5 ms·

The blind spot here is that no one really understands how it works or the long term implications. It may have a use for patients with treatment resistant medica

The blind spot here is that no one really understands how it works or the long term implications. It may have a use for patients with treatment resistant medical conditions where the alternatives have failed or side-effects are intolerable. Why should healthy adults take this substance? Many of the so-called experts interviewed in Michel Pollan's new book took psilocybin and believed the experience revealed the inner truths of the universe. It seemns like it could be quite harmful for more people to embrace meta-magical thinking. Related: 1) Michael Pollan is interviewed on a podcast by Tyler Cowen. They briefly talk about whether psychedelics have contributed to society through novel discoveries. 2) Robert Sapolsky's lectures and book Trouble with Testosterone touch on meta-magical thinking.

nopacience 8y ago
long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.
- Retra 8y ago
  It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    The substance of interest is psychedelics. According to what we know, they are pretty safe. Additionally, it is most definitely not "unnecessarily". Introspection, personal growth, and so on is not "unnecessary" to me and to many people. If it is to you, that is fine by me. Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
    - Retra 8y ago
      I don't have any serious qualms with psychedelics. I have a problem with someone arguing that they should be legal solely on the basis that risk is acceptable. By that argument, I should like to wave a loaded gun in your face. But that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk, so obviously there is more to the question of regulation than what risks people feel like they want to take.
    - atomical 8y ago
      I think you're focusing on safe from an LD50 perspective? My comment addressed the question of significant changes to the mind.
  - nopacience 8y ago
    Lots of people have died in car accidents. Many people have died because of knifes. Many people have died because went to the wrong place where wild animals were hungry. What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier. Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room. You are not a genius.
    - Retra 8y ago
      I literally do not understand what you are responding to right now.
  - Fricken 8y ago
    In theory humankind can persist indefinitely, so long as we don't fuck it up, but we are fucking it up, we're destroying the life support systems that sustain us. That's unacceptable risk. Individuals on the other hand don't live forever, the risk of death is 100% for everyone, so individual risk isn't something we need to get uptight about.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
sjg007 8y ago
Well... I think the oneness effect is interesting where people basically feel interconnected. Kind of like astronauts who see the world from space. That feeling should be a positive one. It's also not clear it is permanent. It may impact your degree of openness. What I've found interesting in his book is that the suggestions of the therapist lead basically influence the result. So if someone says what will happen on shrooms you basically have a similar experience. That is interesting. Further along the meta magical thinking idea is the stoned ape hypothesis which basically tries to explain how we were able to transcend "primitiveness" and develop abstract reasoning and as such technological progress by using psychedelics. Whether there is evidence for this or not I don't know.. haven't read the stoned ape book.. It does seem more plausible that magic mushrooms led to religion. I've been reading Pollan's book as well and the part about AA 12 step and Bill's wanting to use magic mushrooms as part of the process is very interesting. Turns out that the board allegedly wanted to keep the straight religion aspect in it for control vs surrendering yourself to mushrooms. This is partly why psychedelics are being tested on reducing alcoholism. If it can help alleviate depression and anxiety I am 100% behind it. So much time, energy and life is lost to that mindfuck of a state. * also we don't really understand the long term implication o f a lot of things we eat or drink or the legal drugs we take. Should you eat eggs? margarine? wine? tea? how much coffee? etc..
- achileas 8y ago
  While it's a fun hypothesis, there's no evidence for that (nor the bicameral mind hypothesis).
jschwartzi 8y ago
I think it's disingenuous to argue from the stance that magical thinking is bad and should be prevented, and thus that the drug is bad and should be eliminated. I think you'd be surprised just how many functional people have magical beliefs and especially how many scientists and engineers do. The notion that a pattern of thought is dangerous and should be outlawed has probably done more harm to the world than "meta-magical thinking."
StrictDabbler 8y ago
On Psilocybin: Anecdotally, mushrooms are about as likely to disrupt existing patterns of magical thinking as they are to inspire new ones. The experience of being absolutely certain that your friend in the other room can read your thoughts and the discovery when you come down that no, he was thinking something completely different than you thought is sobering. The experience of realizing how large the world is, how many people are in it talking at all times, can undermine conspiracy theories that depend on a tiny cabal of people keeping a secret while using hundreds of workers to accomplish a task, like faking the moon landing. The "inner truths of the universe" that people feel are exposed by mushrooms are so abstract that they're not likely to actually interfere with rational thought. Mushrooms induce a metaphoric mode of thought. Realistically, we are all connected, by atmosphere, ecosphere, society and economy. It's true that we don't have a solid scientific understanding of the long term implications, but we have a pretty solid population of people who've done mushrooms casually. It's not an uncommon drug. All that aside, we have an FDA review process so that we can evaluate the safety of a drug. No drug is ever evaluated to see if it has a long-term negative societal effect because of how it alters your world-view. The effects that Depakote, Prozac and Ambien have had on society are likely significant and are largely unknown. On "metamagical thinking": I just spent some significant time trying to find out what "metamagical thinking" is supposed to be. Try it yourself. You'll find many people quoting Sapolsky thus: "It's the shamans who are moving separate from everyone else, living alone, who talk with the dead, who speak in tongues, who go out with the full moon and turn into a hyena overnight, and that sort of stuff. It's the shamans who have all this metamagical thinking." What you won't find is any kind of formal definition of metamagical processes or arguments for the term. You'll find two places in his book "Biology and Human Behavior" but in each case it is only used as an adjective describing the symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder. In the DSM this is instead described as "magical thinking," no meta involved. In "Trouble with Testosterone" Sapolsky only refers to "magical thinking." Sapolsky appears to have just added the "meta" as a sort of unthinking affectation for a period of time and to have dropped it later. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary. I say all this because Hofstadter invented the term "metamagical" to describe a certain kind of highly intellectual examination of the edges of analogy and meaning in rational systems and it's a hell of a phrase. It's a shame to have Sapolsky's non-use replicating across the internet.

nopacience 8y ago

long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.

