6 ms·

> MDMA can be a shockingly mind-altering drug for some people, and usually in what they self-report as a good way. The problem is self-reporting as a good chan

> MDMA can be a shockingly mind-altering drug for some people, and usually in what they self-report as a good way. The problem is self-reporting as a good change means nothing here. What you really want to know is if the original person, knowing the full transformation, would prefer the outcome. You don't get that because the person making the self-report is the person that already underwent the change. For example, if I had a pill that made you a serial killer, but nevertheless very good at it, enjoying it, and totally lacking empathy for your victims, you'd probably self-report as being happier too. But the you of today would be horrified. If I held conservative Catholic views, that's probably what MDMA would seem like. I'd be happy with who I am with strong moral values, but there'd be this scary pill out there that could make me give all that up, destroying what meaning my life had previously. It's not much consolation that I'd later self-report it as a positive change. Lobotomies used to be justified based on self-reported outcomes. Is there anything objectively different here?

theonemind 6y ago
I think they can probably evaluate that. The general pattern is a loosening of rigid characteristics driven by belief. What that means is depends on what you believed. If you mostly just believed the world is a terrible place, that's quite a relief. Subjectively, we know that it often feels better, perhaps the way no longer straining or exerting a muscle does...I think it lifts compulsions made of psychological knots rather than from physical causes, but it doesn't distinguish between a compulsion that drove you to physical fitness or alcoholism. So if they find the probable external changes to get that better inner state abhorrent enough, then they should avoid that drug. This works for the lobotomy example as well, if they have their memories in tact from before. You can assume there's a decent chance you'd feel better if others with similar problems felt better, and you have to weigh that against fairly objective external changes which you might find abhorrent, fairly obvious in the case of a lobotomy. Perhaps medical ethics should make a point that the type of changes you could experience should be outlined, but there's a general pattern that I think can be defined and understood enough for informed consent to be given or withheld. Like most medical treatments, it would get defined in terms of risks and probabilities rather than certainties. You risk coming out with weakened religious beliefs, etc.
RobertoG 6y ago
Don't know why you are being down-voted. You make interesting philosophical points. If something change your values in a way that the old you would not accept, are you still you?
- snypox 6y ago
  Maybe it’s not “something changes your values” but you learn to view them from a different perspective.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    But is it not your values your perspective about the world?
    - mistermann 6y ago
      I'd say one must be very mindful of the complex (and not well understood at all) implementation of such things with respect to the conscious vs subconscious mind.
auganov 6y ago
There are much more fundamental issues with doing any research on drugs like this. First there's a huge selection issue, many won't ever want to take it. Since the drug has a strong effect you cannot easily design a placebo study - people would still know if they got a sugar pill or the real deal [0]. Anything that's a highly unusual experience is likely to be rated as significant. Very hard to design a good study. I believe the reported efficacy would greatly go down with increased availability. If alcohol was a mostly illegal schedule 1 drug in most of the world I could see similar narratives forming around it. [0] btw I think that's a very underappreciated factor across all kinds of research. Even with regular medical drugs. Don't see it brought up too much.
saithound 6y ago
Thank you for this comment! I suspect most people would do far worse than you in the mental exercise of explaining views they don't actually hold. As a conservative, "This scary pill out there that could make me give [strong values that I'm happy with] up, destroying what meaning my life had previously. It's not much consolation that I'd later self-report it as a positive change." summarizes my thoughts about MDMA perfectly.
- starfallg 6y ago
  If you generalise this, it sums up the difference between the mindsets perfectly. Conservatives aren't scared of change, they're scared that they themselves, and others around them, would come to fully accept it. The fear is that this completely invalidates their current worldview rendering existence meaningless. It's the fear of being wrong about life on an emotional level.
  - saithound 6y ago
    So a non-conservative, not having these fears, would willingly take the serial killer pill discussed above.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      No, they won't too but for different reasons (instead of the fear of being wrong).
      - saithound 6y ago
        If your mental model of conservatives says that they would not take the serial killer pill because they fear being wrong about serial killers, then I don't think it's a particularly good model.
        starfallg 6y ago
        Hence the reason why that's not a contentious topic in politics. It's only applying to current political charged issues.
mam2 6y ago
99% People dont change THAT much with mdma. You should try.

theonemind 6y ago

I think they can probably evaluate that. The general pattern is a loosening of rigid characteristics driven by belief. What that means is depends on what you believed. If you mostly just believed the world is a terrible place, that's quite a relief. Subjectively, we know that it often feels better, perhaps the way no longer straining or exerting a muscle does...I think it lifts compulsions made of psychological knots rather than from physical causes, but it doesn't distinguish between a compulsion that drove you to physical fitness or alcoholism. So if they find the probable external changes to get that better inner state abhorrent enough, then they should avoid that drug. This works for the lobotomy example as well, if they have their memories in tact from before. You can assume there's a decent chance you'd feel better if others with similar problems felt better, and you have to weigh that against fairly objective external changes which you might find abhorrent, fairly obvious in the case of a lobotomy. Perhaps medical ethics should make a point that the type of changes you could experience should be outlined, but there's a general pattern that I think can be defined and understood enough for informed consent to be given or withheld. Like most medical treatments, it would get defined in terms of risks and probabilities rather than certainties. You risk coming out with weakened religious beliefs, etc.

RobertoG 6y ago

Don't know why you are being down-voted. You make interesting philosophical points. If something change your values in a way that the old you would not accept, are you still you?

snypox 6y ago
Maybe it’s not “something changes your values” but you learn to view them from a different perspective.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  But is it not your values your perspective about the world?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I'd say one must be very mindful of the complex (and not well understood at all) implementation of such things with respect to the conscious vs subconscious mind.

auganov 6y ago

There are much more fundamental issues with doing any research on drugs like this. First there's a huge selection issue, many won't ever want to take it. Since the drug has a strong effect you cannot easily design a placebo study - people would still know if they got a sugar pill or the real deal [0]. Anything that's a highly unusual experience is likely to be rated as significant. Very hard to design a good study. I believe the reported efficacy would greatly go down with increased availability. If alcohol was a mostly illegal schedule 1 drug in most of the world I could see similar narratives forming around it. [0] btw I think that's a very underappreciated factor across all kinds of research. Even with regular medical drugs. Don't see it brought up too much.

saithound 6y ago

Thank you for this comment! I suspect most people would do far worse than you in the mental exercise of explaining views they don't actually hold. As a conservative, "This scary pill out there that could make me give [strong values that I'm happy with] up, destroying what meaning my life had previously. It's not much consolation that I'd later self-report it as a positive change." summarizes my thoughts about MDMA perfectly.

starfallg 6y ago
If you generalise this, it sums up the difference between the mindsets perfectly. Conservatives aren't scared of change, they're scared that they themselves, and others around them, would come to fully accept it. The fear is that this completely invalidates their current worldview rendering existence meaningless. It's the fear of being wrong about life on an emotional level.
- saithound 6y ago
  So a non-conservative, not having these fears, would willingly take the serial killer pill discussed above.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    No, they won't too but for different reasons (instead of the fear of being wrong).
    - saithound 6y ago
      If your mental model of conservatives says that they would not take the serial killer pill because they fear being wrong about serial killers, then I don't think it's a particularly good model.
      - starfallg 6y ago
        Hence the reason why that's not a contentious topic in politics. It's only applying to current political charged issues.

mam2 6y ago

99% People dont change THAT much with mdma. You should try.