Science paper What Predicts Beneficial Outcomes in Psychedelic Use? A Quantitative Content Analysis of Psychedelic Health Outcomes

Thought you might like reading this. Any thoughts on it?

ABSTRACT
Interest in psychedelics and their possible therapeutic potential has been growing. Metaphysical belief theory asserts that these benefits stem from the adoption of comforting supernatural beliefs following a mystical experience. By contrast, predictive self-binding theory suggests that the beneficial outcomes of psychedelics are primarily driven by psychological insights. The present study tests these competing models of psychedelic benefits. We conducted a quantitative content analysis on unsolicited self-reports of psychedelic users available on Erowid.org, to examine the potential relations between psychological insight, ego dissolution, therapeutic intent, altered metaphysical belief, and enduring health outcomes. We randomly selected, coded, and analyzed two hundred forty psychedelic experience reports from the website. Path analysis using structural equation modeling showed that psychological insight, not metaphysical beliefs, uniquely predicted beneficial outcomes. Moreover, beneficial outcomes’ positive relation to ego dissolution and therapeutic intent was fully mediated by psychological insight. These findings support the predictive self-binding model over the metaphysical belief model.

 

[[:]]

Path analysis using structural equation modeling showed that psychological insight, not metaphysical beliefs, uniquely predicted beneficial outcomes.

This makes sense as that metaphysical beliefs are fundamentally a type of delusion, regardless of their specific content. However psychological insights are fundamentally a type of increased self awareness.

Both, however, can seem profound and true to the user.

Let's use a common example of someone taking psychedelics and thinking that through the experience a deity is contacting them or that the user themselves is a deity. In the context of the way the user is viewing the world this type of thing can seen incredibly real, some people who take psychedelics end up with fantastic delusions about who they are and what their purpose in the world is. A common one is that some users will literally believe they are Jesus or Vishnu or some other figure from classic religion. Another one is that this world is fake or a simulation or a product of some hidden civilization that is leaving clues for people to find, like codes that can only be seen in laser light when the user is under the influence of a psychedelic substance. None of this type of delusional material is beneficial for the user, though it may not be specifically harmful for the person. There is evidence to support the idea, however, that in some users psychedelic use can reinforce delusional perceptions and decrease a persons ability to understand the world and their role in it.

However a great many people who take psychedelics end up gaining profound insight into their own psychology and emotional states as well as the limitations and the flaws inherent to perception itself. This allows psychedelics to be incredibly useful tools for therapeutic applications.

It seems that to some degree education and personal awareness play major roles and that users brought up in classic religious paradigms are more prone to delusional experiences that relate to their religious backgrounds or lack of awareness about things like physics and nature. A lot of this distinction seems to rest upon the idea of causality and how the subject perceives it. Those who believe that everything happens for a reason that has to do with supernatural causes, and that the universe or their own life is meant to achieve or result in some specific thing, like say enlightenment; are remarkably prone to delusion in regards to this stuff. One of the best examples is the theory of Terrence McKenna of Timewave Zero and 2012, which is best described as utter batshit. He was well read, highly intelligent and largely out of touch with reality.

One issue with psychedelic use and the user impact is that these substances make at least some people, if not most who take them, particularly vulnerable to suggestion and the quality of the information and the content of said suggestion may have a major bearing upon the end result. If said suggestive content comes from the user, it becomes autosuggestion and depending upon the ontology and cosmology of the user this may result in the development of profound and serious delusions in some people, all seemingly associated with metaphysical concepts. It seems like religious and spiritual beliefs have the greatest capacity for harm in terms of this. Moreover because these drugs are mind-manifesting, they can cause delusional beliefs to be experienced as perceptions, to put it another way; psychedelics can evoke the ontology of the individual, even if it is entirely delusional or totally absurd. Despite being utter rubbish such delusions are experienced as real by the user.

