree that psychedelics do weird things (you may have not a whole bunch of first hand experience, and I can report from tons of reading that the variety and nature of first hand experiences is highly variable).
You have noticed (directly &/or read anecdotes & "beliefs" of users) some sample of the results (a subset of all user experiences, which is a subset of all the experiences that are possible in the space), and logically formed some sort of a conclusion about what psychedelics do/offer. I am speaking of that which is beyond - the far more rare experiences of people who have used them very deliberately as a tool (practices & results you are not aware of), and then also that which lies beyond anyone's experiences thus far. Might there be something important within these spaces (think from the perspective of a Venn Diagram), of which you have no information, but does in fact exist (or, could exist)?
You have noticed (directly &/or read anecdotes & "beliefs" of users) some sample of the results (a subset of all user experiences, which is a subset of all the experiences that are possible in the space), and logically formed some sort of a conclusion about what psychedelics do/offer. I am speaking of that which is beyond - the far more rare experiences of people who have used them very deliberately as a tool (practices & results you are not aware of), and then also that which lies beyond anyone's experiences thus far. Might there be something important within these spaces (think from the perspective of a Venn Diagram), of which you have no information, but does in fact exist (or, could exist)?
it's definitely possible that individuals using these drugs carefully and deliberately could discover some kind of valuable practice or insight. And perhaps this could turn into something that eventually could be shared among many people, with the right context, like the Eleusinian Mysteries or something.
if people want to do this it seems like a good thing, if risky. (although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use -- which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable.)
what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly.
if people want to do this it seems like a good thing, if risky. (although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use -- which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable.)
what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly.
> And perhaps this could turn into something that eventually could be shared among many people, with the right context, like the Eleusinian Mysteries or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries
The Eleusinian Mysteries (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were initiations held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone based at the Panhellenic Sanctuary of Eleusis in ancient Greece. They are the "most famous of the secret religious rites of ancient Greece".[1] Their basis was an old agrarian cult,[2] and there is some evidence that they were derived from the religious practices of the Mycenean period.[3][4] The mysteries represented the myth of the abduction of Persephone from her mother Demeter by the king of the underworld Hades, in a cycle with three phases: the descent (loss), the search, and the ascent, with the main theme being the ascent (άνοδος) of Persephone and the reunion with her mother. It was a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spread to Rome.[5] Similar religious rites appear in the agricultural societies of Near East and in Minoan Crete.
Conceptualizing something that matches one's priors is easy. Conceptualizing something that does not match one's priors seems to be less easy, if not sometimes even aversive.
> although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use
There is what seems to be, and then there is what is - the latter portion is often many orders of magnitude larger, and often not conceptualized by the mind (it sees NULL). "Seeing" what literally cannot be seen is non-intuitive - we seem to have the capacity to do it with ease in some domains, but in others it seems very difficult, and the mind is often even strongly resistant (techniques like Venn diagram based thinking can help). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns [1]
> which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable
Safe and Valuable are two variables, of which we do not know the range of possible values, even if it may seem like it. The subconscious mind will gladly and near-instantly detect patterns though, which it presents to our conscious mind as facts. One can easily see this in simple scenarios, like in people who fall for fake news or conspiracy theories. Seeing it in ourselves is less easy.
> what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly
Consider why you find this troubling. The notion is True, or it is False, or somewhere in between (spread across millions of variables, sometimes forming binarily opposed conclusions, which can all be simultaneously True). Ideas are ideas, they can produce positive outcomes, or negative outcomes, but I don't think pondering them in the abstract should be thought of as troubling (I mean, that feeling is arguably sub-optimal, even if intuitive).
[1] While the remarks initially led to some ridicule towards the Bush administration in general and Rumsfeld in particular, the consensus regarding it has shifted over the years, and it now enjoys some level of respect. For example, Rumsfeld's defenders have included Canadian columnist Mark Steyn, who called it "in fact a brilliant distillation of quite a complex matter",[10] and Australian economist and blogger John Quiggin, who wrote, "Although the language may be tortured, the basic point is both valid and important."
-------> Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Žižek says that beyond these three categories there is a fourth, the unknown known, that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values."
German sociologists Daase and Kessler (2007) agree with a basic point of Rumsfeld in stating that the cognitive frame [2] for political practice may be determined by the relationship between what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but Rumsfeld left out what we do not like to know.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.
Framing can manifest in thought or interpersonal communication. Frames in thought consist of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality. Frames in communication consist of the communication of frames between different actors.
In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In other words, people build a series of mental "filters" through biological and cultural influences. They then use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame.
Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. Framing is an integral part of conveying and processing data on a daily basis. Successful framing techniques can be used to reduce the ambiguity of intangible topics by contextualizing the information in such a way that recipients can connect to what they already know.
Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve[citation needed] imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.
One can view framing in communication as positive or negative – depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames, where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways (see framing effect) or emphasis frames, which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue.[1] In the case of "equivalence frames", the information being presented is based on the same facts, but the "frame" in which it is presented changes, thus creating a reference-dependent perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries
The Eleusinian Mysteries (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were initiations held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone based at the Panhellenic Sanctuary of Eleusis in ancient Greece. They are the "most famous of the secret religious rites of ancient Greece".[1] Their basis was an old agrarian cult,[2] and there is some evidence that they were derived from the religious practices of the Mycenean period.[3][4] The mysteries represented the myth of the abduction of Persephone from her mother Demeter by the king of the underworld Hades, in a cycle with three phases: the descent (loss), the search, and the ascent, with the main theme being the ascent (άνοδος) of Persephone and the reunion with her mother. It was a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spread to Rome.[5] Similar religious rites appear in the agricultural societies of Near East and in Minoan Crete.
Conceptualizing something that matches one's priors is easy. Conceptualizing something that does not match one's priors seems to be less easy, if not sometimes even aversive.
> although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use
There is what seems to be, and then there is what is - the latter portion is often many orders of magnitude larger, and often not conceptualized by the mind (it sees NULL). "Seeing" what literally cannot be seen is non-intuitive - we seem to have the capacity to do it with ease in some domains, but in others it seems very difficult, and the mind is often even strongly resistant (techniques like Venn diagram based thinking can help). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns [1]
> which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable
Safe and Valuable are two variables, of which we do not know the range of possible values, even if it may seem like it. The subconscious mind will gladly and near-instantly detect patterns though, which it presents to our conscious mind as facts. One can easily see this in simple scenarios, like in people who fall for fake news or conspiracy theories. Seeing it in ourselves is less easy.
> what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly
Consider why you find this troubling. The notion is True, or it is False, or somewhere in between (spread across millions of variables, sometimes forming binarily opposed conclusions, which can all be simultaneously True). Ideas are ideas, they can produce positive outcomes, or negative outcomes, but I don't think pondering them in the abstract should be thought of as troubling (I mean, that feeling is arguably sub-optimal, even if intuitive).
[1] While the remarks initially led to some ridicule towards the Bush administration in general and Rumsfeld in particular, the consensus regarding it has shifted over the years, and it now enjoys some level of respect. For example, Rumsfeld's defenders have included Canadian columnist Mark Steyn, who called it "in fact a brilliant distillation of quite a complex matter",[10] and Australian economist and blogger John Quiggin, who wrote, "Although the language may be tortured, the basic point is both valid and important."
-------> Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Žižek says that beyond these three categories there is a fourth, the unknown known, that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values."
German sociologists Daase and Kessler (2007) agree with a basic point of Rumsfeld in stating that the cognitive frame [2] for political practice may be determined by the relationship between what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but Rumsfeld left out what we do not like to know.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.
Framing can manifest in thought or interpersonal communication. Frames in thought consist of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality. Frames in communication consist of the communication of frames between different actors.
In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In other words, people build a series of mental "filters" through biological and cultural influences. They then use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame.
Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. Framing is an integral part of conveying and processing data on a daily basis. Successful framing techniques can be used to reduce the ambiguity of intangible topics by contextualizing the information in such a way that recipients can connect to what they already know.
Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve[citation needed] imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.
One can view framing in communication as positive or negative – depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames, where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways (see framing effect) or emphasis frames, which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue.[1] In the case of "equivalence frames", the information being presented is based on the same facts, but the "frame" in which it is presented changes, thus creating a reference-dependent perception.
I have to agree with this and have noticed the same thing in my circles. It’s like travel. It should make you more open-minded and more well rounded, and yet ... there are people for whom it does just the opposite ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin: 'a naturally occurring psychedelic prodrug compound produced by more than 200 species of fungus'
I've been microdosing psilocybin daily for the past six months during quarantine as a bit of a cognitive experiment. I feel a lot more switched on and focused in my work. Reading these posts I wonder what other diseases such as Parkinson's, seizures, PTSD, depression, anxiety have yet to be studied and require more research. Can anyone speak to this? Anything else I should add to my stack?
> I've been microdosing psilocybin daily for the past six months [...] I didn't get COVID and I feel a lot more switched on and focused
You lost your causation vs correlation sense though :)
You lost your causation vs correlation sense though :)
Nailed it.
A lot of the "I did this and it had great effects" are compounded with "I did this and it ruined my life" and a bit of "I did this and it ruined my life and everyone around me". I suspect the human mind is tailored to promote the first outcome and stick it's fingers in its metaphorical ears about the last two outcomes.
