2 ms·
Fairly similar to the difficulties that surround proving the efficacy of antidepressants. > I think microdosing LSD is 100% placebo and that we should stick to
by andybak 10y ago
Fairly similar to the difficulties that surround proving the efficacy of antidepressants.
> I think microdosing LSD is 100% placebo and that we should stick to rationalism and science.
This is an interesting sentence because the first half and the second half of it directly contradict each other. I too believe in sticking to rationalism and science which surely forces me to disregard your opening statement?
- andy_ppp 10y agoYes it's badly worded, I should say I believe it's nearly impossible to draw conclusions due to the placebo effects, complexity of people's brains and the differences between subjects. I actually am pretty skeptical about anti-depressants personally and they seem very addictive/dependence inducing. I suppose it's better than people killing themselves but the way they are handed out seems almost abusive. I have never seen double blind IQ tests with microdosed LSD done.
- beat 10y agoWhile hardly a "double blind IQ test", or a microdose, Ken Kesey described an interesting lab experience. Back when there was still academic research being done on psychedelics, he was part of an experiment group. One of the experiments being done on him was measuring his sense of time (the "time dilation" often reported by users). They would ask him to estimate one minute passing by, while they timed it. But before they did the time test, they took his pulse, and wrote the results where he could see them. So when they asked him to time one minute, he simply counted his pulse - presumably hitting his estimate more accurately than a "sober" person could. I think this particular incident says a lot about the difficulty of doing scientific research around perception, for something that so radically alters perception.