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.

 

[Panpsychic]

Precognition is not showing up in any laboratory test nor is proven in any way.

There is plenty of robust evidence, and a quick review of the studies to date will find it. However that's a separate discussion so I don't want to derial the thread.

It’s pseudoscience by definition.

I think you need to re-evaluate your use of the term 'definition'.

I wish you well and sincerely hope one day that you leave your beliefs on this matter.

I understand that knowledge and information outside one's comfort zone and pre-existing model of the world can be source of anxiety and perturbation, so I am not going to press this further with you.

 

[Transform]

Firstly, I've been loving this whole discussion, since I'm coming at it from something of a "both/and" perspective. For example, just today I had a delightful telephone conversation with a close relative a couple of theusand kilometers away where I received news of three people whom I had thought of during this past week after months or even years of not thinking of them at all. Rather unscientifically, I tend to neglect recording my every thought but then again, I get the feeling that the mysterium tremendum would play some devious tricks were I to attempt to do so.

In an attempt to retain a tenuous grip on the topic of the thread, I'd note that use of psychedelics has not, apparently, specifically enhanced this kind of ability - nor do I have any way of applying a control case.

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.

The computer which you're using is also the product of political machinations, slavery, environmental destruction, late nights staying up on acid, sales campaigns - and by extension, probably a fair amount of cocaïne - not to mention the distinctly esoteric but nonetheless highly systematic bent of a bunch of technologists and programmers, and that's barely starting the list.

Yes, rational thought is a powerful tool, and it comes with the question of whether it is always the right tool for the job. I think the answer depends on what is being communicated, and when it comes to benefitting from psychedelic use retaining a rational perspective does appear to be of significant importance. However, it's still possible to entertain other modes of awareness that might provide broader brush-strokes for the development of emotional awareness, for example, or to engage with mythic realms to more deeply feel what the human story might be about, and thereby to explore some possible directions that might arise. "What ifs" are as much of the realms of art and theatre as they are of technological innovation and they contribute as much to the manifestation of a new idea as a "what is" might do - while rationality gets to do a lot of the heavy lifting, it is still underpinned by the crazy mystery.

 

[Animistic]

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

Science, for everything we have to thank it for, is not the arbiter of ultimate truth. In it's own method you are meant to eliminate as many variables as one can, arguably the "real" and the "life" out of real life. Logic is not the ultimate way of thinking, it is A way of thinking. A damn useful one at times but at others it isn't as pragmatic.

Rejecting what you call magical thinking is arbitrarily rejecting a huge aspect of the only way we experience the world, subjective experience. In fact I would say in a way magical thinking engenders a kind of subjective "science" that attempts to look at as many variables at once and using ones senses/feelings to get a grasp on something. That's not to say magical thinking is superior to scientific thinking, it is just another way of thinking that can create wholeness and meaning.

I highly recommend a book called "My years of magical thinking" by Lionel Snell. Read with an open mind I think anyone would find it quite a curious book. Also his "Little Book of Demons", he values logic, he is a trained mathematician afterall, but has a very pragmatic way of looking at things that anyone that chooses to open their mind to might meaningful and dare I say insightful.

 

[terencimaquena]

What a great read I had here, thanks for commenting everyone.

Only thing I have to say in regards to all this conversation is that the statement underlying some views here, which is the classic “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge", cannot be verified by scientific methods. It’s a metaphysical proposition and thus not subject to scientific inquiry. Anyone who tries to push scientism and its reductionist views will be met with this again and again, so... Maybe try to be scientific enough to admit science is not the ultimate truth, as some say over here.

Oh, and thinking earlier humans where dumber than us is such an ego-driven thing to say/think. I am excited to see how science works out in this situation, where it has been stagnant for quite some time now. Maybe we find new fundamental laws, like it happened with electromagnetism, that make possible the scientific study of consciousness. Maybe we don't, and we must approach it in a radically different way.
For any of these two options, I think there has to be someone trying and thinking about it, testing it, instead of discouraging others to stop investigating. Life is so multi-faceted... the best thing to do is to try and learn from other people experiences.