Turns out we need actual formal studies and even those aren't necessarily conclusive so it's best to err on the side of caution.
A lot of the "I did this and it had great effects" are compounded with "I did this and it ruined my life" and a bit of "I did this and it ruined my life and everyone around me". I suspect the human mind is tailored to promote the first outcome and stick it's fingers in its metaphorical ears about the last two outcomes.
Turns out we need actual formal studies and even those aren't necessarily conclusive so it's best to err on the side of caution.
Good evidence that big doses work: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026988112091995...
I’m sure that is caveated on some people and for some conditions. I’d expect a better standard and more research to be defined here or we’ll end up with another paroxetine mess on our hands.
I lost a decade of my life to cleaning up after that mess and that was just a family member’s encounter with it.
What is factual is that things are invariably more complicated than they look when it comes to human minds.
Look up “study 329” for an example of complexity.
I lost a decade of my life to cleaning up after that mess and that was just a family member’s encounter with it.
What is factual is that things are invariably more complicated than they look when it comes to human minds.
Look up “study 329” for an example of complexity.
> I suspect the human mind is tailored to promote the first outcome and stick it's fingers in its metaphorical ears about the last two outcomes.
It's more complicated than that. Plenty of people hear the bad outcomes and stick their fingers in their ears about the good ones. The subject of recreational drug use is a particularly good one for eliciting this behaviour, both for and against.
The interesting questions are how people in the same society get primed for one reaction over the other, and how we can individually avoid this behaviour and approach controversial topics with an open mind.
It's more complicated than that. Plenty of people hear the bad outcomes and stick their fingers in their ears about the good ones. The subject of recreational drug use is a particularly good one for eliciting this behaviour, both for and against.
The interesting questions are how people in the same society get primed for one reaction over the other, and how we can individually avoid this behaviour and approach controversial topics with an open mind.
And (although I think you kinda said this), different people may respond in different ways.
This sounds too much like Billions season 5 episode 7. Uncanny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtJNljm1pVs
Is that clip indicative of the quality of the show?
Currently, yes. The first season was _much_ better, and there has been a decline (at first steep, then gradual and consistent) with each season since then.
This was the last episode they aired due to COVID-related production shutdown. They're supposed to finish this season and do another, but I wonder if the show might just shut down quietly at this point.
This was the last episode they aired due to COVID-related production shutdown. They're supposed to finish this season and do another, but I wonder if the show might just shut down quietly at this point.
It was initially based on a true story described in the book "Black Edge". It just kept getting more and more outlandish once they ran out of source material.
The self-reported positive effects hallucinogens are awful.
They alter your perception so your perception of perceived benefits is unreliable, and anyone who's not tripping can tell you that. I mean, with full doses the reported benefits are things like connecting with the thread of the universe and speaking across planes to dimensional beings that inform you that we're all one, but the word fractal is jammed in there somewhere. I'm not saying these people can't have fun, but pulling THAT experience back to just reduced levels of the drug is probably still going to give terrible accuracy for self reported results.
Microdosing reminds me of those people who left high school parties saying it was fine because they drive better drunk, or that they took some coke to balance it out.
They alter your perception so your perception of perceived benefits is unreliable, and anyone who's not tripping can tell you that. I mean, with full doses the reported benefits are things like connecting with the thread of the universe and speaking across planes to dimensional beings that inform you that we're all one, but the word fractal is jammed in there somewhere. I'm not saying these people can't have fun, but pulling THAT experience back to just reduced levels of the drug is probably still going to give terrible accuracy for self reported results.
Microdosing reminds me of those people who left high school parties saying it was fine because they drive better drunk, or that they took some coke to balance it out.
Microdosing implies non psychoactive dose. It would be more like people who left after drinking one beer because they were not under the influence.
Furthermore, how can you be certain that you sober perception is more accurate than the altered one? How can you be certain that the effects of microdosing are even comparable to full doses? I am not making claims either way, just asking.
Furthermore, how can you be certain that you sober perception is more accurate than the altered one? How can you be certain that the effects of microdosing are even comparable to full doses? I am not making claims either way, just asking.
Here's my personal anecdote: I took acid once (200ug sublingual), and realized that I need to clean my apartment and brush my teeth more often.
I'm not a very spiritual person, and I don't have a strong desire to 'connect with the thread of the universe'. But I'm very curious and happy to try things, if I can convince myself they're reasonably safe.
That was a few weeks ago, and I'm happy to report that my floor is noticeably cleaner and my teeth cared for =)
I could try to claim other less measurable and subjective benefits, but that wouldn't be very honest with myself after only a couple weeks, and I doubt you'd believe me.
