Mushroom behind 'tiny people' hallucinations identified
phys.org
phys.org
Rubroboletus sinicus is another species under investigation. Another bolete.
The Chinese Daoist Ge Hong also wrote in Baopuzi around 300 CE about this effect from a mushroom and it seems to be common knowledge in pockets of China. Mushrooms that have this effect are collectively called xiǎo rén rén.
I also found this bit funny from the Wikipedia:
> In 2023, Lanmaoa asiatica received international media attention after U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was reported to have eaten a dish that contained it during an official visit to China. Yellen stated that the dish had been thoroughly cooked, and she experienced no ill effects (hallucinations).
"Little people people" or does the second rén have a different meaning here?
You can say something like 「你看！可愛的狗狗」 and it’s “look! A cute doggy” (reduplicating 狗 gǒu). On the other hand you could say 「人人都知道她是小三！」 and it means “everybody knows that she’s (his) mistress!” (reduplicating 人 rén).
狗狗 doggy 猫猫 kitty 鸟鸟 birdie 宝宝 baby
And it kind of works for verbs too: 看看 [take a] looky
> Reduplication is sometimes employed in verbs and adjectives to enhance the effect of them.
> 胖胖的 pàng pàng de ('quite fat') from 胖 pàng ('fat')
This is the exact opposite of how I'd understand it. Saying someone is 胖 is just calling them fat (rude), but 胖胖的 is teasing, cute, chubby, etc.
gordito
Usually there isn't a second 人 (rén) being reduplicated here.
人人 does mean “everyone,” but that's a different construction, and Chinese noun reduplication isn't generally equivalent to adding Spanish -ito. You may also see 小人儿 (xiǎo rénr), where 儿 is a colloquial/diminutive suffix.
Like 'mei' means girl but "mei mei" means cute/precious little girl. 'Go' means dog, "go go" means a cute little dog. And so on.
It's a interesting train of thought if nothing else. How would we "prove" a thing like "humanity benefits from being able to create, share and read books?" for example? Or that we can organize in grassroot movements? It's also really hard to qualify directly, as the impact is so indirect.
Same with psychedelics, a lot of scientists, researchers, creatives or even business-people attribute psychedelic usage to some of their success in their fields, but how can we really know if it was because of that or not?
If you do want to get into the "where big":
Shamanic/ritual/religious/social practices that wholly involve hallucinatory experiences (both with and without the aid of hallucinogenic substances) are well attested and documented throughout human development.
So the existence is there; if you want to argue that actually it was a Bad Thing for human collectives, from Siberia to the Amazon, from 50k years ago to the present day, to engage in these practices and that they'd have been much better off Not Doing It, I guess the burden of that proof is on you?
It is one of my favourite quotes. However, i think it only holds amongst intellects of his calibre.
I've come to the position that false beliefs aren't necessarily harmful, in the context of proles who already believe a lot of wrong things.
I mean, people claim therapeutic benefits to psychedelics, and there is some evidence.
Your analogy is exactly backwards.
How is that different from psychedelics? We can "see" their physical counterparts (and chemical reactions) in people's head and body as they trip too.
A lot of sold-as pure isomers are also simply racemic. People often won't notice that either (due to placebo and other factors), but they won't be getting the full benefit they wanted.
There are outliers like myself of course that cannot have levoamphetamine, it completely disables me. I do not know why and I don't really care to find out. The one and only time I took regular adderall, I had to sleep it off.
https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/12/3737
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-nutrition/harvard-st...
No, intent matters. If you drugged someone with caffeine (or someone drank it not knowing what it was) then their symptoms would also be called ill effects.
Coffee has well known ill-effects, I think every coffee drinker at one point have drank too much and felt them themselves. Apparently such a big topic that it isn't just a section of the Caffeine page, it has it's very own Wikipedia page! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_toxicity
But despite that, this mushroom is not a popular recreational drug. Much like amanita muscaria, which certain people insist must be great if used right, is common as dirt, and yet is so unpopular as a drug that it isn't even restricted.
By these same accounts, you'll get sick. It's unpleasant. Not even the most enthusiastic "psychonauts" seem to manage to take joy in this thing, little people or not.
Most people don't even know about it or have the means to access it as its either not available or not legal in their jurisdiction so not accurate. About 45% of the adults drink. How much lower would that percentage be if alcohol was little known and subjected to the same regulations psychedelics are under?
It's the best argument to legalize them if you ask me. It's clearly a self-limiting problem - I think it's simply because of unpleasant experiences, but I suppose it's also possible that the life-changing experiences make them not need the drugs anymore.
