6 ms·

It's difficult to explain if you haven't had that kind of experience yourself, but one way to describe it is that psychedelics (some more so than others) open

It's difficult to explain if you haven't had that kind of experience yourself, but one way to describe it is that psychedelics (some more so than others) open up a window that allows for change. You are no longer stuck in your old ways of thinking that you took for granted. But the experiences themselves don't change you. You still need to put in the work to make the changes. You can certainly do this without a guide. But if you take these drugs recreationally without such intentions and without putting in hard work pre- and post-session, nothing much is going to happen in the long term. A guide will help you to get the most out of the experience (while also helping with trip safety). It's not about whether you use psychedlics or not, it's about how you take them.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
"It's not about whether you use psychedlics or not" "without putting in hard work pre- and post-session, nothing much is going to happen in the long term" Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. Ergo, you could achieve the same results even without taking it. It's attributing personal growth to a drug rather than to your own willpower to do something.
- bambataa 4y ago
  I’m not sure I agree, because people might put in the hard work without the psychedelic and not experience the benefit. Michael Pollan’s “How to change your mind” talks about psychedelic studies where the more effective, longer lasting changes are seen by the people who had more “mystic” experiences. It’s not just about good intentions, or just taking psychedelics, but seemingly priming your mind to use the psychedelics to (temporarily) change fundamental thought patterns.
- mudrockbestgirl 4y ago
  By that definition, getting therapy is also a placebo. You could go to therapy "recreationally" without wanting to get better or work on yourself. But that's not going to help you. You still need to put in work. Does that make therapy a placebo?
  - coldtea 4y ago
    I think the parent conflates "non placebo" with "fixes everything all by itself".
- GendingMachine 4y ago
  This doesn't really make any sense, just because you still need to put in the effort doesn't mean it isn't highly affective at making it much easier for an individual to direct that effort positively.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. If you take a doping pill to run faster, you still need to train and to expand heavy personal effort during the race. Is the doping pill "placebo"? Heck, if you have leg surgery after an accident, depending on the type of surgery, you often need (and are advised by the doctor, and asked to take it up with physiotherapist and such) to put in personal work and exercize properly for months, to be able to walk and regain use of your leg again. Is the leg surgery placebo? Or how about a debugger. It wont solve your problem automatically. You still need to write the program yourself, to look into different places, and to know how to find a bug etc. Is the debugger a placebo? Needing to put personal work to get a result is not what's the distinction between a placebo and a drug. A placebo is not that which is only effective when combined with additional personal effort (that can hold for any regular drug). A placebo is a neutral drug that does nothing at all itself (it's just water, or some neutral powder or saline solution, etc) and it's effectiveness is all about the belief that it helps. Besides, psychedelics (even assuming what they do have no bearing at all to getting better from depression, etc, an assumption with which research disagrees), have huge immediate effects on mental state when taken. So they're not neutral in the way a placebo is even on that account.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Logical fallacy of composition/division. My comment isn't being applied to all these other scenarios, it is being applied to the topic at hand—psychedelics.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      There is no logical fallacy. Your original comment is just wrong. If psychedelics improve the outcome, they are still worthwhile even if the therapy is still needed and not a placebo. You are just misplacing the bar. The analogy to performance enhancing drugs is actually quite good.
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        There absolutely is. They held up countless irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with psychedelics, thus casting a wide net. My original comment is my opinion. When there's further studies done rather than anecdotal rubbish pertaining to woowoo in the comments, then I'll reconsider my stance. Analogies are unnecessary and distracting.
- 8note 4y ago
  Where does that willpower come from though?
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Placebo? Situation changing day-to-day? Diet? All kinds of variables. But in this particular scenario, likely placebo. If I tell someone that a tablet will make them able to do something and it's just a sugar pill, they'll likely be able to do it. The blocking factor is usually a confidence issue.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Cars don't drive themselves just because you put fuel in the tank.
- bmacho 4y ago
  > Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. Say without drugs 20% of the depressed population gets better, and with drugs 80% of them. Why would you call this 'placebo' (which is an entirely different topic), and from this word deduce that it is bad? Nonsense.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Did I say that it was bad? Nope.
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  Just because you still have to physically drive from A to B and could theoretically find your way without a map does not make the map a placebo.

