5 ms·

I feel like I have the obligation to say that if you are a generally a happy person and good at what you do I highly doubt taking LSD in any dose is worth the r

by lcw 10y ago

I feel like I have the obligation to say that if you are a generally a happy person and good at what you do I highly doubt taking LSD in any dose is worth the risk of a bad trip. Not sure why HN has an affinity for LSD? It's pretty psychologically dangerous imho.

grzm 10y ago
Not sure why HN has an affinity for LSD? Please don't make generalizations about the entirety of HN. You're a member of the HN community as well: do you have an affinity for LSD? If you have some stats backing this up, I think a lot of people would find it interesting: at least I would.
- tossaway1 10y ago
  I think it's clear that lcw was making an observation about the tone of HN comments on the topic. I found it to be a reasonable one that matches my perception. Disputing his comment makes sense if you think he's wrong, but it seems unreasonable to require people to back up such commentary with "stats".
  - grzm 10y ago
    There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists. This gets particularly pernicious when discussing contentious topics. Given the how damaging this can be (current political discourse in the US or here on HN is a good example), making such generalizations really needs to be justified. In 'lcw's comment, the generalization doesn't add anything substantive to the comment. Indeed, one could read it as disparaging to the HN community because it's too naïve to understand the risks of LSD, rather than granting the members the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of making reasonable decisions. And that's ultimately the point: by making generalizations like this, it doesn't add anything substantive or constructive to the comment and ignores the wide range of opinions across the HN community. Edit to add: As an aside, you mention that 'lcw's observation matches your perception. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong, or at least skewed. That's why backing them up with data is important, to make sure our perceptions are consistent with reality.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability > It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong Is these not generalizations across large groups of people?
      - grzm 10y ago
        There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability Look at the discourse on HN, particularly on contentious topics, where people make general statements and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements. Or look at the the polarization in the US where it's so often the case that it's "us" vs "them", bucketing people into two groups, without recognizing that there's significant overlap in values between them. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong I would consider cognitive bias to be a pretty well-accepted idea. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it provides a way to attempt to remove cognitive bias from observation. Do you disagree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread. I'll leave it at that.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements So, are the assumptions unjustified or not? polarization is self-fulfilling, if people believe that it is "us" vs "them", then it is "us" vs "them". > Do you disagree? Disagree with what? The statement is very general. The statement "some things are True, some things are not True" is tautologically true, and utterly unproductive. but I think you've missed the point, the intersection of the two: > it's well known that our perceptions are often wrong If this is an example of a "generalizations across large groups of people", then you claim to believe that it "degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists". You can't be exact about large groups of people to absolute resolution, there is always a degree of generality. Your own statements show that, either a) there are some statements, perhaps due to their passivity, can be made about large groups of people (but as a result, say very little) OR b) there is some acceptable level of generality when talking about large groups of people. My conclusion is that either, there is a correct level of generality (that you don't establish), or that you can never talk about large groups of people, or at least say anything productive about them. > I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread I think everyone speaks at some level of generality about many things, whether they realise it or not; so simply language policing others on that basis begs a lot of questions.
baby 10y ago
you're not going to bad trip on a small dose. Also, probably not dangerous. Compare that to your concentrated coffee.
pmoriarty 10y ago
Bad trips have been the most valuable trips for me, the ones from which I've learned the most. Not to say that I'd seek them out deliberately or anything, but I think it's a mistake to view bad trips as necessarily worthless or necessarily harmful. I see bad as confrontations with one's psyche, with one's subconscious, with things one has been denying or avoiding in ordinary life. To the extent you consciously face your demons on a bad trip and try to learn from it, they can be of great and profound value. For me it has been, as they say, like years of therapy compressed in to hours. Both the good and bad trips have also radically changed my understanding the world and the horizon of what I consider possible. As much as I'd like to, I don't think I can in good conscience recommend that everyone take psychedelics, as everyone is different, everyone reacts differently, and people at different stages of their lives are ready or not ready for certain experiences. Especially at the higher doses, it could be a very profound, life-changing event -- for better or worse. I would definitely treat it with the highest respect if one ever considers trying it. Those who decide to would be wise to prepare thoroughly, find out as much as they can, have an experienced sitter they trust, do it in a safe, supportive setting and with a healthy frame of mind where they have no other obligations at least for that day and the day after. Best of luck.
dTal 10y ago
Apart from the fact we're talking about microdoses, this seems exactly backwards. Surely if you are a happy person your risk of a bad trip is much reduced?

