I'm surprised that almost every single comment on here is negative toward the author not wanting to take psychedelics. Do you all think everyone should take psychedelics? Is there any good reason not to?
I've done psychedelics and other drugs and am not saying people shouldn't do drugs (like the author) but there are many good reasons not to do drugs. Among them is the idea that you don't necessarily need substances to reach understanding and achieve creativity. Drugs kick down doors that can be opened in many other ways.
I had a good friend in college who started doing psychedelics. He talked extensively about the positive effects of them and how much better he felt. At around the same time, he dropped out of school and cut family ties. He talked about connecting with God and having the sort of religious awakening thing other people talk about
My experience was pretty different: I didn't have any sort of "connection with God" moment, but I did get a better idea of what my own purpose was in life and switched majors because of it
At the end of it I realized that doing them is fundamentally a selfish act because there's always a risk involved. Especially if you're an adult with responsibilities and dependents. Consistency isn't a bad thing, especially when people are depending on you
No one is forcing anyone to taking psychedelics. They are relatively safe, but not for everyone and dosage makes huge difference. Some people take other medications, like SSRI antidepressants, so it's either forbidden or not recommended for them, but for the rest I would personally recommend to try them at least once, to see the world from different perspective.
In my opinion it's like learning to ride a bike or to swim. No one has to learn it, but once you learn it, it's hard to forget it and it will help you in various situations.
Such a brief and personal take. Not worthy for the front page of Hacker News, IMO.
I had not used psychedelics until a few months ago ("'shrooms"). At the time, it caused me to be giggly, weak-limbed, and a little nauseous or hungry. Afterwards, it may have contributed to me being more open to my emotions and desires. I can't place the cause on the drugs specifically, but I'm glad I've tried them several times for the experience and am looking forward to again when in the right headspace.
I strongly believe any sort of substance use should be a personal choice and don't want to encourage or discourage anyone one way or another. That said, I'm not sure if this train of thought makes much sense? Essentially it's saying you don't want to explore alternative ideas, and that's all fair and dandy if you're happy where you are, but how do psychedelics fit into this? It's not like anyone's forcing them onto you.
It is also fashionable to call any consumption of certain substances “microdosing”, which never seems to have a real definition. By calling consumption “microdosing”, one can rationalize that it is harmless and experimental.
I'm an illusionist (basically, I think that consciousness is an illusion produced by our senses to create a sense of self continuous over time, which helps a lot thinking about the future)
Altering my senses, deeply, risk to change my consciousness, change my illusion of self. If I were depressed or in a bad place, that would probably be a nice idea, but i'm really enjoying my life right now (and I like who I am), so I won't.
What was I supposed to take away from that? That The Beatles' members fell off? That drugs aren't for everyone? I'm struggling to find the insight here, because it feels more like tweet and less like a fruitful topic for discussion, lest we want to argue about Beatles' discography, in which Revolver is obviously the best.
> Most of all, I don’t want my priorities re-ordered. And that is why I don’t use psychedelics.
Ok, good for you :) I suppose if you're lucky enough to already have a good life, psychedelics may not appear so relevant or appealing to you...
I've also known people claiming they don't want to use psychedelics, sometimes the reason is that part of them is actually afraid of what they may reveal or do to them, which is also a perfectly valid reason not to use them.
In my case, too many wrenches were thrown into my life, psychedelics made sense to me and indeed were a tremendous help for both my physical and mental health.
Another reason not mentioned here is that they're usually illegal, which is a whole other debate. My point of view is that it should be a personal choice but that you should be somewhat educated about what you're getting yourself into.
> I would rather get execution right, and remain on the same mental track I have been on. I also don’t want my priorities re-ordered, or suddenly to feel that now I have grasped the true nature of the universe, and that x, y, and z are in fact meaningless.
This whole post is about higher-order volition[1] - what you want to want.
This is the future. What if you could have full control over your urges and desires? What if you could make the conscious decision to alter your consciousness such that your sole desire is to find the solution the collatz conjecture, or to achieve rank 1 in league of legends, or to experience orgasmic pleasure from setting up pyramids of dominoes until the end of time.
I feel like that's the next phase of humanity. As it is, we're still trapped by the same urges and desires that has guided humanity for hundreds of thousands of years. Any true evolution beyond humanity means a meaningful break from that, but I honestly have no idea what that will look like and what implications it will bring.
