Psychedelics and Psychotherapy
m.timeline.com
m.timeline.com
Taking psilocybin mushrooms in a positive environment with my friends was perhaps the single most therapeutic and rewarding thing I’ve ever experienced.
In the months since, my anxiety has evaporated, my panic attacks have stopped, and I’ve been taking better care of myself and my environment. For me, it has been a wonder-drug.
Above all, I have a lasting sense of well being—that everything is going to be alright. And I think to deny that experience to people, particularly people who are grappling with death as I was, is simply inhumane.
I concur.
>I don't think I'm the kind of person who could handle any psychedelic type drug though.
You might be surprised.
That said I know that the magic mushrooms pricing was thought by everyone to be massively inflated due to lack of supply at that time, so possibly it was a temporary situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Econ...
I have had exactly the same kind of existential anxiety from a very young age (I remember discussing this extensively with my parents at ~7 year old). It used to be something that only happened late at night when I was alone - until the first time it hit me in a completely normal situation. I was literally mid conversation and suddenly all I could think about was my inevitable mortality. I can not describe the feeling of shock and helplessness. The floor disappeared beneath me.
I walk out of the house every morning and look at the people in the street, and I just don't understand how they can function normally in the face of certain death. Terminally ill people are often anxious because they're going to die. But everyone is going to die. We are all terminally ill with this fatal disease called "life".
It's nothing to do with wanting to accomplish more before I die. It's the very idea of not existing that I can't comprehend. I'm sure anyone would agree that the world ending would be a fairly grim prospect. When you die, the world ends. Game over, even if everyone else continues.
Alcohol is a wonderful escape from an over-active mind, but guzzling a substance that's likely to screw with your health long term... isn't exactly ideal for an existentialist and hypochondriac. SSRIs seem to help regulate things until - months in - you realise they are actually pretty nasty drugs with too many observable side effects to count on both hands.
Maybe shrooms are the answer, indeed, though having never dared touch them from - strangely enough, fear of their inducing a panic attack - I've yet to be able to comment on that.
To those who don’t know what it’s like to have existential anxiety, here’s an exercise. Think of being a character in a horror movie who comes to the realisation that they are “not getting out of here”. An existential panic attack is the feeling that life itself is such a situation.
Low-to-moderate alcohol use has been shown to have significant health benefits over the long-term.
For me, three beers is enough to have a strong enough stress-reduction effect, two if they're strong. My mind just unwinds and I relax. I used to think I'd develop a tolerance and start needing more and more to get the same effect, I no longer think so after many years of roughly the same level of consumption.
Alcohol is generally not a problem unless you start really young or had the kind of abusive childhood that leads to addictive behaviors.
There is a well publicised study that claims that, but it's been pretty heavily criticised. It turns out that only women over 65 get benefits from moderate drinking. Everyone else needs to restrict themselves to light drinking to get the benefits.
That's an important distinction because few people know how much they actually drink. People tend to under-estimate the number of glasses they have, and under-estimate the size of the glasses, and under estimate the amount of alcohol in each glass.
You've said that 3 beers produces a de-stress result. It's not clear what you mean by "strong" - 5%? 8%? 10%? Three pints of beer at 5% ABV are 2.8 units each, about 8.5 units for all three. This is no where near risky drinking (unless you do it more than twice a week) but it is wrong to suggest that it is a healthy activity.
Alcohol is not just a problem for those who start yumg or who've had abusive childhoods. Alcohol is a causal factor in many deaths and accidental injuries; alcohol is involved in many suicide attempts; alcohol is involved in a lot of violence. It is wrong to suggest that all those people started drinking young or had abusive backgrounds.
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h384
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9043577
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/put-down-the-booze-...
Alcohol is involved in a lot of things because it's the only legal consciousness-altering drug available in many countries. If you're going to start making statements for or against alcohol, you need to account for this cultural fact.
> People tend to under-estimate the number of glasses they have, and under-estimate the size of the glasses, and under estimate the amount of alcohol in each glass.
They do because they have a reason to, nobody wants to be seen as a drunk. If they didn't they'd self-report more accurately. Studies on the social effects of alcohol probably don't account for this, considering the difficulty of doing so.
> You've said that 3 beers produces a de-stress result.
The beer I typically drink is 3.2%. At my bar they serve 14 oz pints. Strong beers can be anywhere from 5-10%. I know roughly how much I've been drinking both because I keep track of my intake and because different amounts feel very different.
For me, the line between "comfortable buzz" and "achey, dizzy, ready to throw up" is a skinny one. So in order to keep my nights and weekends fun, I have to moderate pretty strictly. On weekends, I've learned to have a few beers during the day, go home for a few hours, then go back out for the evening. At bars there's pressure to drink more, I mostly manage to avoid that pressure simply because it can ruin my night fast.