I'm not a very spiritual person, and I don't have a strong desire to 'connect with the thread of the universe'. But I'm very curious and happy to try things, if I can convince myself they're reasonably safe.
That was a few weeks ago, and I'm happy to report that my floor is noticeably cleaner and my teeth cared for =)
I could try to claim other less measurable and subjective benefits, but that wouldn't be very honest with myself after only a couple weeks, and I doubt you'd believe me.
If someone is impaired to drive they are by definition not microdosing. The equivalent to alcohol would be like a quarter of a beer.
he's now fully quantum
>> I feel a lot more switched on and focused in my work.
Quarantine alone can do that for some people. Shutting out the world is a requirement to focus on deep work. Same reason Joel Spolsky says software engineers need offices with doors.
Not saying you're wrong, just that you cant separate out this obvious factor in your experiment.
Quarantine alone can do that for some people. Shutting out the world is a requirement to focus on deep work. Same reason Joel Spolsky says software engineers need offices with doors.
Not saying you're wrong, just that you cant separate out this obvious factor in your experiment.
I started microdosing psilocybin since 3 years, sometime every day, sometime once every 1 or 2 weeks.
When I take it the morning, I am very focused on my work, but also I am less stressed and anxious.
I had a Tinder period with lot of date and psilocybin really help to build confident with women.
Do you take the psilocybin specifically before the date? Or just in general, the microdosing has made you better with women
Every morning of the day of the date, but surely in general too, I feel like upgraded in every field possible with a long terme cure.
Yeah I tried for the first time. Was roughly 300mg? For the first hour I was a bit off, but then it cleared and I felt very straightforward and open emotionally all day. Could definitely see it being useful for a date.
What's your dose, is it extract or raw material?
What's your dose, is it extract or raw material?
It is raw dried B+ magic mushroom, I mix it to obtain a powder.
I don't know the exact gram of dose, it is about between 0.5 and 1.0 cubic centimeter of powder
Interesting, when I was microdosing LSD I was much more social: less social anxiety, more outgoing and more friendly. (A nicer person, as far as I can tell!) Also I was able to consistently keep an early bedtime for the first time in my life.
The most interesting effect for me was that it became impossible to procrastinate. (I normally spend 99% of my time procrastinating.) I would go on YouTube or Reddit but the whole time I was just consciously aware that I was trying to distract myself from something... so in the end it was easier to just go ahead and do the damn thing to get it off my mind. Very productive time for me.
The most interesting effect for me was that it became impossible to procrastinate. (I normally spend 99% of my time procrastinating.) I would go on YouTube or Reddit but the whole time I was just consciously aware that I was trying to distract myself from something... so in the end it was easier to just go ahead and do the damn thing to get it off my mind. Very productive time for me.
Same here, I am a a big procrastinator, ang with microdosing I am constantly doing something and if I can't find some task to do then I became very angry, I am very rarely angry without microdosing.
Nice to have such a steady access to psilocybin. Why not LSD, by the way?
> I've been microdosing psilocybin daily for the past six months, [...] I didn't get COVID.
Made me laugh.
> I've been microdosing psilocybin daily for the past six months, [...] I didn't get COVID.
Made me laugh.
> Why not LSD
At least this [1] suggests that LSD microdosing doesn’t do anything, while there have been a few studies that suggested psilocybin micrososing does. Dunno how strong the evidence is in either direction but that would make me more inclined to start with psilocybin if I were to experiment myself.
[1] https://www.gwern.net/LSD-microdosing#conclusion
At least this [1] suggests that LSD microdosing doesn’t do anything, while there have been a few studies that suggested psilocybin micrososing does. Dunno how strong the evidence is in either direction but that would make me more inclined to start with psilocybin if I were to experiment myself.
[1] https://www.gwern.net/LSD-microdosing#conclusion
Isn't the tolerance to LSD built way too fast for daily (micro)usage over half a year?
Yes, same as psilocybin. When you microdose you are not supposed to get psychedelic effects. The supposed benefits come from prolonged presence of the molecule in the body. Similar how antidepressants work, the point is not to take one tablet once.
The effects of microdosing begin on consumption and end on discontinuation. They do not build up and fade slowly. Tolerance and breaks are frequently discussed.
So, it's not about the effect of a prolonged presence.
So, it's not about the effect of a prolonged presence.
Not sure what other people are using, but I've worked up to about 64mcg/day.
100mcg is usually a full dose. Usually micrososing is 1/10th of a typical full dose so 10mcg. Your tolerance is already quite high if you're at 64mcg/day and not actively feeling any tripping.
Easier to grow in the cupboard :)
What size micro dose?
Personally, I've concluded I cannot be productive with even as little as 100-200mg of cubes.
Personally, I've concluded I cannot be productive with even as little as 100-200mg of cubes.
