Turn On, Tune In, Drop by the Office | Hacker News Reader

Turn On, Tune In, Drop by the Office

1843magazine.com

54 pointsandrewl18 comments

I'm a little surprised they didn't go more into the likelihood it's just a placebo. They mention it briefly but IMHO it seems extremely likely. <10µg is just too low to have a chance binding to serotonin receptors. Of course if a placebo works for you, it's hard to argue you should stop, I just think microdosers run a risk of mismeasuring and accidentally taking a full dose of LSD. These "day trippers" are really just playing a high-tech game of Russian roulette (Silicon Valley roulette?) But media people seem to love exaggerating the supposed prevalence and benefits of microdosing. I would expect more mainstream media like The Economist to use better discretion on whether something like this is worth popularizing.

James Fadiman is always mentioned in articles on microdosing. I think he was the first to popularize microdosing. His approach seems to be more New Age than scientific. I think the culture around microdosing is generally unhelpful and possibly dangerous to those of us that want to see real research into therapeutic psychedelics.

gwern did a self-study on microdosing that is more rigorous than anything you'll find from Fadiman.

https://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing

I did 10ug, felt like nothing. I tried again with 20ug and wow the thought clarity is incredible. This may be because I have ADHD + GAD + Depression I'd highly recommend it to those considering. I agree on the 10ug being placebo territory, but it could be that those seeing the effects are those that are likely self-medicating anyway. A normal person wouldn't notice, whereas someone needing the bump would, just a guess.

Comments on the linked article: 20ug yay 10ug why? Hearing better: Surprisingly yes, I definitely noticed this, and it was thoroughly confusing at first, but my best guess is that its related to serotonin, since similar medication has been used to treat Tinnitus (e.g. SSRI's) It seems like serotonin is the signal amplifier dial, and mine is at a 9, people with Tinnitus are at 11. LSD and SSRI's drop it a notch or two. (Another wild guess based on my personal + google-lay experience) I think it aligns with what serotonin actually does, rather than the ELI5 "anxiety" label assigned to it. The "creativity" feels like a hippie thing to ascribe to it. I think it's closer to reducing the noise thereby providing a clearer signal for whatever is already on your mind... There seems to be a hint of time-dilation, in that the racing thoughts I've had all my life, seem to slow to a "normal" speed. I'm curious if this time-dilation aspect is what causes the weird trippy visuals people report at higher doses... If the "signal" is light hitting the retina, maybe serotonin modifies the rate it gets processed, like slowing down or ramping up the FPS on a video camera. No idea why I rambled this long on your comment, sorry haha

> James Fadiman is always mentioned in articles on microdosing [...] His approach seems to be more New Age than scientific.

What has he said that strikes you as new agey? Fadiman has been doing rigorous research in the field since before it was made illegal. There are lots of references to his various papers in his book, The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide. There is a section about it in the book, but as I recall it's not something that people were doing in the 60s so there are not yet any good studies to cite, and the effects are all reported as anecdotal. If given the opportunity, I am confident that Fadiman would be happy to conduct such studies. It's worth noting that in the book, again based on memory, microdosing is referred to as being in the 10-20ug range, so it's interesting that the article says <10. I agree with you that <10 seems too low for anything, but when you're closer to 20 there are subtle effects, really just at the threshold of being active, which I suppose is the point of a microdose. The "museum dose," where one can feel definite changes in thought patterns and perceptions but which does not result in overt hallucinations, is only around 37-45ug. It really is amazing how potent this substance is.

> I think the culture around microdosing is generally unhelpful and possibly dangerous to those of us that want to see real research into therapeutic psychedelics.

Dangerous how? It seems unlikely to take away from the renewed scientific focus on therapeutic use that is finally being allowed to continue. Or are you suggesting that microdosing culture could somehow delegitimize this? I'd think if anything it's a call for more research of lower doses in addition to the higher doses now being studied.

I do not doubt the efficacy of microdosing.

I think that albert hoffman would be a little aghast at how LSD has been coopted so that it lets you work even harder, though. Certainly Huxley would be.

Using a chemical that, at best, has real theraputic potential and can provide meaningful insight into the world this way just seems tawdry to me.

