Hacker News Reader

Comment by rolltiide | Hacker News Reader

One thing that annoys me about psychadelic discussion is how dismissive people are.

Its predictable:

Have a bad experience?

“Whaat no way dude, you must have taken something else or you were predisposed to schizophrenia you should have predicted that and checked your family history and genetics first! This experience is totally invalid to us and anyone considering using our favorite psychadelic”

Develop schizophrenia?

“[abbreviated version of the same response]”

Have an interesting idea?

“Just an anecdote! More research necessary”

View on HN

This is totally true, not sure why it's downvoted. Psychedelic enthusiasts will often say "oh well that person who had a bad experience was predisposed and shouldn't have taken it." When there was literally no way of telling that the person was predisposed until they took the drug. You can be a fairly stable person but be predisposed to psychosis when you take psychedelic, but have no idea that's the case until you take the psychedelics. Maybe you family history is clear because nobody experimented with psychedelics and thus never triggered that predisposition, or maybe you just don't learn about every instance of psychosis in your family tree. If you try to bring this up to psychedelic enthusiasts they get defensive even though they're obviously in the wrong.

Approximately what percent of the average population is predisposed to psychosis?

All breakthrough psychedelic experiences are serious psychotic events. Experienced psychonauts not only understand that psychosis can happen to anyone - regardless of history - but know how valuable it can be.

Psychosis valuable? The difference between clinical psychosis and a psychedelic breakthrough experience is that the latter is integrated. The Psychonaut finds a way to make it part of his psyche and thus neutralize the dissonance.

Those who talk about predisposition really have no clue regarding proper psychedelic use. Psychosis is the whole point. But, taking place inside a framework that allows for integration. There is a reason shamans have rituals.

Great points, it's so tricky to communicate though.

Very interesting idea about the notionally-psychotic event/state being part of the experience, and integration being part of the model of a healthy version.

But if that's true, replace "psychosis" in the preceding arguments about the dangers with "failure to integrate the experience".

Same danger, different name.

It still needs to be acknowledged, not brushed away. Frameworks and rituals do not remove this danger. They may alter the risks, but it still occurs within them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com