However the knowledge that psychedelics can reinforce delusion can act as a type of vaccine, that potentially inoculates individuals against the disease of delusion by allowing the user to realize that psychedelics can make things that are not real seem more real that reality itself does. At least this is my understanding of this topic. Psychedelics are better at helping us see ourselves and gain insight into our patterns of behavior and belief than they are at helping us understand the how and why of the existence of the universe.

This is the reason that one of the insights I tend to share about psychedelic use is that the mind cannot always be trusted.

To add a bit more, one of the issues is that psychedelics can make something feel true, it turns out that truth cannot be identified by how something feels, but Organized Religion and cable news would have you believe that if something feels true then it is... this leads to serious delusions. There are forces in our society that are deliberately programming people to conflate emotion with truth. How a thing feels is often of greater psychological importance to our species than the evidence supporting it, so religious persuasion works well upon us, but truth has nothing to do with emotion and the idea that emotional states can provide insight into the nature of truth is largely just a way to manipulate people into believing something is true when it is totally false.

 

[Panpsychic]

This makes sense as that metaphysical beliefs are fundamentally a type of reinforced delusion, regardless of their specific content.

Actually everyone has some form of metaphysical beliefs, whether explicit or implicit. Even a hard-core atheist materialist who does not believe in any form of survival of consciousness is simply stating their metaphysical position, ie a form of nihilism, which may be true or may be delusional and not correspond with how actual reality works. So one cannot say that metaphsycial beliefs per se are 'delusional', since metaphysics simply concerns views about the nature of reality itself, and the relationship of ourselves to it.

There is definitely the possibility of delusional metaphysical belief formation using psychedelics, but there is also the possibility of increased insight into the nature of reality.

However psychological insights are fundamentally a type of increased self awareness. Both, however, can seem profound and true to the user.

Psychological insights, which they define as updates to self representation, are generally easier to integrate so more likely to lead to beneficial change.

The study actually applies the falsity view to both constructs, not only metaphysical beliefs. From page 7:

"However, this does not imply that the psychological insights derived during psychedelic experiences are accurate. Previous research has shown that the experience of insight can occur in the context of false information (Grimmer et al. 2022). According to self-binding theory, weakened prior assumptions are the psychological mechanism that increases the potential of having insights during a psychedelic experience. However, this same mechanism is likely to also increase the potential of false insights (McGovern et al. 2023)."


Likewise, let us see what their actual definitions of positive and detrimental outcomes were:


"Beneficial and detrimental outcomes were comprised of enduring substance use change (e.g., alcohol, opioids, nicotine), lifestyle change (e.g., sleep, diet, exercise), and mental health change (e.g., increase or decrease in anxiety, depression, phobias, trauma beliefs, self-esteem, subjective well-being). These variables were coded as beneficial or detrimental depending on whether there was a reported decrease or increase in qualitatively positive or negative outcomes (e.g., a decrease in depression and an increase in self-esteem were both coded as beneficial outcomes)."


So one is more likely to reduce alcohol use, take up exercise and feel more general emotional wellbeing if one gains psychological insights, rather than if one comes to a specific metaphysical view for example that All of Being is fundamentally composed of One Infinite Mind. I somehow am not that surprised by the outcomes using these measures.

One area where I think certainly metaphysical belief change has shown to correspond to increases beneficial outcomes like reduced anxiety, is when psychedelics are administered at end of life care to cancer patients, and I think this is more an area where these beneficial effects would be more strongly apparent.

 

[[:]]

Even a hard-core atheist materialist who does not believe in any form of survival of consciousness is simply stating their metaphysical position, ie a form of nihilism, which may be true or may be delusional and not correspond with how actual reality works.

I see this as justification rhetoric to support the idea that metaphysical assertions are potentially accurate by trying to conflate the idea of evidence with a claim about metaphysical content and I find it to be absurd from my perspective. If a person with a scientifically informed ontology does not form a belief about something like an afterlife, that is not a metaphysical claim anymore than my lack of an opinion about invisible giant turtles living in clouds is a metaphysical claim.

Note that I defined psychological insights as increased self awareness. However if the insight itself is based on inaccurate information it isn't an actual insight into psychology.