Retra 8y ago
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 8y ago
  The substance of interest is psychedelics. According to what we know, they are pretty safe. Additionally, it is most definitely not "unnecessarily". Introspection, personal growth, and so on is not "unnecessary" to me and to many people. If it is to you, that is fine by me. Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
  - Retra 8y ago
    I don't have any serious qualms with psychedelics. I have a problem with someone arguing that they should be legal solely on the basis that risk is acceptable. By that argument, I should like to wave a loaded gun in your face. But that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk, so obviously there is more to the question of regulation than what risks people feel like they want to take.
  - atomical 8y ago
    I think you're focusing on safe from an LD50 perspective? My comment addressed the question of significant changes to the mind.
- nopacience 8y ago
  Lots of people have died in car accidents. Many people have died because of knifes. Many people have died because went to the wrong place where wild animals were hungry. What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier. Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room. You are not a genius.
  - Retra 8y ago
    I literally do not understand what you are responding to right now.
- Fricken 8y ago
  In theory humankind can persist indefinitely, so long as we don't fuck it up, but we are fucking it up, we're destroying the life support systems that sustain us. That's unacceptable risk. Individuals on the other hand don't live forever, the risk of death is 100% for everyone, so individual risk isn't something we need to get uptight about.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

sjg007 8y ago

Well... I think the oneness effect is interesting where people basically feel interconnected. Kind of like astronauts who see the world from space. That feeling should be a positive one. It's also not clear it is permanent. It may impact your degree of openness. What I've found interesting in his book is that the suggestions of the therapist lead basically influence the result. So if someone says what will happen on shrooms you basically have a similar experience. That is interesting. Further along the meta magical thinking idea is the stoned ape hypothesis which basically tries to explain how we were able to transcend "primitiveness" and develop abstract reasoning and as such technological progress by using psychedelics. Whether there is evidence for this or not I don't know.. haven't read the stoned ape book.. It does seem more plausible that magic mushrooms led to religion. I've been reading Pollan's book as well and the part about AA 12 step and Bill's wanting to use magic mushrooms as part of the process is very interesting. Turns out that the board allegedly wanted to keep the straight religion aspect in it for control vs surrendering yourself to mushrooms. This is partly why psychedelics are being tested on reducing alcoholism. If it can help alleviate depression and anxiety I am 100% behind it. So much time, energy and life is lost to that mindfuck of a state. * also we don't really understand the long term implication o f a lot of things we eat or drink or the legal drugs we take. Should you eat eggs? margarine? wine? tea? how much coffee? etc..

achileas 8y ago
While it's a fun hypothesis, there's no evidence for that (nor the bicameral mind hypothesis).

jschwartzi 8y ago

I think it's disingenuous to argue from the stance that magical thinking is bad and should be prevented, and thus that the drug is bad and should be eliminated. I think you'd be surprised just how many functional people have magical beliefs and especially how many scientists and engineers do. The notion that a pattern of thought is dangerous and should be outlawed has probably done more harm to the world than "meta-magical thinking."

StrictDabbler 8y ago

On Psilocybin: Anecdotally, mushrooms are about as likely to disrupt existing patterns of magical thinking as they are to inspire new ones. The experience of being absolutely certain that your friend in the other room can read your thoughts and the discovery when you come down that no, he was thinking something completely different than you thought is sobering. The experience of realizing how large the world is, how many people are in it talking at all times, can undermine conspiracy theories that depend on a tiny cabal of people keeping a secret while using hundreds of workers to accomplish a task, like faking the moon landing. The "inner truths of the universe" that people feel are exposed by mushrooms are so abstract that they're not likely to actually interfere with rational thought. Mushrooms induce a metaphoric mode of thought. Realistically, we are all connected, by atmosphere, ecosphere, society and economy. It's true that we don't have a solid scientific understanding of the long term implications, but we have a pretty solid population of people who've done mushrooms casually. It's not an uncommon drug. All that aside, we have an FDA review process so that we can evaluate the safety of a drug. No drug is ever evaluated to see if it has a long-term negative societal effect because of how it alters your world-view. The effects that Depakote, Prozac and Ambien have had on society are likely significant and are largely unknown. On "metamagical thinking": I just spent some significant time trying to find out what "metamagical thinking" is supposed to be. Try it yourself. You'll find many people quoting Sapolsky thus: "It's the shamans who are moving separate from everyone else, living alone, who talk with the dead, who speak in tongues, who go out with the full moon and turn into a hyena overnight, and that sort of stuff. It's the shamans who have all this metamagical thinking." What you won't find is any kind of formal definition of metamagical processes or arguments for the term. You'll find two places in his book "Biology and Human Behavior" but in each case it is only used as an adjective describing the symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder. In the DSM this is instead described as "magical thinking," no meta involved. In "Trouble with Testosterone" Sapolsky only refers to "magical thinking." Sapolsky appears to have just added the "meta" as a sort of unthinking affectation for a period of time and to have dropped it later. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary. I say all this because Hofstadter invented the term "metamagical" to describe a certain kind of highly intellectual examination of the edges of analogy and meaning in rational systems and it's a hell of a phrase. It's a shame to have Sapolsky's non-use replicating across the internet.