by lcw 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Not sure why HN has an affinity for LSD? Please don't make generalizations about the entirety of HN. You're a member of the HN community as well: do you have an affinity for LSD? If you have some stats backing this up, I think a lot of people would find it interesting: at least I would.

tossaway1 10y ago
I think it's clear that lcw was making an observation about the tone of HN comments on the topic. I found it to be a reasonable one that matches my perception. Disputing his comment makes sense if you think he's wrong, but it seems unreasonable to require people to back up such commentary with "stats".
- grzm 10y ago
  There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists. This gets particularly pernicious when discussing contentious topics. Given the how damaging this can be (current political discourse in the US or here on HN is a good example), making such generalizations really needs to be justified. In 'lcw's comment, the generalization doesn't add anything substantive to the comment. Indeed, one could read it as disparaging to the HN community because it's too naïve to understand the risks of LSD, rather than granting the members the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of making reasonable decisions. And that's ultimately the point: by making generalizations like this, it doesn't add anything substantive or constructive to the comment and ignores the wide range of opinions across the HN community. Edit to add: As an aside, you mention that 'lcw's observation matches your perception. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong, or at least skewed. That's why backing them up with data is important, to make sure our perceptions are consistent with reality.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability > It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong Is these not generalizations across large groups of people?
    - grzm 10y ago
      There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability Look at the discourse on HN, particularly on contentious topics, where people make general statements and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements. Or look at the the polarization in the US where it's so often the case that it's "us" vs "them", bucketing people into two groups, without recognizing that there's significant overlap in values between them. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong I would consider cognitive bias to be a pretty well-accepted idea. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it provides a way to attempt to remove cognitive bias from observation. Do you disagree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread. I'll leave it at that.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements So, are the assumptions unjustified or not? polarization is self-fulfilling, if people believe that it is "us" vs "them", then it is "us" vs "them". > Do you disagree? Disagree with what? The statement is very general. The statement "some things are True, some things are not True" is tautologically true, and utterly unproductive. but I think you've missed the point, the intersection of the two: > it's well known that our perceptions are often wrong If this is an example of a "generalizations across large groups of people", then you claim to believe that it "degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists". You can't be exact about large groups of people to absolute resolution, there is always a degree of generality. Your own statements show that, either a) there are some statements, perhaps due to their passivity, can be made about large groups of people (but as a result, say very little) OR b) there is some acceptable level of generality when talking about large groups of people. My conclusion is that either, there is a correct level of generality (that you don't establish), or that you can never talk about large groups of people, or at least say anything productive about them. > I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread I think everyone speaks at some level of generality about many things, whether they realise it or not; so simply language policing others on that basis begs a lot of questions.

baby 10y ago

you're not going to bad trip on a small dose. Also, probably not dangerous. Compare that to your concentrated coffee.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Bad trips have been the most valuable trips for me, the ones from which I've learned the most. Not to say that I'd seek them out deliberately or anything, but I think it's a mistake to view bad trips as necessarily worthless or necessarily harmful. I see bad as confrontations with one's psyche, with one's subconscious, with things one has been denying or avoiding in ordinary life. To the extent you consciously face your demons on a bad trip and try to learn from it, they can be of great and profound value. For me it has been, as they say, like years of therapy compressed in to hours. Both the good and bad trips have also radically changed my understanding the world and the horizon of what I consider possible. As much as I'd like to, I don't think I can in good conscience recommend that everyone take psychedelics, as everyone is different, everyone reacts differently, and people at different stages of their lives are ready or not ready for certain experiences. Especially at the higher doses, it could be a very profound, life-changing event -- for better or worse. I would definitely treat it with the highest respect if one ever considers trying it. Those who decide to would be wise to prepare thoroughly, find out as much as they can, have an experienced sitter they trust, do it in a safe, supportive setting and with a healthy frame of mind where they have no other obligations at least for that day and the day after. Best of luck.

dTal 10y ago

Apart from the fact we're talking about microdoses, this seems exactly backwards. Surely if you are a happy person your risk of a bad trip is much reduced?