Here is the first definition of insight that arises using a search:

The ability to discern the true nature of a situation, especially by intuition.

If the so called insight is based on inaccurate information then by definition it is not an insight but is a delusion and from my perspective this only supports my assertion about how the feeling of truth is unable to actually allow an individual to identify and discern what is true.

Moreover our individual perspectives are clearly unable to be reconciled and I'm not interested in arguing or engaging with those who consider a lack of specific metaphysical claims or beliefs to be a type of metaphysical claim or belief so this will be the last time we interact.

 

[Panpsychic]

If a person with a scientifically informed ontology does not form a belief about something like an afterlife, that is not a metaphysical claim anymore than my lack of an opinion about invisible giant turtles living in clouds is a metaphysical claim.

Well I am stating a philosophical fact, not an opinion. The position of 'not holding any metaphysical view' is called agnosticism ie "not knowing". That is fine and no one has has definitive claim to know the answer.

However the claim that "all metaphysical beliefs are delusional" is simply untenable. If someone is a philosophical agnostic, then they likewise cannot make claims to either support or deny any specific metaphysical views.

I'm not interested in arguing or engaging with those who consider a lack of specific metaphysical claims or beliefs to be a type of metaphysical claim or belief

Well that's not what I am saying. I am however being more specific. If someone for example asserts a view that "there is no evidence for the survival of consciousness after death" then they are stating that they do no believe there is any substantial support for such a view. Stating an absence of support for something however is not the same as stating an affirmation of the opposite. If someone where then to make a further metaphysical claim that "consciousness definitely ends at death" that is simply their own metaphysical view which can be labelled materialist-nihilism, and that view would need to counter the apparant evidence for the existence of survival of consciousness after death (ie near death experience reports, children with past life memories etc).

Thus as I said, unless one is a true agnostic with no views on these matters at all, one inevitably will take up a certain metaphysical position and this is as true now as it was in the time of ancient Greece when all the major philosophical positions today were still extant.

 

[[:]]

Metaphysical belief theory asserts that these benefits stem from the adoption of comforting supernatural beliefs following a mystical experience.

Supernatural beliefs are fundamentally delusional in nature.
Arguing that somehow they are not isn't something I have any respect or patience for.

 

[Panpsychic]

Simply repeating a statement and making a specific metaphysical claim such as "all supernatural beliefs are fundamentally delusional" doesn't magically make it true.

 

[Transform]

Supernatural beliefs are fundamentally delusional in nature.
Arguing that somehow they are not isn't something I have any respect or patience for.

Simply repeating a statement and making a specific metaphysical claim such as "all supernatural beliefs are fundamentally delusional" doesn't magically make it true.

Well, the problem for some may be that metaphysical matters are neither measurable nor falsifiable. On the other hand, what is wrong with consciously and willfully applying metaphysical/supernatural beliefs - knowing full well that they are 'delusional' - simply as a matter of expediency? As long as one remains aware of one's habits (and able to change them…) Furthermore, scientists are not immune to delusion, by any means.

 

[Animistic]

Agree completely @Transform

This is the useful thing about metaphysical belief imo. If it produces results that are useful to someone, that's great and also the metaphysical mind muscles can be trained to be able to hold a completely contrary belief when required.

An example - I have a dream about chatting to my deceased relative who I didn't get to say goodbye to, in the dream I have what feels like an hours long chat with them and tell them I love them, etc and they respond however they do. I awake and feel a sense of release, tears streaming down my face, a grief has been released. In this instance the dream is taken literally in some sense.

Sometime in the future say I have a dream that a demon is chasing me, pins me down and sucks my soul out. I wake up feeling shocked and a bit jarred. If I take this dream literally it could really effect me day to day, so I may choose to adopt a metaphysical belief that dreams are 'just my imagination' or 'arent to be interpreted literally'. I may even look at a dream metaphorically and see how there is some kind of relation to some other situation in my life that brings me insight etc.