5-7 mg. 10mg verges on a perceptual dose for me.
mcg, I presume. But 200mcg is a really high dose. 10-20 would be a microdose for most. I hope you test your stuff and have the right potency because your comment doesn't sound right.
They’re talking about milligrams of cubensis mushrooms (cubes) not micrograms of LSD.
My bad, tracked the wrong parent comment by mistake. I thought he was talking about consumable microdose lsd cubes. Makes alot more sense now.
Lots of questions; top 2:
How did you get started?
Is there a reasonably safe (both medically and legally) way to source it?
How did you get started?
Is there a reasonably safe (both medically and legally) way to source it?
1. Going into this, you need to research a ton.
2. Know someone that sells it. Or look for a field for them and go hunting. Or grow them, spores are legal and you can buy everything you need online.
There are many places online that will ship spores where it is legal to have spores. Many places discussing it, too.
Lion's Mane mushroom is being marketed by Stamets
I saw this on Twitter today (mushroom related) by Dr. Inés Dawson.
Why do mushrooms always have double-barrelled surnames? They're hyphae-nated!
Why do mushrooms always have double-barrelled surnames? They're hyphae-nated!
See also "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" (youtube.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698
I got a call from a friend today, who is dealing with depression. He has ready many such articles and has been microdosing on psilocybin mushrooms. He wanted my help to be with him as a sober person when he goes through the experience. I had to say no. I've two simple reasons.
1. Mushrooms are illegal in Australia. I don't want him or I to be part of any illegal activity.
2. Even though he argued that the big pharma wouldn't let this happen etc, modern medicine has saved so many lives that we at least should try to understand it better. I requested him to see a psychiatrist and go through therapy. Talk to the to professional and seek natural alternatives to prescription medicine, if available.
I could be wrong in my opinion. As a student of statistics, I'd love to read some study results on the effect of psilocybin before believing this.
1. Mushrooms are illegal in Australia. I don't want him or I to be part of any illegal activity.
2. Even though he argued that the big pharma wouldn't let this happen etc, modern medicine has saved so many lives that we at least should try to understand it better. I requested him to see a psychiatrist and go through therapy. Talk to the to professional and seek natural alternatives to prescription medicine, if available.
I could be wrong in my opinion. As a student of statistics, I'd love to read some study results on the effect of psilocybin before believing this.
Wow.. Already been downvoted. I think my advice wasn't wrong. Going through such experience with someone like me who doesn't understand it can be risky. Hence, I suggested to see a psychiatrist.
The advice was not wrong. You probably would not have been a great sitter, and it's best to recognize that.
Your comment comes off in the wrong way for a thread about muyshrooms.
Your comment comes off in the wrong way for a thread about muyshrooms.
You're right that I wouldn't have been a great sitter. Primarily because I don't understand them enough. Also psychiatric help is proven and should be the first step in dealing with mental health issues. There have been studies on the use of mushrooms to help in these cases. Some of those come from prestigious unis. However, only a trained psychiatrist can help a person prepare and go through such experiences. I'm not the right person. I'd be just helping someone get high on an illegal substance. As a friend I advised him accordingly with best intentions.
> only a trained psychiatrist can help a person prepare and go through such experiences.
Source?
Source?
I'm not a healthcare professional.
Depression is an umbrella term and it covers a wide range of different things, and a wide range of severity. At its most severe depression is a fatal illness. It is safe[1] to ask people if they've considered suicide. If people have suicidal thoughts this is a medical emergency.
If someone has situational depression they may need support to help fix the situation or to cope with it if it's not fixable.
If someone has a depression that doesn't appear to have a cause there's a variety of things that people try. These don't work for everyone. Some of them have worse evidence bases.
1) Lifestyle changes. These include sleep hygiene (good evidence), exercise (not great evidence but there is sign of some benefit), food (not great evidence), and cutting down on alcohol (good evidence). MH professionals have a concept called "activation". As depression takes hold the person loses track of their routines and habits, and they enter a cycle of not doing anything because they're in a low mood, and being in a low mood because they don't do anything. Activation is part of treatment and it involves gradually building up your routines as treatment progresses.
2) Meds. Meds can be split into roughly 5 groups: Tricyclics (avoid if you can), MAOIs (only used for severe treatment resistant depression), SSRIs/SSNIs/NASAs/etc (reasonable evidence base, some people need to cycle through a few to find one that works, some people have unpleasant discontinuation effects), supplements (St John's Wort etc. I'd avoid these unless you're sure the product is good quality, but if you're taking something it's probably better to take real meds), and then things like ketamine which is new and so will be difficult to get for a while. (It's probably useful, it's probably not the miracle drug they claim).