Greg Egan's fiction introduced me to this idea, and it's haunted me since I encountered it.
I was quite the arrogant atheist most of my life, until I tried psilocybin and I regret not having tried it much further. It lessened the symptoms of my depression with a long lasting effect and increased my creativity and broadly extended my mind in terms of being more open to various concepts I closed myself off of before and was much more in tune with my emotions, going as far as having friends and family ask me about my change in behavior, in being more open with my emotions and telling people that I care about them and love having them in my life.
I discovered Carl Jung and Terence McKenna and rediscovered Philip K Dick shortly after my first trip and I definitely see the world with new eyes.
It has often been a struggle though, because you may notice that certain people in your life won't accept someone with a less materialist approach to life.
Of course I kept my strict distrust of organized religion and I've not become succiptible to any cults.
YMMV, of course. No medical advice, you know the speech.
After spending several years in groups that are very positive about drugs I reached the same conclusion that should have been obvious from the beginning: drugs should be left to the medical professionals. Even if it takes decades from now for the medical establishment to reach consensus, and even if in this period some people who would have benefited from their use don't get to.
Most positive stories you hear about drugs are from people who self diagnosed, self proscribed and self evaluated the results of their use. For each one I personally get to know I could not disagree harder with their conclusions. You can not be objective about it and the drugs alter the decision mechanism itself. So you have to be looked at from the outside and by a professional.
Self-prescription may lead to abuse more often than when an outside person makes the assessment about you, since one cannot easily differentiate between addiction and a strong affinity for a new source of happiness induced by the drug that isn’t the drug.
I am a nicotine addict who wishes cigarettes would have been illegal back when I started. I see absolutely no benefit for smoking. Alcohol and caffeine in moderation have some, but your doctor's opinion should still be the deciding factor.
Did you seek a professional evaluation about how caffeine effects you? Or did you notice that it makes you slightly more alert, with minimal side effects? How do you choose which professional should evaluate your drug use?
I could share tens, but the stories are too long for a reply here.
But I will address your point about being more open. I know several cases where it did make them more open but that was a bad thing since they where already too open. So it's like any other drug, including all the legal ones. An anticoagulant can save your life or kill you.
A major aspect of psychedelics, as also outlined by the author himself in the very first paragraph, is their proven potential to unlock new ideas and perspectives in people who take them. The experience could greatly affect the way he might look back at this article :)
Sure, but why would you shift focus for those reasons? Psychedelics in this context are just a tool to get new insights. Same as reading a book, watching a movie, having a deep conversation with someone, doing therapy, etc... Insights are neither good nor bad on their own. They need to be evaluated before you act on them.
You mean when you read a book and it changes your way of thinking or challenges currently held beliefs, makes you sad or happy, makes you laugh, etc. all of that happens through no chemical means?
To me: I'm proud of what I do, I'm enjoying my life, both at work and outside. I'm happy with how I react to adversity or outside events (I'm a bit slow to react to break down fights in public areas, but I do react). I have interesting conversation with my friends and family, I have multiple communities I can interact with.
I wouldn't be anyone else or change a thing in my life, even my mistakes or the time I was homeless I do not regret.
Really? Not because its highly addictive and toxic to your body or because it's so illegal that you basically can't get it in a verifiable pure form? Not trying to be insulting here, but heroin is possibly the last drug I would've associated with getting my "priorities re-ordered". I wouldn't even think of brining it up when talking about about naturally occuring psychelic drugs such as psilocybin, DMT or ayahuasca.
The 2nd image - I very, very much doubt that's harm per user. "Overall harm" almost certainly doesn't mean that, and then harm per user is a very important metric.
Dude use some common sense. Drink a beer and compare it with smoking just one puff from a joint. Tell me which fucks you up more. There is your answer.
Maybe you equalize the dosages then. Otherwise I could ask you to down a few shots of hard liquor vs. taking a 5mg THC edible and tell me which fucks you up more.
It is quite obvious that the author has absolutely no idea what psychedelics are, what they can do and what they are used for (both recreationally and therapeutically). I am wondering why anyone would think they are in an adequate position to write anything about a topic, even though they neither did proper research whatsoever on the topic nor have their own experiences in the matter. This is equivalent to throwing garbage out into the world.
My favorite part:
> I would rather get execution right, and remain on the same mental track I have been on. I also don’t want my priorities re-ordered, or suddenly to feel that now I have grasped the true nature of the universe, and that x, y, and z are in fact meaningless. Let’s stick with the process, people!