None of these metaphysical models are scientifically testable, philosophically they can be further broken down but that's another story. The point is that one can make their metaphysical beliefs powerful assistants through day to day life and that there is a lot of power in being able to change metaphysical beliefs on a whim. Especially because they're not provable in a sense, they're not falsifiable, use that to your advantage I say.

Same logic can be applied to entities in hyperspace (real or imaginative) there are situations that one or the other belief can be of assistance, I'd rather be able to maximize my benefit and insight from an experience than be stuck in an unfalsifiable/I provable rut for the rest of my existence.

 

[[:]]

From a certain perspective life is too short to waste time on arguments and consideration of claims lacking measurable evidence.
Such endeavors lack practicality.

However, when it comes to actual insights into human psychology there is a very pragmatic and practical element that can facilitate personal betterment in measurable ways.

 

[Panpsychic]

Well, the problem for some may be that metaphysical matters are neither measurable nor falsifiable.

Something not being externally falsifiable does not necessarily mean it is false.
What does 'falsifiable' and 'measurable' mean with regards to certain domains of the metaphysical or transcendent, which can often be experienced as immeasurable, infinite and eternal?

Measurable refers to material physical substance and processes and the scientific method such as a chemical extraction. The experiences triggered by chemistry in conjunction with one's neurophysiology may not be measurable or externally falsifiable, yet they certainly are internally verifiable each one for themselves.

Furthermore, scientists are not immune to delusion, by any means.

Indeed, especially with matters that go beyond the scope and purview of the material sciences and into the realm of human subjectivity and its potentials.

 

[Varallo]

Something not being externally falsifiable does not necessarily mean it is false.
What does 'falsifiable' and 'measurable' mean with

It means there is no evidence that leads to the building of the theory, and therefore is not question of being false and or true. It just means that the theory is weak or nonexistent. From there on one could say that theory is unattainable. Depending upon your views one then might think it’s false or at least not yet proven.

The criticism at metaphysical ideas is that they pretend to know/see things that are beyond possible experience and are therefore impossible to prove with experiment’s because they are not visible.

From there on one could conclude that metaphysical thinking is delusional by definition.

On a more personal note I have had experiences where I have met god during some of my trips. These experiences, as someone who very firmly not believes in god, I hold as some of the most impressive and life changing experiences.

 

[[:]]

I have no objection to people making and believing metaphysical claims, or relating perceptions, theories or thoughts upon such matters.

I just see it as a waste of time and energy for myself to argue about such things or to bother entertaining others in terms of them.
Some incredibly intelligent people have supernatural beliefs as well as experiences or perceptions.
I've even had experiences that might be described as supernatural, however I can't really make any claims about them because they cannot be investigated and in terms of unproven supernatural claims there is a potentially infinite set, but in terms of pragmatic and demonstrable claims that can be investigated at any given time there is always a finite set.

To share some term definitions, when I write of a scientific ontology this refers to Ontology as it is defined in Information Science as opposed to the branch of metaphysical philosophy called ontology, which is essentially rooted in the prehistoric superstitions of our species in relation to early civilization. I see that material as part of the primitive foundation upon which later science was built when our species transitioned from seeing the world as a supernatural product of supernatural beings to seeing it as a natural product that is formed by natural means.

Along these lines I view the large hadron collider and physics as more informative about the nature of reality than Ouija boards are.

I am one of those people, perhaps out of place in terms of the online psychedelic community, who believes that this computer I am typing on is a product of investigative science and not supernatural coincidence. Our species employed superstition and supernatural concepts to explain reality for thousands of years and it did not give rise to things like technology or advanced scientific knowledge about how things came to be and are as they are. I have no objection to people who want to dwell in what I believe to be primitive superstition, but I have no use for such world views.

On the other hand, I see psychological insight as incredibly useful and able to give rise to practical approaches to self improvement.

However it is worth noting that my primary point is not my ontological perspective but is rather the idea that the accuracy or truth of a claim or perception cannot be determined by the comfort or discomfort that we feel in relation to it.

 

[Panpsychic]

It means there is no evidence that leads to the building of the theory, and therefore is not question of being false and or true. It just means that the theory is weak or nonexistent. From there on one could say that theory is unattainable. Depending upon your views one then might think it’s false or at least not yet proven.