3) Talking therapy. The one with the best evidence base is cognitive behaviour therapy. This is a time-limited therapy with a maximum of 21 weeks, but you can do less if you need less. It's talking about your emotions and thoughts today. It doesn't go into your past. This means it's less suitable for people with trauma in their history.
When we look at effectiveness, meds are effective for about 60% of the people who try them. CBT is effective for about 60% of the people who try it (although that figure is lower because it's mostly based on the English implementation of CBT which can be only 6 weeks over the telephone instead of up to 21 weeks face to face).
Talking to a professional is a good idea. Psychiatrists usually do diagnosis and medication, although some do talking therapy too. Psychologists usually do either diagnosis or formulation, and will offer a range of talking therapies, and sometimes a bit of a mix to suit. It would be good if your friend had a clear ideas about what they wanted to focus on in treatment and what their goals are, although obviously that can be tricky if their thinking is muddled.
You mentioned drug use. Some people do report remarkable, life-changing, experiences after using psychedelics. But it's important to remember that a few people have bad experiences, and some people are harmed. In general (at least in the UK) people who take psychedelics have a good reputation for harm minimisation and responsible drug use, so if you can find a forum you're likely to get good advice and advice that you can check against other sources.
In England this is the guidance for treatment that patients can expect: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90
Hope things pick up a bit for your friend.
[1] A bit more about suicide. Asking people is safe; get people to make a safety plan; get them to seek help.
The Zero Suicide Alliance have a 20-30 minute free training video here: https://www.zerosuicidealliance.com/training
https://themighty.com/2020/08/study-safe-to-ask-about-suicid...
https://www.prevent-suicide.org.uk/
Depression is an umbrella term and it covers a wide range of different things, and a wide range of severity. At its most severe depression is a fatal illness. It is safe[1] to ask people if they've considered suicide. If people have suicidal thoughts this is a medical emergency.
If someone has situational depression they may need support to help fix the situation or to cope with it if it's not fixable.
If someone has a depression that doesn't appear to have a cause there's a variety of things that people try. These don't work for everyone. Some of them have worse evidence bases.
1) Lifestyle changes. These include sleep hygiene (good evidence), exercise (not great evidence but there is sign of some benefit), food (not great evidence), and cutting down on alcohol (good evidence). MH professionals have a concept called "activation". As depression takes hold the person loses track of their routines and habits, and they enter a cycle of not doing anything because they're in a low mood, and being in a low mood because they don't do anything. Activation is part of treatment and it involves gradually building up your routines as treatment progresses.
2) Meds. Meds can be split into roughly 5 groups: Tricyclics (avoid if you can), MAOIs (only used for severe treatment resistant depression), SSRIs/SSNIs/NASAs/etc (reasonable evidence base, some people need to cycle through a few to find one that works, some people have unpleasant discontinuation effects), supplements (St John's Wort etc. I'd avoid these unless you're sure the product is good quality, but if you're taking something it's probably better to take real meds), and then things like ketamine which is new and so will be difficult to get for a while. (It's probably useful, it's probably not the miracle drug they claim).
3) Talking therapy. The one with the best evidence base is cognitive behaviour therapy. This is a time-limited therapy with a maximum of 21 weeks, but you can do less if you need less. It's talking about your emotions and thoughts today. It doesn't go into your past. This means it's less suitable for people with trauma in their history.
When we look at effectiveness, meds are effective for about 60% of the people who try them. CBT is effective for about 60% of the people who try it (although that figure is lower because it's mostly based on the English implementation of CBT which can be only 6 weeks over the telephone instead of up to 21 weeks face to face).
Talking to a professional is a good idea. Psychiatrists usually do diagnosis and medication, although some do talking therapy too. Psychologists usually do either diagnosis or formulation, and will offer a range of talking therapies, and sometimes a bit of a mix to suit. It would be good if your friend had a clear ideas about what they wanted to focus on in treatment and what their goals are, although obviously that can be tricky if their thinking is muddled.
You mentioned drug use. Some people do report remarkable, life-changing, experiences after using psychedelics. But it's important to remember that a few people have bad experiences, and some people are harmed. In general (at least in the UK) people who take psychedelics have a good reputation for harm minimisation and responsible drug use, so if you can find a forum you're likely to get good advice and advice that you can check against other sources.
In England this is the guidance for treatment that patients can expect: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90
Hope things pick up a bit for your friend.
[1] A bit more about suicide. Asking people is safe; get people to make a safety plan; get them to seek help.
