3 ms·

> It's whether the substance is sufficient cause for the effect. 100%. > I.e. if your friend took sugar water that you told them had LSD, would they have the

by Mo3 4y ago

> It's whether the substance is sufficient cause for the effect. 100%. > I.e. if your friend took sugar water that you told them had LSD, would they have the same panic disorder? I see what you're saying. Extremely unlikely, because the effects of psychedelics are not caused by simple knowledge of ingestion. I know this, because I once got sold bad LSD, with close to zero active ingredient, yet I assumed it was a very strong dose, and there were no effects whatsoever. Generally, adding to this, the effects of psychedelics are so extremely strong and all-encompassing this is completely out of the question. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone with experience or read experience reports. > And also not just the one friend of course, but repeated across many trials. Sorry, I'm not an expert in this field, I'm a software engineer. Just wanted to share my subjective experiences.

robbiep 4y ago
I think you still don’t really understand what is meant by placebo effect and are putting way too much stock in the power of low dose psychedelics. FYI I have microdosed and it felt great but I wasn’t trying to tease out an effect. I think there’s a decent chance that the lift I got was because I felt mischevious, like, i just took some fing acid this morning and here I am at work. Solid lift. If there is some effect, then a blinded study should show a response. It doesn’t come down to ‘magic’ that works only if you know you’re taking the actual thing and have the right set and setting. By your own example, a blinded study that was run without the important steps you mention should correspondingly show people with both positive and negative effects which would appear in results. If you don’t have these results, then you have a bunk field that is just pseudoscience. Now this study may or may not be of that good a quality, but it goes in the evidence pile. > Sorry, I'm not an expert in this field, I'm a software engineer. Just wanted to share my subjective experiences. It’s clear that you’re sharing your subjective experiences, but that is not at all how you presented it, you presented it as though the study is wrong because of your experience. The study could be wrong, but the study is (at least ostensibly) attempting to follow the scientific method. Your dogmatic defence of a technique you clearly believe in (and to be clear, I don’t want to invalidate the benefit you say you have received from it) does not in any way contribute positively to what the objective of science is - to get to the truth. The broader picture here is that if there are high quality studies that demonstrate that micro dosing has some minor, or even significant effects on subjective experience when appropriately blinded, then it is a field for further study and potential adoption into therapy or other areas in controlled situations. If it shows nothing, then it is like the whole field of pseudoscience where the labours and efforts of people and mis allocation of resources to something that provides no benefit (and, on a re-run of history may never be developed, as opposed to science, which would come out the same way)
- Mo3 4y ago
  > but that is not at all how you presented it, you presented it as though the study is wrong because of your experience. Absolutely not. To be clear, I'm not arguing against this study. In fact I absolutely believe the results to be conclusive and am trying to offer a possible explanation based on my experiences. I very well understand what a placebo is (or, at least, sufficiently enough), maybe the misunderstanding of my intentions behind commenting made it seem like I didn't. With the knowledge that I am arguing for the study and not against it, maybe my comments will make sense in a different way now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by Mo3 4y ago

robbiep 4y ago

I think you still don’t really understand what is meant by placebo effect and are putting way too much stock in the power of low dose psychedelics. FYI I have microdosed and it felt great but I wasn’t trying to tease out an effect. I think there’s a decent chance that the lift I got was because I felt mischevious, like, i just took some fing acid this morning and here I am at work. Solid lift. If there is some effect, then a blinded study should show a response. It doesn’t come down to ‘magic’ that works only if you know you’re taking the actual thing and have the right set and setting. By your own example, a blinded study that was run without the important steps you mention should correspondingly show people with both positive and negative effects which would appear in results. If you don’t have these results, then you have a bunk field that is just pseudoscience. Now this study may or may not be of that good a quality, but it goes in the evidence pile. > Sorry, I'm not an expert in this field, I'm a software engineer. Just wanted to share my subjective experiences. It’s clear that you’re sharing your subjective experiences, but that is not at all how you presented it, you presented it as though the study is wrong because of your experience. The study could be wrong, but the study is (at least ostensibly) attempting to follow the scientific method. Your dogmatic defence of a technique you clearly believe in (and to be clear, I don’t want to invalidate the benefit you say you have received from it) does not in any way contribute positively to what the objective of science is - to get to the truth. The broader picture here is that if there are high quality studies that demonstrate that micro dosing has some minor, or even significant effects on subjective experience when appropriately blinded, then it is a field for further study and potential adoption into therapy or other areas in controlled situations. If it shows nothing, then it is like the whole field of pseudoscience where the labours and efforts of people and mis allocation of resources to something that provides no benefit (and, on a re-run of history may never be developed, as opposed to science, which would come out the same way)

Mo3 4y ago
> but that is not at all how you presented it, you presented it as though the study is wrong because of your experience. Absolutely not. To be clear, I'm not arguing against this study. In fact I absolutely believe the results to be conclusive and am trying to offer a possible explanation based on my experiences. I very well understand what a placebo is (or, at least, sufficiently enough), maybe the misunderstanding of my intentions behind commenting made it seem like I didn't. With the knowledge that I am arguing for the study and not against it, maybe my comments will make sense in a different way now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]