Psilocybe, the genus containing the most commonly cultivated magic mushroom, is also quite common. It is globally distributed with native species on every continent (less antarctica ofc). It didn't become illegal because it was common in the "wild", but because of the cultivation of one particular species at home and in closets.
A. muscaria on the other hand has never been successfully cultivated as far as we know. You would be surprised how many powerful psychoactive "drugs" can be found in ecosystems around the world
I didn't say it was legal because it's common - as you say, psilocybe mushrooms are also common - but because it's so unpleasant it has low abuse potential.
Plants/fungus can help convince your systems that things are okay, that it’s okay to be closer to resting state / content - not just “provide nutrients and fiber” as believed - though those things are super important, too!
The adverse effects of psilocybin are well known and documented and we know for sure that it’s not physically dangerous.
For the trip part we mostly know how it work and how interact and it can be healing (or bad trip depending on the context).
Still you may have have digestive adverse effects, not because of poisoning but because the human gut cannot digest crude mushrooms.
But you will not be physically sick per se like you would be with a bacteria or a toxin, your immune system will not fight anything.
I just was under the impression that from a 'medical(?)' point of view, the trip is nothing more than food poisoning
To wit: multiple people here have definitely heard the thing you have yet to hear.
This function is listed as a side effect of being on these meds. Which is true, it's not being used to treat depression, though is often being used to treat people with depression and treat the root cause of that depression. It just also happens to "perk" you up.
Surely the most straightforward way is to undercook the mushrooms and run a blind controlled experiment where participants eat the shrooms and report on hallucinations.
What stopped them?
Also, to get stronger results you would probably want to conduct the experiment on participants who don't have an expectation of seeing little people, so that rules out locals or people who heard of or eaten the mushroom before.
Something isn’t ethical or unethical, somebody just doesn’t like it. They might have a reason for it at best.
There are very strict rules for scientific experiments _because_ we know that without them, just guided by "common sense" or "be reasonable", someone would get blinded by ambition or "the potential" and go further than the majority want to accept.
Anyone can "experiment" without it being an accepted scientific experiment. But then they're personally responsible for any and all bad outcomes. If you follow the rules and get the experiment pre-approved, you'll likely be covered by your employer's insurance and free from criminal liability . That's a very good incentive.
I agree there ought to be rules, but ethics is just a word to make things sound fair when it’s just an authoritative decision, often taking bad arguments (like religious ones or public misconceptions) unnecessarily into account.
But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
That being said one claim here would be that allowing self-experimentation would pressure people into self experimenting due to how our academia and labs are structured these days i.e. a junior scientists could be pressured into self experimentation by their superiors. So this is definitely not as clear-cut as one might think.
As someone who suffered badly with ulcers in my teens I'm particularly grateful for his work. One course of antibiotics and I never had that problem again.
More so for him and his collaborator having dinner each year when the Nobel prizes were announced in anticipation of the call from the Nobel Prize Committee. Legends.
If people get rewarded for self experimentation, either directly with prices or indirectly with fame and success, more people will try do it. That certainly does raise ethical concerns. It worked out for people you mentioned but there will be many others who might harm themselves doing it.
In the case of self-testing it raises concerns of objectivity, not just in terms of perception and observation but with regards to bias and intent, throwing into question the results and reasons for the study.
I think you would have to dose people without knowledge of that phenomenon
So instead of a single experiment where half of the people get it and half don’t, the experiment will be repeated ten times with the same people over a few months, different meals each time and in total each person will get hallucinogens in their food either zero or one times.
And then you see what effects people report and if that correlates well with who was actually given the hallucinogens, and if there is a lot of placebo among the rest of the people each time that they were not given hallucinogens.
I guess you can be upfront about unknown unknowns, and most human experiments have some of those, but I assume there are standards to keep those to a minimum.
2. Multiple times per person over months risks attrition which gonna mess it up, and the statistical power increase you get could be offset by that (eg if a person gets it they may not be motivated to come again for the placebo). On the other hand ppl may be more motivated if they know they are gonna get it at least once so dunno.
3. Placebo with hallucinogens is always tricky. I would use psilocybin as (extra or only) control, esp if you test for little ppl. This way you can test if they report more tiny ppl in the new mushroom vs psilocybin.
That's why you do randomisation and double-blinding.
> These mega-trips might help to explain why people in China, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea do not seem to have a tradition of purposefully seeking out L. asiatica for its psychoactive effects, according to Domnauer's findings. "It was always just eaten for food," Domnauer says, with hallucinations being an unexpected side-effect.