The Zero Suicide Alliance have a 20-30 minute free training video here: https://www.zerosuicidealliance.com/training
https://themighty.com/2020/08/study-safe-to-ask-about-suicid...
https://www.prevent-suicide.org.uk/
Thank you for the comment. I don't know much about it. I actually have three friends who're going though it. One of them is seeing a psychiatrist and is coping well. The second (who called me) has been self-dosing on these natural medication. And third one has been hit the worst. He is alone and can't access proper treatment. He doesn't talk to many people due to anxiety issues. And he is outside my lockdown zone, so I can't even visit him, unfortunately. I make sure that I at least text them every once in a while to find out how they're doing. I'll read through the guide and see if I can do more to help.
> Evolution is the evolution of intelligence
Where can I read more of this idea?
Where can I read more of this idea?
Gregory Bateson, "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" and "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity".
I'm sorry but this is just hippy nonsense. It's not the lack of mental integration into nature that is stopping us from taking care of the enverionment. And you don't need to trip on mushrooms to see the filth all arround us.
The real issues include: not being able to stop production and consumption for obvious reasons. Energy production and distribution logistics. Understanding natural ecosystems and setting priorities on how to protect them. Sharing the world with neighbours that can outcompete you because they don't pay the high costs of clean industry. And many more real hard problems, not just a state of mind.
tldr: this article is the equivalent of "why can't we all just get along" plan for world peace.
The real issues include: not being able to stop production and consumption for obvious reasons. Energy production and distribution logistics. Understanding natural ecosystems and setting priorities on how to protect them. Sharing the world with neighbours that can outcompete you because they don't pay the high costs of clean industry. And many more real hard problems, not just a state of mind.
tldr: this article is the equivalent of "why can't we all just get along" plan for world peace.
The article was an interview with a headline chosen by someone else.
The points were about appreciating biodiversity and neurogenesis and it was very interesting. The headline was hyperbole and successful.
The points were about appreciating biodiversity and neurogenesis and it was very interesting. The headline was hyperbole and successful.
> And you don't need to trip on mushrooms to see the filth all arround us.
For you. A lot of people don't see what's around them on a daily basis, good or bad. Mushrooms can help with that since they remove a lot of the filters we have built up.
For you. A lot of people don't see what's around them on a daily basis, good or bad. Mushrooms can help with that since they remove a lot of the filters we have built up.
We put in filters as an adaptation to help live in such an environment. If we remove those filters for things that we can't change, won't it make everyone needlessly miserable?
> If we remove those filters for things that we can't change, won't it make everyone needlessly miserable?
Perceived as Normal: People do not see the world for what it is and need to rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continual participation in it and expect others to do the same.
One aspect of depression: People see the world for what is is and can no longer rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continual participation in it.
High functioning: People see the world for what it is and have no need to rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continue participation in it and leverage the observation that others need and expect a continual illusion.
We are not all the same and perhaps more people can be higher functioning.
Perceived as Normal: People do not see the world for what it is and need to rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continual participation in it and expect others to do the same.
One aspect of depression: People see the world for what is is and can no longer rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continual participation in it.
High functioning: People see the world for what it is and have no need to rationalize pleasant things to motivate their continue participation in it and leverage the observation that others need and expect a continual illusion.
We are not all the same and perhaps more people can be higher functioning.
And I wondered - for example - why people push back when I point out what a shit hole of a city we live in. Thanks for the perspective.
Perhaps or it can allow you to see what is holding you back. Many assumptions are rooted below conscious thought and it can be useful to bring them to the fore.
An example of useless filters: today I spent like 15 minutes searching for my teapot on my kitchen bench.
I did not find it.
Later I walked in my kitchen and immediately spotted the teapot. It was standing next to the kettle in the middle of the kitchen bench, the same place where it has been standing for the last 2 years...
I did not find it.
Later I walked in my kitchen and immediately spotted the teapot. It was standing next to the kettle in the middle of the kitchen bench, the same place where it has been standing for the last 2 years...
I find it best to argue in good faith when coming to these kinds of low-data conversations. There are obviously many such factors involved in our integration with the environment. Why couldn't it be psilocybin (or other nootropic compound) that pushes us towards a more sustainable future with fewer mental health/chronic pain issues? This is a classic HN takedown of an otherwise interesting post.
It's still the argument based on consumption. Let's consume X, surely that will sort our issue of emitting too much CO2.
Edit: not to mention. Our environmental problems aren't consumption or conscience, or even technology based, but lack of political will.
Edit: not to mention. Our environmental problems aren't consumption or conscience, or even technology based, but lack of political will.
Why do you think there is a lack of political will? Is it possible that these kinds of conscious altering plants can change the ideals of politicians to not be solely focused on playing the political game in order to continue to work? I think its more than worth exploring alternatives to allow the people who rule us to have an expanded conscious on how they can impact the lives of the people in their communities. Many people who have taken psychedelics, especially psilocybin have claimed it is a life changing experience for the better.