I could see this as a potential avenue for the relaxation on the blanket schedule 1 classification on all psychedelics, which would hopefully lead to a better discussion on them in general.

It's right in line with the commodification of meditation and yoga. They are being marketed as a means of improving productivity instead of ends in themselves. Even scarier is the implication that if your job is stressing you out, the only solution is to meditate -- i.e. you are the problem, not your job.

just so.

>Even scarier is the implication that if your job is stressing you out, the only solution is to meditate -- i.e. you are the problem, not your job.

Certainly. To go a little further I would hope that it's not something coopted to salve one's situation, but rather to gain clarity on what your issue might be exactly, and what you might do to resolve it -- whether that means altering the arrangement of your time, or finding a new job, starting a family, going back to school, picking up a new hobby, or quitting everything and joining a monastery.

It can be useful to "quiet the mind", and observe what you are actually thinking and feeling. Sometimes the noise of day-to-day living can be all-consuming -- enter some platitudes about "life passing you by".

I agree with the danger of applying it as if it's that you just have to temper your desires and placate yourself, while thinking that it's only some sort of neuroticism that is causing any suffering in the situation.

What's so wrong with trying to accomplish more in your life?

I view it as unhealthy to squeeze every ounce of productivity that we possibly can. What about taking time to unplug and enjoy the life you've created for yourself, instead of just counting the minutes until you're working again?

I accomplish a shitload of stuff and I don't microdose (I don't even drink coffee). I think of the American work culture as having a horrible sickness where a person's worth is measured only by their output. We are supposed to be constantly producing, never stopping to think if we're even producing the right things.

Sure, maybe some people want to be working all the time. More power to them. However my guess is a lot of people are sucked into it because of the culture and naturally would like a little more free time to themselves.

Nothing. What's wrong is the implicit assumption that the only way to accomplish more is by working at a job harder.

I'm a bit weirded out by the way this article alternates between talking about trends and demographics, and admitting it has no evidence whatsoever.

For instance:

> Young developers and engineers, most of them male, seem to be particularly keen on his form of bio-hacking

> Although data on the number of people microdosing are non-existent, since drug surveys do not ask about it

Anecdotally, I had the sense that the weirder, more drug-friendly side of the Valley was probably more gender-neutral than the rest. I could be wrong about that, but certainly nothing in this article counts as evidence on that point.

Similarly:

> "The quest for spiritual enlightenment – as with much else in San Francisco – is fuelled by the desire to increase productivity."

That's a baffling claim. Microdosing isn't a road to spiritual enlightenment - it's intentionally non-hallucinatory - and the most vocal drug advocates tend to view productivity as a route to spiritual change rather than the reverse.

This is an interesting historical take, but it seems to have hidden a shortage of data behind vague platitudes about Valley culture.

> The quest for spiritual enlightenment – as with much else in San Francisco – is fuelled by the desire to increase productivity

Uhm... really? I have strong doubts that seeking spiritual enlightenment is motivated by increasing productivity, or that those who microdose are predominantly doing it for spiritual purposes at all. To my mind, those things are in diametrical opposition. What is the author even trying to say with this?

Microdosing is specifically about avoiding the sort of active, vision-causing effects that normal use of acid has. I'm really not sure how "making sure to not have a religious experience" could be part of the quest for spiritual enlightenment. It feels like the sort of line that sounds pithy as long as you don't worry about accuracy.

> It feels like the sort of line that sounds pithy as long as you don't worry about accuracy.

Exactly!

And unrelated: I always think of Rob Pike when I hear the word pithy [0] :D

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFejpH_tAHM

Gwern's fascinating self experiment on LSD microdosing is always worth a read when this topic is brought up. He found that there was no measurable effect.

https://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing

Cautionary aspect: detecting mild and/or very long term deleterious effects of nootropics/drugs is extremely difficult empirically. Something like e.g. caffeine has been put through the ringer historically both empirically and in terms of secondary anecdotal cultural awareness (if that counts for anything.) But something relatively niche like this can't hope to have the necessary resources allocated to it for sufficient study.

I am kind of curious what the endgame of micro-dosing will be. Making a pretty hefty assumption that there are no common side-effects, I wonder if it will ever be as common / mainstream as caffeine is currently

Reply on news.ycombinator.com