4 ms·

A commenter here said, [this only measured a small chemical effect and did not make any claims about real fear] Let me add some color for you, it's absolutely

A commenter here said, [this only measured a small chemical effect and did not make any claims about real fear] Let me add some color for you, it's absolutely real. I predict the drug will eventually be validated as one of the most powerful and useful therapeutic substances discovered to date. >>impaired recognition of fearful faces, while it did not significantly affect recognition of neutral, happy and angry faces This characterization is a bit misleading. Recognition of faces is not impaired at all, recognition is also not impaired of some of your most terrifying inner thoughts. Instead, you recognize them fine and are simply not bothered because you perceive them in an unbiased, rational context. >>exhibits some ‘empathogenic’ effects (such as increased openness and trust) Some? I know, good medical science has to be conservative. However empathy, emotional connection and understanding, can become almost savant like. I won't give an example - too hard to offer an anecdote and not sound hyperbolic or like an exaggerated account. How's this: I believe it to be significantly understated. >>positive long-term effects outlast acute pharmacological effects Let that sink in. Who would believe taking an anti-depressant once could change your life years later? They would not believe it, because like every other mental health drug, anti-depressants can easily stop working (to the degree they work at all) as soon as you stop taking them. This is not like that. It's some kind of unusual mechanism that for reasons not yet entirely clear, is just very different from other drugs. I would ask that no one act on my opinion by using illegal drugs. I'm not worried about liability, or even legality. The problem is simply that self-administering street drugs comes with quite a bit of risk that for some reason, a lot of people don't mind ignoring. Worst case you could be intentionally poisoned as part of a scam and die. You could get the wrong substance, for example fentanyl is unknowingly taken all the time, and again easily die. You might somehow get the real thing, but precise dosing is difficult enough that overdosing LSD is very common. Having the wrong dose will not kill you, but the results can be bad enough many people feel like death would have been an easier option. Some people believe that impurities and imprecise dosing are responsible for a lot of what people describe as "bad trips".

M_Grey 10y ago
I don't have a dog in this hunt, I will simply point out that people who have used LSD have been claiming that it's pretty much magic, that everyone should try it, etc... for decades. The very guarded initial ventures into real research seem to be entirely secondary to the evangelical zeal of some people who have taken the drug in question, and feel it's "essential". Edit: I should point out that obviously, they could have reached this conclusion because it is that amazing, but a lot of people have ironclad convictions about everything from drugs to religion after all. The research should hopefully offer an answer that can be, frankly, believed.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  The research is secondary because it is something they read about long ago compared to an actual experience they had that may have impacted their life. Most of it's proponents are in favor of more research, but with that being almost impossible still felt the available information was impressive enough.
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    The research is only secondary for people that don't want to turn on critical thinking or set aside biases. I would say this is not relevant, because it true for all debates. Just like climate science, some are open minded, some people could not be dissuaded with any amount of evidence.
    - boomboomsubban 10y ago
      When there is an absence of new evidence for such a long period of time, the research can become secondary out of laziness and forgetfulness rather than a refusal to think critically.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  You suggest folly as a possible explanation, but there are a few problems with the cogency of that. 1) You point to nothing in this paper, other research, my comment, or contemporary comments of others to support that hypothesis. 2) The behavior you describe skeptically could match equally well a society where most people live unaware of a great truth hidden to them, in part because the government has made even acquiring information illegal. In North Korea, a small minority whisper fantastical ideas that are difficult to comprehend, let alone believe. Most of the world is not starving. Places exist with untold self-determination. Our leader is not God. These people often speak with an almost "evangelical zeal". 3) Do you see me doing thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tattoo on my chest? Ok that was De Niro, but the point is how do you explain people who do not fit the profile? I am not new age, spiritual, or culturally connected to these ideas. I resent mysticism, super natural forces, and magic. Of course I accept the possibility of being wrong. But the little recent research governments have allowed hasn't yet pointed to that. And until it does how can I deny things that, while anecdotal, are based on first hand observations? Maybe we'll have solid data some day, if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.

M_Grey 10y ago

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I will simply point out that people who have used LSD have been claiming that it's pretty much magic, that everyone should try it, etc... for decades. The very guarded initial ventures into real research seem to be entirely secondary to the evangelical zeal of some people who have taken the drug in question, and feel it's "essential". Edit: I should point out that obviously, they could have reached this conclusion because it is that amazing, but a lot of people have ironclad convictions about everything from drugs to religion after all. The research should hopefully offer an answer that can be, frankly, believed.

boomboomsubban 10y ago
The research is secondary because it is something they read about long ago compared to an actual experience they had that may have impacted their life. Most of it's proponents are in favor of more research, but with that being almost impossible still felt the available information was impressive enough.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  The research is only secondary for people that don't want to turn on critical thinking or set aside biases. I would say this is not relevant, because it true for all debates. Just like climate science, some are open minded, some people could not be dissuaded with any amount of evidence.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    When there is an absence of new evidence for such a long period of time, the research can become secondary out of laziness and forgetfulness rather than a refusal to think critically.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
You suggest folly as a possible explanation, but there are a few problems with the cogency of that. 1) You point to nothing in this paper, other research, my comment, or contemporary comments of others to support that hypothesis. 2) The behavior you describe skeptically could match equally well a society where most people live unaware of a great truth hidden to them, in part because the government has made even acquiring information illegal. In North Korea, a small minority whisper fantastical ideas that are difficult to comprehend, let alone believe. Most of the world is not starving. Places exist with untold self-determination. Our leader is not God. These people often speak with an almost "evangelical zeal". 3) Do you see me doing thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tattoo on my chest? Ok that was De Niro, but the point is how do you explain people who do not fit the profile? I am not new age, spiritual, or culturally connected to these ideas. I resent mysticism, super natural forces, and magic. Of course I accept the possibility of being wrong. But the little recent research governments have allowed hasn't yet pointed to that. And until it does how can I deny things that, while anecdotal, are based on first hand observations? Maybe we'll have solid data some day, if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.