> Why do you think there is a lack of political will?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say because getting countries as diverse as the US, China and Saudi Arabia to consent to shutting down the industrialised world and people to accept not having nice things is incredibly difficult, and carbon capture solutions which might be more politically palatable are less proven plays a bigger role in the climate continuing to change than politicians not taking psychedelic drugs.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say because getting countries as diverse as the US, China and Saudi Arabia to consent to shutting down the industrialised world and people to accept not having nice things is incredibly difficult, and carbon capture solutions which might be more politically palatable are less proven plays a bigger role in the climate continuing to change than politicians not taking psychedelic drugs.
I see your point, and agree that getting high off mushrooms isn't going to solve the climate crisis. Most people aren't arguing that instead of continuing to pursue renewable energy we should just take mushrooms instead.
But I would argue that psychedelic use, when done appropriately and carefully, can be a catalyst for changing collective ideologies that have lead us to the dangerous path that we are on.
But I would argue that psychedelic use, when done appropriately and carefully, can be a catalyst for changing collective ideologies that have lead us to the dangerous path that we are on.
Saying the problem isn't related to consumption is just willfully obtuse and wrong.
This magical mushroom needs to be distributed to people, right? And they need to be grown, right?
Unless they are grown in Narnia and transported via teleportation, they are going to cause CO2 emissions, for dubious gains. His argument was - it made me believe in unity with nature, ergo it will work on everyone. Also here is an unverified study.
Unless they are grown in Narnia and transported via teleportation, they are going to cause CO2 emissions, for dubious gains. His argument was - it made me believe in unity with nature, ergo it will work on everyone. Also here is an unverified study.
I don't see how psylocybin is any different than cucumbers or alternative medicine, unless we confirm otherwise with rigorous studies. While they might be out there, this piece is not one of them.
> I find it best to argue in good faith when coming to these kinds of low-data conversations.
Nobody on here would say the same about arguments in favour of the magical power of acai berry, and I see no reason why we should treat even more extraordinary zero-data claims of a 'self taught, uncredentialled' guy who sells mushroom based supplements for a living[1] with a greater degree of deference.
There's actual research going on into psychedelics potentially benefiting people with depression or Alzheimers, but we don't need to put people explaining that mass consumption of psychoactives is a viable alternative to industrialisation and will create more Einsteins on the same pedestal
[1]https://fungi.com/pages/about-us
Nobody on here would say the same about arguments in favour of the magical power of acai berry, and I see no reason why we should treat even more extraordinary zero-data claims of a 'self taught, uncredentialled' guy who sells mushroom based supplements for a living[1] with a greater degree of deference.
There's actual research going on into psychedelics potentially benefiting people with depression or Alzheimers, but we don't need to put people explaining that mass consumption of psychoactives is a viable alternative to industrialisation and will create more Einsteins on the same pedestal
[1]https://fungi.com/pages/about-us
I am all for legalization but this stuffs sound exactly like what was written a few years about Marijuana. There were tons of articles about how Marijuana use will do things like saving the environment, saves the rain forest, cure cancer and so on. For some reason like to overshoot with this predictions of the benefits of these things. In the end our capitalist world will probably prevail and whatever expansion of consciousness happens will be at the surface level.
I think it's much more likely that "our capitalist world" will drive us off a cliff rather than into a bright future. We have absolutely zero precedent for the changes we are facing. However, I do believe individuals still have agency in the world. We have to try at least, I guess.
Terence McKenna would be agree.
Obligatory video of Stamets on the Joe Rogan Experience (it's not terrible!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ6Ym719urg
From my research into the topic I've labeled microdosing
under "cool homeopathy".
I thought these types “believed in science” yet here we are just casually stating that if we all do shrooms, the environment will be “saved”. Can’t make this stuff up.
It's just like all the practical uses of hemp we used to hear about.
Aren't governments getting in the way of those uses?
Well I'll tell you, I bought 500m of hemp rope because I was told it could use used to replace copper cabling for green electricity, ye knar?. It didn't work like, but I have now got the most environmentally friendly footstool in all of Middlesbrough.
You just have to read the old research literature on LSD like stuff from James Fadiman to understand that these are extremely dangerous substances that can cause trauma and other serious psychological problems if not used extremely specifically and carefully. If a subject is carefully prepared and trained in the weeks leading up to a trip, then carefully guided through by a psychologist in a 3 day process, then psychedelics have been proven in studies to be used to solve problems effectively. This isn't something you can do on your own.
It's this bizarre problem of we've been lied to for so long about the dangers of these drugs that the actual dangers get buried and nobody talks about the very real possibility of having PTSD flashbacks for the rest of your life to a moment when you were tripping then you start tripping again and have to run for your serquel.