From when this same story was covered in January
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260121-the-mysterious-m...
I’ve been to parties longer than that.
Datura is definitively a different beast, and definitely something I'd recommend others to stay away from even if I and my friend was dumb enough to consume it when we were young. LSD, mushrooms and friends are 100x better and more fun.
No, they are not. Let's not generalize. There is nothing funny or therapeutic about psychosis. We are leaving the dark ages of psychedelics. We don't need to bring them back.
In my opinion, the combination of not able to estimate dosage and losing the ability to tell reality from fiction for up to 2 days alone puts datura in its own separate category.
Someone tripping in psychdelics or even Salvia is really a different category to Datura where the line between reality and fiction is thin. No smiling silly at the wall or laughing uncontrollably but moving coherently and overall looking sane while doing things that on closer look don't make sense.
It's wild seeing someone fully interact with a reality that isn't there and then come back not knowing anything about what happened. I had a friend in the early 2000's that had us video tape and babysit him. He had a half hour long conversation with his dead mother on a telephone that wasn't there. Also, he chain smoked non existent cigarettes for hours. He knew we were there and interacted with us, but he had no continuity.
Ok, finally it's clear you don't actually seem to have a clue what you're talking about. "Deliriant" is not some scientific classification term, it's a subset of hallucinogens some people like to use to distinguish between more visual psychedelics and less ones. And yes, psychedelics and hallucinogens are for all intents and purposes synonyms.
Again, Datura sucks, stay away from it, horrible drug and no fun at all. But the fact that you think that psychedelics automatically mean "No smiling silly at the wall or laughing uncontrollably" again gives the impression you're not actually giving these drugs the seriousness they warrant. They're wonderful tools but should be used correctly and with a proper understanding of what they actually are and do.
So if the experiences really are real, it sounds to me like something wholly unique. Apparently there are no recorded deaths from the lilliputian mushrooms, and the long onset is weird too because anticholinergics come on very quickly.
There are psychedelic phenethylamines that last 24 hours or more, so I don’t think the duration is a sign of anything really.
Maybe what causes the effect is not directly in the mushroom, but it needs first to metabolise into it? As in maybe the effect is caused by molecule A, but the mushroom only contains B which then breaks down into A. (for example by the liver or perhaps intestinal microbiome.)
I've never had benadryl hallucinations, or anything of the sort, but I have had quite a few very high fevers that resulted in very similar dreams and hallucinations - and I have zero desire to repeat them, to the point where I'll often delay going to sleep if I have a fever.
/s
3 day non stop trip sounds .. not great, if it ain't great.
Coward, basically. I have no idea why on earth you'd travel the world looking for a specific hallucinogen and then just try to sequence it and toss it, and then waste everyone's time writing papers saying you essentially have a hunch about the mushroom's effects.
Beyond terrible science.
This would be impossible to get past ethical review in any institution who has such a thing. You'd be forcing people to have a trip, which may or may not be pleasant for them, for days, with no guidance on wtf is happening to them. Depending on the person, that's some pretty heavy trauma.
You could tell people what to expect, but that ruins the blind part. I still think you'd have no chance of passing review anyway.
That also describes data centers ;)
How can chemical compounds contain an entire script of what the little people can and cannot do?
I understand what you’re trying to say, but this sentence could be an argument against DNA. It’s also chemical compounds that contain an entire script of what our species can and cannot do - and much more.
Did you not read the article?
Please stop attempting to flame/throw petty shade because you don't like that I disagreed with you.
Your posting from a rando pseudonym account on HN, as far as I can tell. It’s not even possible for passing readers (including me) to determine who is actually behind it…
So who would I be “flaming”?
Plus given the nonsensical claim, it wouldn’t even make sense for me to do anything other than point that out.
How could an index finger contain an entire movie? presses play
There are some hallucinogens that only produce auditory hallucinations. We don't really have a reason to think those are real sounds.
There are others that will not make you visually hallucinate in the regular sense, but will mess with how your brain interprets what you see - scrambling your internal visual object classifiers, so to speak - so that distinct things sort of melt together in your mind.
Hallucinogens are wild. But I think they are the same as any other drug that has predictable effects, like alcohol or pot.
Maybe it throws us for a loop because subjective experience of hallucinogens are so bizarre and varied and often intense. They truly do weird things to us.
