15 ms·

Single psilocybin dose may make lasting personality change

• salemh 15y ago
  Poll for Yea / Nay of HN's? Anonymous? Some LSD discussions http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=695947 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=695947 http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=895962 http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=895962 (v sensory deprivation)
• thefool 15y ago
  I thought this type of research had been outlawed. Glad it still occurs. I see a lot of potential for this sort of stuff both in term of developing new therapies, but also in the sense of doing controlled experiments to better understand perception and cognition in humans.
• vziard 15y ago
  Well no shit, right?
• redthrowaway 15y ago
  I'm not surprised. Given the number of people who claim hallucinogenic drugs have had a massive, lasting impact on their lives, I expected to see empirical support of same at some point. It's sad that the War on Drugs has made conducting research of this kind so difficult; It has the potential to provide powerful insights into how our minds work.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
• markbao 15y ago
  Psilocybin and other psychoactive drugs of the sort somehow affect how we see and think about things. I'm surprised more isn't being done to research these. If it can have such a profound effect on perception and personality, research into psychoactives could reveal insights into how we think and how our personalities work. Fascinating stuff.
  • spiralganglion 15y ago
    And, it could undermine the last few decades of anti-drug propagandizing by the government, DARE, etc. If the government can't justify its War On Drugs, the billions of dollars funding it[1] would have to go somewhere else, and I'm sure the military (and other recipients of this budget) would rather keep that cash flowing. I'm completely with you. These hallucinogenics have a growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to their substantial, measurable, repeatable benefits. It's a crying shame that they're still being lumped in with the other destructive, unhealthy, justifiably illegal substances. [1] http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      • deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      • JoshTriplett 15y ago
        Consider how many of those problems would go away. Drugs fund crime because drugs are crime; drugs fund organized crime because getting them from point A to point B requires an organized network.
      • Scaevolus 15y ago
        People will abuse drugs whether or not they're legal. Organized crime will profit off of drugs as long as they're not legal.
    • philwelch 15y ago
      Much of this scientific evidence--enough to incite further research and almost enough to put the lie to the "no currently accepted medical use" criterion for Schedule I drugs--is decades old and often predated prohibition.
• bherms 15y ago
  Psilocybin use definitely changed me for the better. The first time I did it was one of the most eye-opening and impacting experiences in my life. Since my first trip, I've tried to work it into my life at least 1-2 times a year. Every time I feel like I learn something new and/or come out a better person by seeing certain aspects of life in a new light. It's something you only want to try in controlled environments when your head is in the proper place (no hidden depression or anything lurking in the back of your mind), but when done right, with the right people, it can be an amazing experience and I highly recommend to everyone with the proper mindset.
  • WA 15y ago
    The emphasis is on: done right, with the right people. There is a reason why drugs are prohibited in many countries. People don't use them "correctly" and can become messed up pretty heavily. I took shrooms when I was 18. After an initial phase of a lot of hardly controllable laughter, I experienced the strongest fear that I ever had in my life. Basically, the fear to remain stuck on this trip - nothing unusual by the way, as I figured out later by reading reports from other people. The main fear for me was to be stuck in this situation where your brain isn't filtering anything anymore. I was literally sitting around UNABLE to do anything. I mean, somehow I knew how to do a more complicated thing (like building another joint), but somehow I was incapable of performing the necessary steps. It was frightening, especially since there was no supervisor who could lead me out of this spiral of fear. The fear lasted only for 2 hours or so, then the trip was over as I fell asleep. But I had panic attacks for another 6 months. Also a very typical time frame for many people. No fun. Stressful places, loud dogs, everything noise sort of made me feel anxious. On the other hand, it was a time where I thought about myself A LOT. I mean, really a lot. After 6 months, I somehow emerged with new self-confidence which grew a lot over time way beyond the self-confidence I had before (which could also be just a side-effect of getting older, I don't know). So, now I wouldn't like to miss that experience. I don't know how it changed me, but I certainly do recommend that people should never try hallucinogenic drugs without supervision - people who can help you mentally to escape states of fear.
    • dmm 15y ago
• MarkPNeyer 15y ago
  i took mushrooms once, and documented my experience. i've gone back and re-read it several times, and each time i do so, i both laugh like crazy and realize i was getting glimpses of ideas i'm only now starting to understand. if you want to read it, here it is: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9465583/ShroomReport.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9465583/ShroomReport.pdf
  • edtechre 15y ago
    How is that enlightening? The doc makes you sound like an imbecile.
