3 ms·

Did you ever use the site? It was like a handshake agreement situation where you had no idea how full of shit the posts were. If people weren't outright lying,

Did you ever use the site? It was like a handshake agreement situation where you had no idea how full of shit the posts were. If people weren't outright lying, they could (very well) be experiencing wish fulfillment or placebo. Many of the "negative" experiences were similar - describing reactions that were frankly hard to believe. Posts tended towards fictional exaggeration. Further, many users were anonymous, pseudonymous, lying about identity, or posting in a time when many believed no one would be probing through the internet trying to identify folks. tl;dr - I seriously doubt any of the users wants to be identified, much less compensated for providing "data".

morkalork 3y ago
The trip reports for datura are legendary for their outlandishness. On point though, many of the chemicals in question aren't legal so not sure how much users would want to be identified..
- deleriousmuffin 3y ago
  If you had actually ever tried datura, there's no way you'd be so dismissive of people's reports of using it as being "outlandish".
  - plussed_reader 3y ago
    Yes, no true scotsman would dismiss a datura trip report.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    strong agree
- lightedman 3y ago
  Datura is absolutely outlandish, though. I'm a very experienced psychonaut and even I won't dare touch that stuff. One of my friends did and just watching him on it made me never, EVER want to do it.
rideontime 3y ago
That's been my experience with the site, too, which made me raise my eyebrow at the article's claim of "first-hand testimonials that have been vetted for authenticity and accuracy." If the data's such junk (which I surely won't argue with), why study it? e: From the original paper: > Rigorous quality control is conducted by trained experts with careful consideration given to “quality, credibility, and focus on effects or outcomes” (www.erowid.org). By means of that mechanism, all reports that provided the basis for the present investigation have successfully exceeded a standard quality filter. Totally.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I once had a disagreement with a lead dev for an in-house tool that was a glorified DAM. their forms were not kept up to date, and so users were forced to enter bad data which skewed query results. when pressed about why the fields were forced to choose from an outdated pre-populated enum, i was told "bad data is better than no data". maybe the AI researchers are from the same school of thought. having bad/unvetted medical data/advice on psychedelics would be better than no data at all, right? /s

morkalork 3y ago

The trip reports for datura are legendary for their outlandishness. On point though, many of the chemicals in question aren't legal so not sure how much users would want to be identified..

deleriousmuffin 3y ago
If you had actually ever tried datura, there's no way you'd be so dismissive of people's reports of using it as being "outlandish".
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  Yes, no true scotsman would dismiss a datura trip report.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  strong agree
lightedman 3y ago
Datura is absolutely outlandish, though. I'm a very experienced psychonaut and even I won't dare touch that stuff. One of my friends did and just watching him on it made me never, EVER want to do it.

rideontime 3y ago

That's been my experience with the site, too, which made me raise my eyebrow at the article's claim of "first-hand testimonials that have been vetted for authenticity and accuracy." If the data's such junk (which I surely won't argue with), why study it? e: From the original paper: > Rigorous quality control is conducted by trained experts with careful consideration given to “quality, credibility, and focus on effects or outcomes” (www.erowid.org). By means of that mechanism, all reports that provided the basis for the present investigation have successfully exceeded a standard quality filter. Totally.

dylan604 3y ago
I once had a disagreement with a lead dev for an in-house tool that was a glorified DAM. their forms were not kept up to date, and so users were forced to enter bad data which skewed query results. when pressed about why the fields were forced to choose from an outdated pre-populated enum, i was told "bad data is better than no data". maybe the AI researchers are from the same school of thought. having bad/unvetted medical data/advice on psychedelics would be better than no data at all, right? /s