1. There are invisible tiny people that only a specific mushroom that hits your brain in a very specific way can let you see
2. There aren't invisible tiny people but a specific mushroom that hits your brain in a very specific way makes you hallucinate a specific thing
0. There are tiny people who are not invisible but there is something that makes it so humans ignore them. That specific mushroom interfered with whatever that is so that we can see them.
An argument for #0 and in favor of #2 is the #2 requires the mushroom to cause an hallucination that includes a lot of generated detail to be realistic and consistent with how an actual tiny person would behave and affect the world.
#0 on the other hand is just turning something off.
An argument for #0 over #1 is that #0 does not require actual invisibility. If there were actually invisible tiny people we still probably would have discovered by now the physical mechanism that can make things invisible, which w e have not. Unless we are going to consider magic or psychic powers or some other such thing completely beyond known physics we can almost certainly rule out actual invisibility.
Also of course the tiny people do not seem to causally interact with their physical environment in any measurable way (at least to observers of the test subject) so that already strongly points towards hallucinations but that kind of thinking isn't how you get a grant.
If they aren't invisible, my cat would have caught and killed dozens of them, and then I'd be smelling their rotting corpses around my house and slipping on their bodies.
Also presumably they'd end up in many pictures, which even if we somehow ignored them still in all photographs AI would still see, as would car lidar systems, etc.
(I guess the likelier theory is that a mushroom that causes hallucination is causing hallucination)
What if we all see the exact same thing
Maybe having the same chemical stimulants going through the same basic processing hardware causes the same outputs. But that's just like my opinion man.
> It doesn't matter which side of the road you drive on. It matters that everyone else is also driving on that side.
I bet if all our brains were wired to constantly see little people, we would adapt and eventually pick up on subtle cues related to the environment or our emotions.
Some student taking an intro to cultural anthropology course would be shocked to find out that some culture has a very different relationship to their little people as she does to her little people. Strangers making small talk on the subway would ask each other what their little people have been up to today. Someone on Hackernews would be reading an article about an herb that can make the little people completely invisible for days.
And foraging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDzi0odGy4M
So I decided to look up mushroom poisoning (in the dictionary) and some stuff about potential asphyxiation ~18 (IIRC, it's been a while) hours later made decide no, the risk of dying in my sleep next night is NOT worth it, into the trash it goes.
I had a, idk, spell one afternoon where I saw this quilt we had on the wall open up at all the squares, and thousands of tiny people/elves poured out. They marched around carrying little boxes and were all around me.
I remember it so vividly more than 30 years later because it freaked me out so much. Tried telling my parents about it and they just dismissed it as a nightmare, but I swear I was awake, just out of it with fever.
Anyways, it was early 90's, and I know I was close to the dangerous temperatures of high fever. Perhaps the brain does interesting hallucinations in these situations?
Have never hallucinated or had anything like that happen since.
It's also not the topic we're here to discuss. Go be mad elsewhere, please.
Also, machine elves are not all humanoid. Some of them are complex geometrical shapes that are too complicated to parse. It was very fascinating to read about this phenomenon. I remember that what people described felt like some kind of Internet that is accesses with your consciousness.
Repeat the experiment and instruct the participants to ask the Elf for the solution to P=NP and let’s see what happens!
What happens if you see Brown Jenkins?
I think those kinds of myths are just natural progressions of exaggerations and oral storytelling
There is actually quite a large body of research, going back as far as the earliest scientific literature on psilocybin (and LSD), about this exact thing.
Useful keywords: microsomatognosia/macrosomatognosia (feeling one's own body shrink/grow), Alice in Wonderland syndrome (AIWS), and Lilliputian/Brobdingnagian hallucinations (seeing tiny people or giants).
Besides which, if you ever are so lucky as to try a significant dose of mushrooms, you will probably see for yourself that you've been underestimating their significance in our cultural traditions.
Swedish tradition has it that trolls would replace human babies with their own babies. It does not take a long leap of imagination to to see how this could be used as an excuse for the practice of putting unwanted/deformed babies out into the forest ”for the wolves”. (Disclaimer: I don’t know how common that practice might have been, since it would presumably stem from prehistoric times)
> effects can range from mild nausea and twitching to drowsiness, cholinergic crisis-like effects (low blood pressure, sweating and salivation), auditory and visual distortions, mood changes, euphoria, relaxation, ataxia, and loss of equilibrium (like with tetanus)
> In cases of serious poisoning the mushroom causes delirium, somewhat similar in effect to anticholinergic poisoning (such as that caused by Datura stramonium), characterised by bouts of marked agitation with confusion, hallucinations, and irritability followed by periods of central nervous system depression. Seizures and coma may also occur in severe poisonings.