> it is wrong to suggest that it is a healthy activity.
I honestly don't know whether it's healthy or not, I personally have a tough time understanding what is meant exactly by "healthy", but there's some recent archaeological results that suggest that our evolutionary history with ethanol is long, meaning our brains and bodies would have had ample time to adapt to it.
Personally, I'm convinced that stress, both self-induced and external, has a far worse effect on a person's quality of life over time than any of the physiological effects of moderate drinking. So to compare the effects of drinking alcohol to not drinking alcohol, you also have to understand the effects of the stress that's being relieved. Of course, there are social costs that one can incur as well, the most dramatic of which seems to be DUIs or worse, alcohol-induced accidents, but again, I suspect that on the whole, especially if one can avoid getting those, a stressed person is better off drinking moderately and letting it go than he is holding it in. Of course, there are other ways of relieving stress, but they may not be as effective or as cheap. Alcohol is incredibly reliable at doing this, that should count for a lot.
No. Dramatic, but not really.
Life has proved fatal to all but 6-7% of us humans so far. And there isn't any indication that the current remaining will escape it's touch.
if your cells stayed in PCD your whole life, you could live forever.
A) Myself. I've had many experiences with such substances, and I used to suffer from that dread (without the anxiety). Generally happened at night as well. I would say that I'm pretty much not worried about death anymore. I don't really think about it anymore because it just doesn't seem relevant. It's hard to explain without babbling, but the way I think about the world and living has definitely been warped to the positive / accepting because of my experiences and my ensuing reflections about them.
B) My friend was (is?) suffering from panic attacks, and she had no problem with it when we did it together one time. She had a wonderful time, and said during it that she couldn't even understand how she could have one, like it was outside the realm of possibility.
Just anecdotes though. I don't think that everyone should do it, and I think it should be done with caution. I certainly didn't use caution when I started, and for a lot of people that wouldn't be a good idea.
Few more notes if you choose to try it:
0) Research.
1) Do it with people you trust, in a setting you feel comfortable, whether it be outdoors or in.
2) Don't do very much for your first time. I did too much (not shrooms) my first time and it was the most intense psychological experience of my life. It's pretty easy to dose shrooms though.
3) You might end up confronting your anxiety. I certainly have before. It always worked well for me. Mind you, it's not necessarily the most comfortable thing, but after I came to terms with whatever was bothering me, I felt much more peaceful and enjoyed the rest of the experience.
This is where good friends are key - it's wonderul being able to talk with people you completely trust in an entirely weird and different and empathetic setting. Judgment always seemed to just.. Disappear.
Salvia Divinorum "salva" when smoked has historically provided me with relief - it's great for someone who wants to stay in control because the high from it only lasts a few seconds (when smoked). If you don't like it, it will be over really quickly. A single session with it should set you right for a few months. Also, unlike most popular substances it is an "upper" - making you excited and happy instead of chilled.
Marijuana has the same effect as alchohol, during a high I'm typically free from ego (sometimes it extends to the next day). Good chronic provides a very powerful experience that I can only describe as the opposite of existential anxiety: I've had moments where I've found my temporary nature beautiful. If you haven't tried chronic before treat it with respect, take 1 hit and don't be impatient for the high. It's safer than alchohol so you might try that instead.
Although I'm really considering doing shrooms once after so many have said that they have helped.
NICE guidance (in England) for anxiety disorders recommend psychological therapy as a first intervention. Cognitive behaviour therapy has most evidence and that's easiest to get (in England). People can self refer to local NHS CBT treatment (which is free), or they can be refered by their doctor; or they can go to private therapists. (BACP accreditation is reputable. Sessions cost between £30 - £50 each. Guidelines suggest between 8 to 14 sessions).
It's great that you found something that helped! Anxiety sounds to many people like something not so bad, but it can be really disruptive of someone's life.
The e-books were almost exclusively survivalist material, but I ran out of things to print and started printing educational manuals of all sorts. Math, Chemistry, Biology, etc, etc. I was doing this because I was scared the world as we know it was going to end at any time. I was constantly researching firearms, and survival gear. I was going to the doctor for sinus infections to get antibiotics that I didn't need, just in case.
It was pretty borderline behavior.
It continued until I discovered DMT. I smoked roughly 2 grams over the course of a few months and had some very tremendous experiences. Early on in the process, It was always a continuing experience, starting up where the last trip had let off.
Long story short, I met "god", this multi-dimensional being that assured me that this state of life wasn't the end. It expressed to me that what comes after this is just as splendid and precious as the life I have now.