It means that metaphysical realities like 'God' or the transcendent are not something that are subject to theory or experimentation. It does not therfore hold that such views regarding them can necessarily be dismissed, but rather that they are beyond the range of testable hypothesis from a material sciences perspective, and such methodology does not apply.

The criticism at metaphysical ideas is that they pretend to know/see things that are beyond possible experience and are therefore impossible to prove with experiment’s because they are not visible.

Not true. They are very much within the range of direct personal experience, but they cannot be externally verified by some kind of machinery or experimentation. They can however be corroborated by individuals across their collective experiences, and some kind of consensus may be arrived at.

The idea of trying to reduce everything, especially human subjectivity to a simplistic experimentation and hypothesis model is a reductive and limited materialist obsession.

On a more personal note I have had experiences where I have met god during some of my trips. These experiences, as someone who very firmly not believes in god, I hold as some of the most impressive and life changing experiences.

It seems there is a dissonance then between what you 'believe' in your formulation of views, and what you have directly experienced and known. Reconciling these two would be then the challenge.

 

[Varallo]

It means that metaphysical realities like 'God' or the transcendent are not something that are subject to theory or experimentation. It does not therfore hold that such views regarding them can necessarily be dismissed, but rather that they are beyond the range of testable hypothesis from a material sciences perspective, and such methodology does not apply.

I think we almost agree, I don’t know what you mean with material science though. I happen to know this field quite well since I teach multiple courses on it. In my opinion it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I read this comment as that you are dismissing regular scientific discourse as an argument to proof metaphysical phenomena. Or rather to say that they are exempt from the burden of proof. I’m on the opinion that it’s a phenomena that is just that and nothing more, and has no relation to reality other than that it’s a shared experience in some aspects.

In a way it relates to the question of, is hyperspace real? Or in a way as asking if dreams are real. As a phenomenon they are but what you dream is not part of reality. This also is why I have no problem with the duality of having experienced god and not believing in god. These for me are very different things, experiencing and knowing or understanding.

The idea of trying to reduce everything, especially human subjectivity to a simplistic experimentation and hypothesis model is a reductive and limited materialist obsession.

Or lacking of thorough understanding of the things we do, are or see.

I am one of those people, perhaps out of place in terms of the online psychedelic community, who believes that this computer I am typing on is a product of investigative science and not supernatural coincidence. Our species employed superstition and supernatural concepts to explain reality for thousands of years and it did not give rise to things like technology or advanced scientific knowledge about how things came to be and are as they are. I have no objection to people who want to dwell in what I believe to be primitive superstition, but I have no use for such world views.

You’re not alone here.

Take care

 

[[:]]

You’re not alone here.

It is reassuring to find another person in this community who is more concerned with the question of "What is?" than the question of "What if?" in terms of the nature of reality. The potential dichotomy of the questions of "How the universe is as it is?" and "Why the universe is as it is?" also relates to this.

When our species reached a point that it stopped speculating about supernatural causality and started investigating things in terms of evidence this led to tremendous cultural advances including, ironically, in terms of our awareness of the nature of psychedelic molecules and their effects. Sadly, despite having clear evidence of what they are and how they work we are still fighting the ignorant superstitious beliefs that these molecules are magical substances that allow us access to supernatural realities. Many people are still not even aware that traditional psychedelic shamanism and sorcery involve deliberate deception and manipulation and even things light slight of hand! We are still dealing with people expressing magnificent delusions about them being in direct contact with deities, or being deities themselves, or about things like Timewave Zero and 2012. At least that one came with an expiration date for credibility... but the detrimental impact that its creator, Terrence McKenna has had upon the state of knowledge of the psychedelic community is disease-like and incredibly problematic in numerous ways. Sadly it is the authors like him who are entertaining that capture the attention and imagination of people, while authors who are far more accurate but less entertaining, like his own brother Dennis, are largely ignored.