    • MarkPNeyer 15y ago
      the main thing i took out of the experience was that i should stop being so afraid of suffering, because suffering can lead to personal growth. also, realizing i didn't need a girlfriend to be happy was really big deal for me.
      • edtechre 15y ago
        Instead of doing drugs to experience "enlightenment" (LOL), you could, I don't know... read a book and actually learn something of value.
        • MarkPNeyer 15y ago
          is there a reason you keep using the word 'enlightenment'? if you don't see any value in learning that suffering isn't always bad, i think i understand your attitude a little better.
        • edtechre 15y ago
          I have no issue with whatever it is you posited after your masturbatory experience. It's just that I don't find your epiphany particularly deep, nor do I see how LSD was even necessary for you to arrive at your destination of nowhere. You know what actually makes a difference in life? Acquire knowledge, apply that knowledge, make connections and use all of that to HELP other people and change the world. Tripping on shrooms by yourself or with your fellow dunderheads does nothing for anyone, yourself included. Stop pretending it does.
• aheilbut 15y ago
  I don't doubt it, but reading a book may make a lasting personality change too.
  • pavs 15y ago
    Reading a "good" book definitely has lasting personality changes for me. I can safely say that at-least 15 of the 22 books I have read so far this year, had lasting effect on my personality.
    • innes 15y ago
      Changes in these traits ... were larger in magnitude than changes typically observed in healthy adults over decades of life experiences, the scientists say. Clearly most people don't read good books, or scientists would have seen evidence of their radical personality-changing effect.
      • randallsquared 15y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I would say it is certainly true that most people don't read good books. Most people don't read books, in general. Of those who do, most read for entertainment (like me), rather than seeking out great books to have read.
        • innes 15y ago
          No sarcasm. I have read good books (I think), but am pretty sure that they didn't modify my personality. Normally they result in a couple of days of thinking "wow, that was a good book".
          • randallsquared 15y ago
            I think that a "good book" in the sense used above is a book where you spend the next coupla days thinking about the new ideas from the book, or the new vantage on a subject you thought you understood, or examining your life in light of what you just read.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• derleth 15y ago
  One reason I won't take them, then. I like who I am.
  • wnight 15y ago
    Presumptuous and scared? New experience changes you.
  • doctoboggan 15y ago
    Not open to new experiences? I think I just read about something to cure that.
    • Jach 15y ago
      Snark for snark? If you trip out, do you think you'll become open to the new (I presume?) experience of raping the corpses of decapitated skin-tumor-ridden grandpas?
  • jarin 15y ago
    Hey, I like who I am too. But I know that I can be better.
    • Jach 15y ago
      I want to be better, too, and I'm continually working at becoming such. But I'm not convinced that tripping is a guaranteed way to betterness, nor how much better any accidental betterness would really be.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        Nothing is a guarantee in life.
        • Jach 15y ago
          And not all probabilities are equal. I haven't implied there exists something which is a guarantee, I have stated that I don't think taking drugs is a guarantee to becoming better. Being more technical, taking drugs as an action for becoming better is heavily outweighed by other options in my expected utility function, both probabilistically and in amount of utility. (Of course this could change.)
• beaker 15y ago
  Those who are quick to judge, really you're not curious at all?
• robot 15y ago
  Pity it doesn't describe how the level of openness has changed. It doesn't even say if some people became more open or less open.
• throwaway33422 15y ago
  I once had a single, very high dose Psilocybin experience which lead to a lasting change that was very much for the worse. Having had my perception of reality profoundly changed by the experience I began to question my senses on a regular basis, with associated anxiety and panic. Then there were also the nightmares where I was tripping, would wake up, have something weird / trippy happen have a "world is ending" anxiety attack complete with ears ringing so loudly its painful. Then I'd wake up from that, with similar results, only to wake up from that. Never really sure if I was fully awake or not. Thankfully after 18 months or so, it went away. Of course, your mileage my vary :-) I personally am in favour of this type of research but just wanted to share my experience. Its not all beer and skittles!
  • pedrolll 15y ago
    Yes, listen to this man. If you are prone to depression/anxiety/paranoia/negativity do not try hallucinogenics. Otherwise, it can be a positively life altering experience.
  • throwaway7-2521 15y ago
    To echo that point... my pure-shroom experiences were generally positive, but one time mixing with MDMA resulted in a very strong experience that by the end involved some paranoia about keeping my thoughts and public utterances separate. That paranoia would occasionally mildly recur the next year or so. That's now many years ago, but I still wonder if crazy street people talking to themselves just mixed too many things, too many times creating permanent confusion.