I smoked DMT too much. 2 Grams is roughly 60-80 doses. I smoked until I arrived at too much of a peace with death. I didn't care if I lived or died. Not that I wanted to die, mind you, but it just didn't bother me anymore. When that thought crossed my mind, it was a shock. I got rid of what was left and never dosed again.
I am very excited to see psychedelic research done. We stopped learning 50 years ago because uneducated old people were scared. It is time to grow up and let science do what science does. Almost all research done has been overwhelmingly positive. A smart man once said something like the war on drugs is a war on Americans. This is such good news.
I think that I read a good article about this intersection but I am having a hard time finding it.
These comments remind me how out-of-touch society is about who actually uses psychedelics. My educated guess is everyone here who has admitted to their past or current use of psilocybin/lsd/etc is a highly intelligent and "productive" member of society. I wonder if a tipping point on the stigma around these drugs will be reached in our lifetime, of if the exploration of our own consciousness will continue to be forbidden.
What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry
If they're voluntarily seeking help, then that's different, of course. How often does that happen? (Genuine question. I have no idea, and I'd love to find out.)
Not all of them all the time, of course. And some of them never. But the same could be said of pedophiles. Whatever you may think of the DSM, sociopathy is listed as a disorder. It is associated with violent crime and crimes against humanity.
Or, look at it this way: Let's say you're not a sociopath and a taking MDMA is just a pleasant experience. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to administer it prophylactically? Or in vocations, like policing, where there's a large risk of developing sociopathy. Might make your next flight less dicey.
It's pretty dicey to just say "it's a disorder in the DSM associated with (negative things) and therefore we should push for administration of treatment to otherwise healthy/happy people."
It isn't too long ago now that being gay was also in the DSM. Respected scientists claimed all sorts of "harm" that the "gay lifestyle" caused to people in it and outside of it.
I suppose my question is: your logic would you suggest that it is worthwhile or valuable to administer prophylactic treatment to every DSM disorder, for those considered "at risk." You assert that MDMA is "just a pleasant experience", but I'd counterclaim that no drug is always just a pleasant experience, and you always need to consider the side effects (which for MDMA read like the side effects of many legal psychiatric drugs that affect the seratonin/dopamine/norepinephrine system). Keeping in mind that psychiatric disorders are some of the few disorders where the consent of the patient still isn't absolutely legally necessary to administer treatment, that means that you are arguing that these should be at least considered for administration to actively unwilling patients.
Given the difficulty of diagnosing these illnesses in the first place and the possibility of misdiagnosis (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment), I think it's important to be careful of the arguments made for treatments. Treatments often are applied to involuntary patients (who may be considered incapable), and both the DSM and psychology (as a science) are not some be-all, end-all bible of things that can be stated to be definitively negative or harmful or unwanted which exist outside of the culture they're formed in.
I take your point about the dubiousness of some parts of the DSM. But what's your theory about sociopaths? Are you seriously suggesting sociopathy will be redeemed in some way?
That being said, if we could replace the attraction with a more statistically normal one tomorrow, I would say to do so because it would make the world a better place.
Assume we have some sort of sociopath detector which works from birth. Assume further that we have a treatment for sociopathy. It sounds like you'd be in favor of using that treatment on people who are fine with their state of being and who don't want to be... modified.
At one time in history, black people were considered mentally inferior or inherently violent. Most black people lived their lives without harming anyone at all. In the same way, most sociopaths currently live their lives without harming anyone. It's too easy to apply the sort of justifications that you're applying now to justify why people should be changed.
How far should we take this? Should it be mandated by the state that a parent must treat their child for sociopathy in the same way vaccinations are mandatory? I am wholly in favor of the latter. But how can anyone be in favor of the former? Vaccinations don't change behavior, whereas making someone "not sociopathic" certainly would.
People are people, and until they harm someone else, they should be allowed to live their lives.
I haven't suggested that there be some kind of mandated treatment for anti-social individuals, I just think we should try to have a better understanding of how a person can lack empathy.
Yes, this is based on assumptions and value judgments, mostly on this weird notion I have of not wanting to be killed or harmed by people that don't particularly care if they hurt others. Like, I don't hate lions or grizzly bears. I don't even think they're evil. I still would like to avoid living in close proximity to them.
There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in a 1999 popular science book that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases which term is used may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder". Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[81] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.
The common denominator in most definitions of sociopath seems to be a lack of guilt or remorse. Contrast that with:
A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection.
I don't understand how this follows from a lack of guilt.
Can it be true that a lack of ability to feel guilt makes someone an unfit parent, and that they should therefore lose their children?
