Over the course of the preceding year, IFAS researchers had dosed a total of 22 other men for the creativity study, including a theoretical mathematician, an electronics engineer, a furniture designer, and a commercial artist. By including only those whose jobs involved the hard sciences (the lack of a single female participant says much about mid-century career options for women), they sought to examine the effects of LSD on both visionary and analytical thinking. Such a group offered an additional bonus: Anything they produced during the study would be subsequently scrutinized by departmental chairs, zoning boards, review panels, corporate clients, and the like, thus providing a real-world, unbiased yardstick for their results.
In surveys administered shortly after their LSD-enhanced creativity sessions, the study volunteers, some of the best and brightest in their fields, sounded like tripped-out neopagans at a backwoods gathering. Their minds, they said, had blossomed and contracted with the universe. They’d beheld irregular but clean geometrical patterns glistening into infinity, felt a rightness before solutions manifested, and even shapeshifted into relevant formulas, concepts, and raw materials.
But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties. Fadiman and his colleagues published these jaw-dropping results and closed shop.
I’d be very interested in what information those of us who are into nootropics might provide on the risks and benefits of LSD. I find this microdosing particularly interesting:
First things first: Fadiman defines a micro-dose as 10 micrograms of LSD (or one-fifth the usual dose of mushrooms). Because he cannot set up perfect lab conditions due to the likelihood of criminal prosecution, he has instead crafted a study in which volunteers self-administer and self-report. Which means that they must acquire their own supply of the Schedule 1 drug and separate a standard hit of 50 to 100 micrograms into micro-doses. (Hint: LSD is entirely water-soluble.)
Beginning in 2010, an unspecified but growing number of volunteers have taken a micro-dose every third day, while conducting their typical daily routines and maintaining logbooks of their observations. Study enrollment may last for several weeks or longer: There doesn’t appear to be a brightly drawn finish line. After several weeks (or, um…), participants send their logbooks to an email address on Fadiman’s personal website, preferably accompanied by a summary of their overall impressions.
I’ve been rather impressed by how much data gwern can get out of self-study. I can’t help but wonder what we as a community might do if we established a culture of running our own experiments and studies. Much of our culture and reasoning is built on studies that are likely to be false (because most studies are likely to be false). Worse we don’t have a good way to test the theories we build empirically.
Now we might re-purpose CFAR to do some such studies, perhaps by getting them to lauch kickstarter-style donation drives to run particular experiments relevant to human rationality. But on research that is not legal community driven seems to be the way to go.
To add a disclaimer much of the rest of the original article is filled with obviously silly if somewhat virulent memes of which noble savage is probably the most obvious. There is also some pretty heavy handed politicking and tribal attire (for example the non sequitur occupy wall street references). Please ignore that.
This columnist didn’t believe what was asserted by Timothy Leary and others in the GQ article, that the computer revolution and the computer graphic innovations of California had been built upon a psychedelic foundation. She set out to prove this story false. She went to Siggraph, the largest gathering of computer graphic professionals in the world, where annually somewhere in the United States 30,000 who are vitally involved in the computer revolution gather. She thought she would set this heresy to rest by conducting a sample survey, beginning her interviews at the airport the minute she stepped off the plane. By the time she got back to her desk in San Francisco she’d talked to 180 important professionals of the computer graphic field, all of whom answered yes to the question, “Do you take
psychedelics, and is this important in your work?”
The article doesn’t cite the column or the date. Can anyone familiar with the US graphics computing culture in the 70s and early 80s weigh in on whether the claim is in any way plausible?
The current 1990s-ish base-rate for ever taking psychedelics is ~10% of the population; the richer and more educated, IIRC, correlate with more drug use; the article is implied to be ~1989 in the PDF, and everyone she talked to would be at least 20 years old, putting their birth back in the 1960s at a minimum. What the Dormouse Said documented quite a number of interconnections between computing and psychedelics and hippies, so a large fraction is not implausible.
On the other hand, this reasoning sounds more consistent with, say, a third or a half, not 100% − 100% for both taking psychedelics and considering it important to one’s work (and honestly saying so!) sounds implausibly high. My guess is some sort of sampling bias or maybe the journalist is overstating things; maybe word got around about her obsession with psychedelics and all the acidheads made a point of talking to her? We’ll never know.
LSD-Enhanced Creativity (HT: Isegoria)
I’d be very interested in what information those of us who are into nootropics might provide on the risks and benefits of LSD. I find this microdosing particularly interesting:
I’ve been rather impressed by how much data gwern can get out of self-study. I can’t help but wonder what we as a community might do if we established a culture of running our own experiments and studies. Much of our culture and reasoning is built on studies that are likely to be false (because most studies are likely to be false). Worse we don’t have a good way to test the theories we build empirically.
Now we might re-purpose CFAR to do some such studies, perhaps by getting them to lauch kickstarter-style donation drives to run particular experiments relevant to human rationality. But on research that is not legal community driven seems to be the way to go.
To add a disclaimer much of the rest of the original article is filled with obviously silly if somewhat virulent memes of which noble savage is probably the most obvious. There is also some pretty heavy handed politicking and tribal attire (for example the non sequitur occupy wall street references). Please ignore that.
I have finally posted my self-experiment on LSD microdosing: http://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing
Thank you!
Thank you for running proper experiments.
Also of interest: Mathematics and the Psychedelic Revolution
The article doesn’t cite the column or the date. Can anyone familiar with the US graphics computing culture in the 70s and early 80s weigh in on whether the claim is in any way plausible?
The current 1990s-ish base-rate for ever taking psychedelics is ~10% of the population; the richer and more educated, IIRC, correlate with more drug use; the article is implied to be ~1989 in the PDF, and everyone she talked to would be at least 20 years old, putting their birth back in the 1960s at a minimum. What the Dormouse Said documented quite a number of interconnections between computing and psychedelics and hippies, so a large fraction is not implausible.
On the other hand, this reasoning sounds more consistent with, say, a third or a half, not 100% − 100% for both taking psychedelics and considering it important to one’s work (and honestly saying so!) sounds implausibly high. My guess is some sort of sampling bias or maybe the journalist is overstating things; maybe word got around about her obsession with psychedelics and all the acidheads made a point of talking to her? We’ll never know.
The wording in the anecdote is also a bit vague on whether the 180 professionals who answered yes actually were all the people she interviewed.