  • wellsaid 15y ago
    Not fun :( I've had two months of depersonalization after a psylocybin take. Lowered intellect, unability to stop the flow of thoughts, anxiety of being schizophrenic, no emotions except for art, seeing a monster when looking at the mirror. Sensorial defects became readily apparent which is annoying but useful. I still see coloured points sometimes. The next experience was entirely positive though (outdoor, friends).
• lusr 15y ago
  'Nearly all of the participants in the new study considered themselves spiritually active (participating regularly in religious services, prayer or meditation).' ... 'In the study, the change occurred specifically in those volunteers who had undergone a "mystical experience,"... He defines "mystical experience" as among other things, "a sense of interconnectedness with all people and things accompanied by a sense of sacredness and reverence."' So they took a bunch of people prone to mystical experiences and found when you give them hallucinogenics that they have further mystical experiences?
  • Alex3917 15y ago
    "So they took a bunch of people prone to mystical experiences and found when you give them hallucinogenics that they have further mystical experiences?" The people they recruit aren't really much more prone to mystical experiences than anyone else, they're just trying to find volunteers who are psychologically stable and have a support network in case things go poorly.
    • lusr 15y ago
      How did you infer this?
      • Alex3917 15y ago
        There's only 20 or so people in the field, and they all help each other to get their studies approved. I think that Rick Strassman is the one who came up with this idea, and he writes about it a bit in his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Then all the other investigators started doing this as well. Roland Griffiths may have also talked about this in one of his talks, I forget.
  • Tsagadai 15y ago
    It is pretty common to read or hear about spiritual, religious or mystical experiences even from ardent atheists under hallucinogens. That evidence raises a very interesting philosophical question.
• veidr 15y ago
  Many smart people I know try to work in a trip on mushrooms once a year or so. Many of them are folks who don't generally even smoke weed or drink regularly, which surprised me. I think it is a good idea, and I try to do it, too. But, I have a healthy respect for the potential downside of a psilocybin experience, too. Many years ago, I ate some shrooms before a concert at the L.A. Coliseum. There were some thuggish types and an air of violence in the parking lot, and that was enough to set my trip down a bad road. An hour later, I experienced a dark stadium full of bloody froth-mouthed humans, along with some other lizardish creatures, killing and eating each other, to the ear-splitting sound of huge metal sawblades grinding against each other, while I huddled in my seat unable to move. It seemed to go on forever, but after it was over I realized it was only 3-4 hours. That experience was only in my mind, but it still had a lasting impact on me, something like what I imagine being caught up in a murderous orgy of cannibalism really would. For weeks afterwards, while glad to be back in the real world, I was still nervous and averse to sudden noises, had many nightmares, and was generally less happy. Eventually those effects diminished, and I don't think I suffer from any kind of permanent damage (although, how can you really know). But I now make sure to prepare a calm stress-free environment before doing psilocybin.
  • puredemo 15y ago
    Yeah, that is definitely the wrong sort of environment to do them in. Camping with best friends is a better environment.
    • khafra 15y ago
      Those of us who feel a bit uncomfortable and nervous when camping with friends should just stick with the minds we have, then?
      • Radix 15y ago
        No, the two implications are that 1. You should be somewhere you feel safe. Preferably with someone you feel safe. and 2. It is better to be outside in nature. (1) is always spoken of as being crucial and (2) is something that is oft repeated. I don't have any experience myself to say why (2) is so often suggested.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• Alex3917 15y ago
  If anyone is interested in learning more about the science of psychedelics, I'd recommend checking out the Horizons conference if you're going to be in NYC on Oct. 16th: http://www.horizonsnyc.org http://www.horizonsnyc.org The speakers list is pretty awesome this year.