Where does it stop? For example, if we can detect but not treat sociopaths, then should we abort children who we know will become sociopaths?
There are all kinds of issues that arise if people hold the view that sociopathy is a disease which should be treated. At some point, it's impossible to avoid the question of whether people should be treated against their will for the good of society. Doesn't it seem like "people should be able to live freely until they harm others" is somewhat more preferable to letting others define whether your personality should be modified before you've done anything wrong?
They don't have to show genuine affection. A lot of sociopaths fake it, and probably most of them do a good job of it. Perhaps faking it is even the path to a 'cure' for sociopathy.
I haven't seen any studies showing that sociopaths are more likely to raise dysfunctional children. I do suspect that they probably are more likely, but unless the correlation is very strong, and the children are very dysfunctional, I don't think it is worth it to try and 'out' sociopaths and restrict them from having children.
Based on your language ('at best, will be able to put food on the table'), I think you are overestimating the negative impact of having a sociopath for a parent compared to having, for example, a really empathic alcoholic parent.
1) Unfavorable risk/reward ratio (threat of punishment or nothing to gain)
2) They are not a sociopath
You don't mind losing half the safety net right up front?
I disagree. IMO sociopathic behavior is often harmful, just not always in a directly obvious way.
What level of risk are we willing to accept before we should be vested with the authority to make a change to reduce such risk?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
Me and a group my friends take psychedelics regularly but not often. Every single one of us reports not only enjoying the experience but more importantly IMHO, we feel long lasting positive effects.
Our favourite thing to do is a `candyflip' which is taking LSD and then MDMA a few hours afterwards. You can read about what the drugs do individually elsewhere, but I will attempt to describe the combination briefly here.
One of the effects of LSD is that it makes your emotions very slippery, and what I mean by that is that you can very easily and quickly transition from feeling intense happiness to intense feelings of negativity and anxiety without apparent cause. I describe the MDMA as propping up the emotions you experience during the LSD trip so that they are entirely positive. It allows you to access and talk about memories that are usually repressed, in my case childhood bullying, without fear or dread^1. LSD on it's own can produce intense euphoria with the right set and setting, but it is certainly easier to achieve it with a little bit of MDMA ;-) .
Since taking psychedelics I have noticed that I have become more open minded, more accepting of who I am and have a greater ability to appreciate the time I am living in now as opposed to waiting for 'life to get good'^2.
One of the long term effects I have enjoyed the most is a greater ability to empathize with others, I am not only much more aware of my own mind, it's fallibility, emotions and thought processes, but when in a crowd, I can't help but feel awe at the hundreds of minds surrounding mine that are all equally complex as mine. Everyone has emotions, difficulties, hopes, dreams and desires as I do, this is something I had never really thought about before.
Finally, I am now at peace with the idea that I will in all likelihood not be a silicon valley billionaire or even wealthy at all^3. I understand now that success is not just measured by economic and social status. A normal person living in a normal house with a normal family could very well be more `successful' in my opinion that anybody else in the world, so long as they are happy, and content with their situation in a way that I am finding difficult to put into words. I am reaching here to describe such a person and the word that is coming to mind is enlightened.
Unfortunately, if I had come across a post such as this a year ago, before trying psychedelics, I would have dismissed the author as a hippy, somebody who is making excuses for their own failure or even perhaps somebody with mental illness.
Psychedelics are really something that must be experienced to be understood, we do not yet have the language to accurately describe to an outsider the happenings of ones own mind outside of a strict subset of feelings and emotions such as happy, hungry or sad.
Prohibition is a terrible event that is forcing people to live without ever experiencing these things. Your brain is normally limited to the inputs it receives from your senses. Psychedelics allow you do disconnect from such a sober world and invent your own inputs to an extent and it is wonderful. To think that most people never get the opportunity to do that is painful to me.
^1: This is characteristic of MDMA in isolation as well.
^2: Of course this is anecdotal and is difficult to distinguish from a placebo effect. I can't imagine a double blind experiment that could prove this, when asked about long term effects, the active drug group are going to be very aware what group they were in, but the question you want to answer is not did you notice the drug, but did it have a long term effect on you.
^3: I come from a moderately wealthy background and there was a huge amount of indirect pressure to have a stable career and earn lots of money.
Does it seem to anyone else that the design is completely backwards? After reading a news article, I'd wanna learn about what has been happening recently with the issue, and dig a little deeper slowly. This forces a model where some small bit of news is followed by a wikipedia entry of sorts.
But real talk, it would be cool if steps were taken forward to change the way these substances were treated legally and what-not.
Remember not that you have already reached for the light, but that others right now are reaching for it, and guide them instead towards it instead of flipping the switch to "off."