Having this mindset sets you up to a gloriously ignorant life. It is basically programming yourself to lie to yourself until you die and be happy with it. You are scared to find out the truth, because it might hurt in one way or another - or set you free. Nothing truly great ever came out of this - but the exact opposite...
> I am wondering why anyone would think they are in an adequate position to write anything about a topic, even though they neither did proper research whatsoever on the topic nor have their own experiences in the matter.
I think everyone is in a position to write a post about why they themselves don't do something. It's his blog - he's a fairly well-known person who a lot of people are interested in, I'm sure he's been asked before about this topic, and he chose to answer it, on his personal blog. Who would be better positioned than him to say why he chooses to do (or not do) something?
He's not saying using psychedelics is wrong or that other people should or shouldn't use them, he's saying why he chooses not to use them.
Literally the first line is:
"I am not sure how many people should use psychedelics, and I do not wish anything in this post to be construed as advice."
lol like it never ceases to amaze me how differently we are all wired up inside from each other. His perspective feels depressing and counter intuitive to my own yet I don’t doubt that inside of his head for him it feels so clearly right and true.
Their POV is sadly a common one, though to be fair existence can be scary plus psychedelics do have their own pants-shittingly frightening dangers, but what sucks is how this line of thought continues to prohibition and punishment of so called users to try and make sure that no one gets to have any cool psychedelic experiences.
He's 61. It's very possible he's quite content with the worldview he has developed over the last 61 years.
Why would you create chaos for yourself when things are working just fine? Process is exactly how you get things done. I love running on chaos energy, but it only takes you so far.
It is is a structural problem that goes much deeper than what the author thinks. "Sticking to the process" is good and important to SOME (!!!) degree for sure. However, doing this blindly will (1) prevent further progress/advancements and more importantly (2) ignore existing problems. The issue with the latter is that one is deliberately ignoring (e.g. ethical) issues, because it's very difficult to unsee things, once they are seen. Furthermore, by being ignorant, one can easily withdraw from responsibilities (which one actually HAS but lies to themselves that they don't.
These are just a few though about the very complex topic ;)
> Having this mindset sets you up to a gloriously ignorant life. It is basically programming yourself to lie to yourself until you die and be happy with it.
Are you implying that people who have done psychedelics have somehow transcended ignorance? Seems kind of hard to believe
No, I was not trying to imply that. I was saying that praising to not want to change ANYTHING about the way a system works is a way of being happily ignorant. Psychedelics have a way of forcing you out of this ignorance and for some people this seems very scary (because it means change - and many people don't like change).
But are you saying that in the cases where it frequently does happen, that the people who experienced it have somehow "transcended ignorance"? What does that mean in practice
One can be ignorant in different aspects. In various situations, one walks around with blinders on. One "only sees what one wants to see", because the brain filters out everything else that does not match ones world view - which is based on ones knowledge and, especially, beliefs. Psychedelics can act as a trigger (as can other things as well) to temporarily remove these blinders, making one able to see/feel/experience things the brain always ignored before, ONCE. Now, that one has "seen" it, one can choose to incorporate this into ones world view and daily life. There are many stages to this, which are part of the "therapeutic process" of psychedelics.
It's interesting, this is basically a Reddit comment but because it's a blog it has weight and people feel obligated to respond. Maybe there's a point to having a blog after all.
The author seems to be preoccupied with the whole micro dosing nutropics thing but the vast majority of people using psychedelics aren't doing that. I suspect more people are abusing strong stimulants to get an edge in society which have a much higher potential for abuse and harm...
Someone please shoot me if I end up using "increased workplace productivity/creativity" as the primary metric to decide whether I should try something new.
Should I load the gun already in case you'll think about trying a new VCS, SaaS, task/todo/wiki tool or are we talking strictly about ingestible new things?
That's neither here nor there, though. The argument is "the only time I do unfun things that benefit work is when I'm getting paid for them", not "I never do fun things at work".
How frequently do you consider taking psychedelics at work? I suspect I know the answer, and that you can see why that line of reasoning is a bit dishonest
I've done psychedelics and other drugs and am not saying people shouldn't do drugs (like the author) but there are many good reasons not to do drugs. Among them is the idea that you don't necessarily need substances to reach understanding and achieve creativity. Drugs kick down doors that can be opened in many other ways.