If there was a choice between a psychedelic scientific convention or the psychedelic equivalent of a revival tent, I'd be at the convention. I think most of the people in the community however would be at the revival tent. How many people here know the names of Joe Rogan and Terrence McKenna? How many here know the names of Richard Evans Schultes and David E. Nichols? The struggle is real.

I should admit thought that I am not as invested in it as my opinion here might indicate. I spend very little time bothering with the supernatural suppositions and focus upon the scientific, measurable or at least consistently reproducible aspects of reality and experience. Hence my primary posting and discussion activity at this website is in relation to scientific papers dealing with the enzymatic activities and structures of the molecules themselves, as well as their natural histories and the biological aspects of their occurrences.

 

[Panpsychic]

I think we almost agree, I don’t know what you mean with material science though. I happen to know this field quite well since I teach multiple courses on it. In my opinion it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I read this comment as that you are dismissing regular scientific discourse as an argument to proof metaphysical phenomena. Or rather to say that they are exempt from the burden of proof. I’m on the opinion that it’s a phenomena that is just that and nothing more, and has no relation to reality other than that it’s a shared experience in some aspects.

I recognize that consciousness is an as yet unexplained mystery to science. That we have neuronal correlates to brain states has not solved the 'hard' problem of consciousness or brought us any closer to doing so. Therefore, a true scientific perspective is one which I espouse, that is not being closed off to the possibilities or having a preconceived materialist assumption regarding its nature and origin. Psychedelic experience and the metaphysical realities that may be accessed fit into this domain.

This is in contrast to what many mainstream 'scientists' promulgate, which is an adherence to the philosophy of scientific materialism, and attempting to present that as the scientific position. Thankfully there have been a great many esteemed and highly acclaimed scientists who have not fallen into such a view.

Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

In a way it relates to the question of, is hyperspace real? Or in a way as asking if dreams are real. As a phenomenon they are but what you dream is not part of reality. This also is why I have no problem with the duality of having experienced god and not believing in god. These for me are very different things, experiencing and knowing or understanding.

Indeed yes it's essentially the same question. Perhaps this is where we differ then in our experience and thus how we construe reality. Having had several times precognitive dreams and also precognitive psychedelic visions that came true, paired with unfathomably improbable synchronicities on more than one occasion, I am not able to say any longer that dreams and some visions are 'not real' or that they do not relate to 'objective' reality. They are to me both parts of a higher order cohesive deeper reality that continues to unfold. Discerning it is part of my quest and indeed, part of the unfolding of the future science in my view.

 

[Varallo]

Indeed yes it's essentially the same question. Perhaps this is where we differ then in our experience and thus how we construe reality. Having had several times precognitive dreams and also precognitive psychedelic visions that came true paired with unfathomably improbable synchronicities on more than one occasion, I am not able to say any longer that dreams and some visions are 'not real' or that they do not relate to 'objective' reality. They are to me both parts of a higher order cohesive deeper reality that continues to unfold. Discerning it is part of my quest and indeed, part of the unfolding of the future science in my view.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is wat comes to mind, i think this is magical thinking, and has little to do with science or the future of it.

Let say we agree to disagree, take care

 

[Panpsychic]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is wat comes to mind, i think this is magical thinking, and has little to do with science or the future of it.

Not really no, since I am not saying one event causes the other. I am saying precognition is real however, in that one can have a vision of a future event which can then come to pass. It's not magical thinking in any way, if one makes a record of what is going to happen and then it occurs.

However unless one has experienced it themselves, one cannot verify this and it seems outwardly impossible at least according to a standard understanding of linear time. Perhaps look into the numerous literature on the subject would be the next best option. Precognition is actually something that has even shown up in the unconducive environment of laboratory testing, however I will leave that for you to look into.

 

[Varallo]

Precognition is actually something that has even shown up in the unconducive environment of laboratory testing, however I will leave that for you to look into.

Precognition is not showing up in any laboratory test nor is proven in any way. It’s pseudoscience by definition. I wish you wel and sincerely hope one day that you leave your beliefs on this matter.

Take care