In Russia, it's instantly recognizable as a poisonous mushroom - it's a symbol of "danger" that's as obvious as a skull-and-crossbones. Here, in America, most people I've talked to don't even know what it is.
There’s definitely scope for a horror story here…
this tv show ( meet youself, cast by Liu yifei, who also played Mulan(2020)) has a short part is about the 'tiny people': https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jVoza_qE3ww
And cannabis. It's hippy heaven.
From the stories I've read it also doesn't sound people are experiencing outright delirium although the experience can probably be pretty stressful if you don't know what is happening.
Season two will be out next year and I am curious to see how it goes. Towards the end of season one, the side effects were starting to get interesting, possibilities of it turning dark abound.
I'm just glad that after Joe Bennets previous show Scavengers Reign got axed after one season that we will finally get to see some of his stuff expanded.
There's still hope for a second season FWIW. At least the story is mapped up, if not more preprod stuff, it's been a while since I looked into it.
I think "every culture has a dragon" is kinda misleading.
"Every culture has a creature that got translated as a dragon" seems closer to the truth. The creatures themselves have a great variety between them.
Would dogs taking the L. asiatica see little humans or little dogs? Probably neither, but then does that mean the fungus had targeted humans genetically?
very utilitarian and anthropocentric world view.
Why would a random thing in the world specifically targeting humans with some niche effect? Did cocoa plant target humans specifically with its pleasing flavor (after having been heavily processed), while being toxic for many other animals?
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedychrum_rutilans, a parasite on a parasite. Did it target beewolves specifically? And now its hosts are dying, was it his fault he chose the 'wrong' target?
Not the anthropocentricity is to criticise, but the idea of nature targeting. OP asked a well meaning question where sth. can be be learned from. Thank you.
The level of consciousness where the phrase targeting makes sense is way higher.
>> targeted humans
With utilitarian and anthropocentric world view you mean the 'target thinking' ascribing intention to nature, and not what is targeted, which are only incidentally humans here.
So would dogs see little humans or little dogs? We can't say for sure. But the best guess might actually be most likely little dogs, or maybe little smells of little dogs. Dogs show conspecific preference (species-focus) while we show facial preference [2] and they have a strong focus on olfactory sense while we're more visual. The vividness might show up in ways we can't really perceive through smell like they can.
And the answer to "does that mean the fungus has targeted humans genetically" is almost definitely no. The study the article is based on [3] mentions that lilliputian hallucinations predate this mushroom, appear across cultures' folklore, and are reported in alcohol withdrawal, dementia, and macular degeneration. The effect seems fundamental to how the human mind and brain work. So it's more likely that the mushroom is disrupting something and the brain is resolving that disruption into little people, because that's what it does with pattern matching.
This mushroom is an ectomycorrhizal symbiote of the Yunnan pine tree, is ancient with the genus being at least 5 million years old compared to modern humans 300k, and requires undercooking which isn't compatible with human targeting so it doesn't make sense to have any genetic human target.
The fungus supplies a non-targeted disruption and the resulting little people content we describe is the human brain's response. A dog getting the same disruption would resolve it into whatever a dog's machinery produces, or maybe they metabolize it into nothing recognizable.
Pretty damn cool.
[1] https://consciousnesslibrary.org/research/29070-correlation-... [2] https://www.jneurosci.org/content/40/43/8396 [3] https://consciousnesslibrary.org/research/27751-phylogenomic...
(It was 2 specific species out of 200, and I hope that not mentioning which part of the plant she ingested would deter people from trying. The plant is also slightly poisonous, could weaken your kidneys. Weak kidneys no fun)
I wonder how specific this "tiny people" effect is - is it just tiny people, or also tiny animals, or maybe distorted size perception in general (with the tiny people being the most noticeable part of that)?
Lilliputian hallucinations predate this mushroom. There are myths about tiny people in pretty much every culture's folklore. People have also reported these hallucinations from alcohol withdrawal, dementia, macular degeneration and other neurological conditions. So, it seems like this phenomenon is fundamental to how the human mind and brain work, but we don't know what causes it or how to treat it.
That's what makes this mushroom different — it reliably produces this effect
There are several very commonly found boletes within the genus Lanmoa in the US, including L. pseudosensibilis and the "Bouillon Bolete" L. rubissima.
The Unexplained Laser Experiment That Breaks Reality
The CEO in me: "I need hundreds of think pads."
I'm not advising eating undercooked boletes but that would possibly result in finding new species that have this effect