hammyhavoc 4y ago

"It's not about whether you use psychedlics or not" "without putting in hard work pre- and post-session, nothing much is going to happen in the long term" Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. Ergo, you could achieve the same results even without taking it. It's attributing personal growth to a drug rather than to your own willpower to do something.

bambataa 4y ago
I’m not sure I agree, because people might put in the hard work without the psychedelic and not experience the benefit. Michael Pollan’s “How to change your mind” talks about psychedelic studies where the more effective, longer lasting changes are seen by the people who had more “mystic” experiences. It’s not just about good intentions, or just taking psychedelics, but seemingly priming your mind to use the psychedelics to (temporarily) change fundamental thought patterns.
mudrockbestgirl 4y ago
By that definition, getting therapy is also a placebo. You could go to therapy "recreationally" without wanting to get better or work on yourself. But that's not going to help you. You still need to put in work. Does that make therapy a placebo?
- coldtea 4y ago
  I think the parent conflates "non placebo" with "fixes everything all by itself".
GendingMachine 4y ago
This doesn't really make any sense, just because you still need to put in the effort doesn't mean it isn't highly affective at making it much easier for an individual to direct that effort positively.
coldtea 4y ago
>Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. If you take a doping pill to run faster, you still need to train and to expand heavy personal effort during the race. Is the doping pill "placebo"? Heck, if you have leg surgery after an accident, depending on the type of surgery, you often need (and are advised by the doctor, and asked to take it up with physiotherapist and such) to put in personal work and exercize properly for months, to be able to walk and regain use of your leg again. Is the leg surgery placebo? Or how about a debugger. It wont solve your problem automatically. You still need to write the program yourself, to look into different places, and to know how to find a bug etc. Is the debugger a placebo? Needing to put personal work to get a result is not what's the distinction between a placebo and a drug. A placebo is not that which is only effective when combined with additional personal effort (that can hold for any regular drug). A placebo is a neutral drug that does nothing at all itself (it's just water, or some neutral powder or saline solution, etc) and it's effectiveness is all about the belief that it helps. Besides, psychedelics (even assuming what they do have no bearing at all to getting better from depression, etc, an assumption with which research disagrees), have huge immediate effects on mental state when taken. So they're not neutral in the way a placebo is even on that account.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Logical fallacy of composition/division. My comment isn't being applied to all these other scenarios, it is being applied to the topic at hand—psychedelics.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    There is no logical fallacy. Your original comment is just wrong. If psychedelics improve the outcome, they are still worthwhile even if the therapy is still needed and not a placebo. You are just misplacing the bar. The analogy to performance enhancing drugs is actually quite good.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      There absolutely is. They held up countless irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with psychedelics, thus casting a wide net. My original comment is my opinion. When there's further studies done rather than anecdotal rubbish pertaining to woowoo in the comments, then I'll reconsider my stance. Analogies are unnecessary and distracting.
8note 4y ago
Where does that willpower come from though?
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Placebo? Situation changing day-to-day? Diet? All kinds of variables. But in this particular scenario, likely placebo. If I tell someone that a tablet will make them able to do something and it's just a sugar pill, they'll likely be able to do it. The blocking factor is usually a confidence issue.
barrysteve 4y ago
Cars don't drive themselves just because you put fuel in the tank.
bmacho 4y ago
> Sounds a lot like cognitive bias to me. It's ultimately a placebo if you still need to put the work in. Say without drugs 20% of the depressed population gets better, and with drugs 80% of them. Why would you call this 'placebo' (which is an entirely different topic), and from this word deduce that it is bad? Nonsense.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Did I say that it was bad? Nope.
MauranKilom 4y ago
Just because you still have to physically drive from A to B and could theoretically find your way without a map does not make the map a placebo.