• Triumvark 15y ago
  The phrase "measured on a widely used and scientifically validated personality inventory" jumps out at me. What does that really mean? Myers-Briggs is 'widely used' and proponents would probably argue it has been 'empirically validated' (by this one study no one can reproduce...). Myers-Briggs still lacks the "retest reliability" necessary for this sort of analysis. In fact, in most personality tests, you'd expect wild swings in personality without drugs, even by just waiting a day. Stop right here. Go watch Ben Goldacre on "Bad Science:" http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.h... Now, stop giving any attention to campy press release results. I don't even really disagree with the thesis here, but without a full description of the methods, and probably a metanalysis of previous work in this field, the 'canned results' buzzers should be ringing loudly in all of our heads.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • mshron 15y ago
    They were using the "Big 5" personality inventory, which is generally considered the gold standard in personality psych. Myers-Briggs is not widely used in academia, except maybe at business schools. Five factor models have a neat history too. They were started back in the fifties by taking questionnaire results for the appropriateness of tens of thousands of words and doing dimensionality reduction. That got down to a few hundred dimensions, then further research narrowed it down to dozens, until about thirty-forty years ago when they were narrowed down to five and subjected to more rigorous consistency checks. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• michaelochurch 15y ago
  A few things I'm going to say. First, these drugs aren't "hallucinogens". They're psychedelics (mind-revealing). A hallucination is a false perception which the person believes to be real; visuals are perceptions that the person knows are not real, such as "light shows". Except at very high doses, these drugs don't produce hallucinations per se. Other drugs can, but LSD and psilocybin generally do not. Ok, that may be a pedantic note but the term "hallucinogen" is incorrect and I think it's important to point that out, because much of the stigma associated with these drugs is the misconception that they generally produce true hallucinations (which are extremely dangerous, except for the kind that occur in the 8-hour-long catatonic state that the body and brain require each day). Second, I'm 28 and I've known a lot of people who've used these drugs. The dangers are real. I'm not saying, "Don't do them." I am saying that if you choose to do so, you're on the frontier of something whose upsides are intensely personal and difficult to measure (this doesn't make them "not real", not in the least) and whose dangers are serious. Then again, so are the dangers of alcohol, which is legal and socially accepted. It's important to understand, even though that attitude is mostly wrong, why society holds negative views toward this sort of drug use. It's because the upsides (positive personal experiences) are invisible except to the user, while the downsides (psychological damage) are quite visible and affect other people. Also, most of society sees absolutely no distinction between pleasure-seeking, stupid, and possibly self-destructive drug use (cocaine, heroin, inhalants, methamphetamine) and exploratory drug use (LSD, psilocybin). Most of us know that there's a world of difference between those two patterns of use and the types of people who pursue them, but most of society has no clue. They think people use LSD because it's "fun" and as a party drug, not as a means for growth. Guilt and anxiety are two psychological hurdles to positive drug experiences. As for guilt, I explained why society considers drug use to be "morally wrong", not because that attitude is right but because one needs to understand it. If you've internalized it, it's something you're up against and need to resolve before you touch a single drug. You should examine your own morality and make sure you're 100% OK with what you're about to do. If you have reservations, don't do it. Don't ever use drugs because of "peer pressure" either, because it's always OK not to use drugs (you're not missing out on that much). But if you do decide to use a drug, don't spend a single second of thought on that guilt. It's now in your body, and it will leave, and there's not much you can do. But I'm prepared to say that, no, drug use does not make you a bad person. :) It may be unwise in many circumstances, but it doesn't make you "bad". Anxiety is more of an issue. If you have issues with anxiety, depression, or panic, you should probably stay away from psychedelic drugs outright. This includes alcohol. I developed panic disorder in the least "druggy" means possible (working on Wall Street through a nasty throat infection that eventually put me in a hospital) and aside from an occasional beer (and I limit myself to one) I haven't touched a substance like this since then (that was March 2008). My PD is manageable at this point (about 2 attacks per month, with frequency and intensity continuing to decline) but I have no desire whatsoever to roll the dice. I would also note that legal drugs exist. This is important because one of the worst things about some illegal drugs is that they are illegal; this is (1) conducive to paranoia and guilt, and (2) a factor that means you will likely have to form relationships with some pretty ugly people in order to get access to these drugs. So, if "breaking the law" is an issue for you, there are legal drugs out there. Psychoactive lotus is interesting and mildly psychedelic, and seems to be innocuous. "Mind machines" (not a drug) can have similarly interesting effects. Salvia I would advise people away from unless they know what they are getting into. Don't be fooled by its legality: it's extremely intense, and high-power extracts can produce a very unpleasant experience. Ok, now some personal thoughts. If I had to describe psychoactive drugs in one word, it'd be: unnecessary, at least for most people. Their therapeutic potential really should be investigated by mainstream psychiatry, but I don't think most people need them in order to have powerful, beautiful spiritual experiences. There's an arrogance in certain drug-using communities about the power and singular importance of these experiences, mostly a reaction to society's (unjustly) extreme negative attitude toward their behavior. Those experiences can be interesting but are not a necessary part of a deep, spiritual life. Not at all. Really, a lot of people use psychedelic drugs and learn nothing. Timothy Leary was an outright mess (and an alcoholic) toward the end of his life. Psychedelics can certainly show what's possible, and that shouldn't be entirely discounted, but I don't think they're a good substitute for a true spiritual path that becomes a deep part of one's life, not "recreation" in 6-hour installments. I've come to the conclusion that the effect of these drugs is to accelerate karmic processes 100- to 1000-fold, so that you mentally "age" a few months in a couple of hours. If what's ahead of you is spiritual growth, you might grow a little faster and have a very positive experience. On the other hand, if you're 3 months from a nervous breakdown that you might be able to avert (therapy) if you have sufficient time, drug use is a seriously bad idea because this acceleration makes said breakdown more likely to occur immediately and fiercely. I think much of what gives psychedelic drug experiences their power is the duration of an open-minded state. If you have the skill and focus to hold a mindful, meditative state for one hour, much less 6, you will have a very potent experience-- probably much more meaningful than most drug trips. I don't want to give the impression that this is easy. It takes a lot of work and study to get to that level of skill. You've probably been meditating for months, if not years, before you can keep a mindful or meditative state for an hour. Once you develop this skill, however, it's very much worth it and you will have no need for (and probably not much interest in) psychedelic drugs. One note I'll also point out is that the "failure mode" in meditation is non-experience, which is much softer a landing than the failure mode of drug use, which is an intensely negative and potentially damaging experience. Ok, I'm done. I know that was long, but this is one of the most important decisions that young people face and most go into it without enough information, so I felt it to be worth the volume of text.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• pnathan 15y ago
  I am not favorable to unregulated use of drugs. I've known a couple drug-users, and been around quite a few. For whatever reason, their lives were/are not good. Success (in any realm) did not seem to be theirs. There seemed to be an unwholesomeness that pervaded their lives. Now, that is anecdotal datum, and it is of course reasonable and plausible that an analytical and careful approach to the business produces a better effect than simply taking bong hits for the lulz. Therapeutic drug use, IMO, should be investigated with all due scientific process and rigor.
  • pjscott 15y ago
    Which drugs are you talking about? There's a wide range here; something like LSD is not as dangerous as, say, methamphetamine or tobacco. Also, you're ignoring the possibility that the "unwholesomeness" of their lives, and general propensity for failure, caused their regular drug use, rather than vice versa. It doesn't sound like you're being entirely honest in your reasoning here.
• rohit89 15y ago
  Is there some place where you can read the experiences of people ?
  • simon_weber 15y ago
    Check out erowid.
    • bait 15y ago
      Bear in mind that the trip reports on erowid suffer a massive self selection bias. Theyre not biased towards positive or negative experiences, just towards incredibly earnest depictions of the drug experience. People don't bother to write up the boring shit.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• tokenadult 15y ago
  It's regrettable that the HN submission about this that reached the front page for sustained discussion is based on a press release rather than on follow-up by independent journalists. Suffice it to say that this is an interesting preliminary study finding, but it needs a lot of refinement and quite a bit of replication before serving as a basis for self-medication by HN readers. Earlier HN submissions based on journalistic reports of same study: from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3053068 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3053068 from 105 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664252 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664252 In general, press release services are just a guide to look for independent accounts of someone's newly announced study finding. The researcher will always be enthusiastic about his or her new finding, but a good journalist (a rarity, I acknowledge, when it comes to science reporting) will provide perspective and lessen the gee-whiz factor in the researcher's announcement via press release.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• newman2001 15y ago
  Psychedelics are definitely interesting. I recently came across Ibogaine (http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ibogaine.shtml http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Ibogaine.shtml ) derived from roots of the iboga tree. Surprisingly many experiencers report to have seen a man point towards a door or convey some messages to them in their 36hr long trips! A substance that can give very similar results to multiple users is definitely worth the research.
• thyrsus 15y ago
  I just took the test here http://www.123test.com/personality-test/ http://www.123test.com/personality-test/ , which appears to measure this "openness" trait, and it says I'm already on the far end of open. My tradition doesn't contain, and I don't think I've ever experienced, "sartori", but if I ever get a tinge of boredom, I start tying to imagine the scale and complexity of the subatomic and relativistic models of the phenomena I'm experiencing (e.g., photons as probability waves moving at light speed and then an infinitesimal fraction of them collapsing in interactions with atoms in my retina), and I'm instantly fascinated. So the question is, would a psychedelic experience really change me?