Love yall

 

[Exitwound]

How did I miss this thread

I was stout atheist (science was my god, studying physics/informatics) until my experience with the molecule.
Now I can't say I know things, I am just not so sure anymore.

Also I don't reject mystical stuff so rigidly. Did you forget the cosmic joke?
Life is much more fun with some elves here and there.

Regarding study - I get it, don't we all here praise setting the right intent?
Mystical stuff is just a side effect, a blessing, for those who need it the most. It may or may not lead to being more or less insane.
Trying to improve yourself, is a noble cause and blessed are those who seek.

 

[Transform]

Mystical stuff is just a side effect, a blessing, for those who need it the most. It may or may not lead to being more or less insane.

Hehe, I love it - I think the answer to this one depends on who one may happen to be talking to at any given time - and this leads to the fundamental question: just who is the arbiter of what constitutes benefit? What if, for example, spiritual emergence is (as often happens to be the case) mistaken for a psychotic break in the short term, but in the long term can lead to a deeper alignment within the self with something more meaningful than merely, e.g., enhanced productivity for a large corporation?

 

[terencimaquena]

How did I miss this thread

I was stout atheist (science was my god, studying physics/informatics) until my experience with the molecule.
Now I can't say I know things, I am just not so sure anymore.

Also I don't reject mystical stuff so rigidly. Did you forget the cosmic joke?
Life is much more fun with some elves here and there.

Regarding study - I get it, don't we all here praise setting the right intent?
Mystical stuff is just a side effect, a blessing, for those who need it the most. It may or may not lead to being more or less insane.
Trying to improve yourself, is a noble cause and blessed are those who seek.

Completely in favour of this attitude, pal. Nice to see someone go from scientism to skepticism. Some people change their worldview through the experience with the molecule, and that is absolutely fine in most cases. The point I wanna make really is about how inconsistent scientism and reductionism are by themselves, no need of molecules or strange metaphysical theories to rival these worldviews. It is useful, yes, but not to describe reality as a whole (which I think is impossible, btw).

 

[Varallo]

This thread is more and more interesting although it has little to do with the original paper.

I think there are basically two things being said. One view is about science and the empirically understanding of the world and the other is a more philosophical approach to seeing but also experiencing it.
Then in the periphery there is a mix of more what I call magical thinking, like saying that precognition is a something that’s real even when it clearly violates the principle of causality. Or frustration with my reactions resulting in assumptions about my knowledge or comfort zone.

I understand that knowledge and information outside one's comfort zone and pre-existing model of the world can be source of anxiety and perturbation, so I am not going to press this further with you

I think it’s good to separate these things since the lather doesn’t mix wel with the discussion. Also I think it’s good to mention I don’t think that the only way to look at the world is from pure logical positivist standpoint. I’m much more a constructivist when looking at or experiencing this world. Having said that, I do think that for most things there’s some logical explanation and if one can’t be found it’s because you haven’t looked and thought hard enough about it. In that respect metaphysical theories are more of a pointer to not understanding or knowing then anything else.

For a bit of nuance, I do think there’s room for metaphysical theories in realm of religious beliefs or even as a way of processing experiences and having them help with things that are difficult to comprehend. I can imagine that depending upon your world view these beliefs can have a somewhat soothing influence. Like some people take great solace in “knowing” that a dead relative has moved on to heaven.

Then are these beliefs useful in live? I do think they have a function to help stabilize the view on the world but as the article points to its the psychological insights that are the most helpful.

I highly recommend a book called "My years of magical thinking" by Lionel Snell.

Thanks for the tip

 

[Panpsychic]

This thread is more and more interesting although it has little to do with the original paper.

I think there are basically two things being said. One view is about science and the empirically understanding of the world and the other is a more philosophical approach to seeing but also experiencing it.
Then in the periphery there is a mix of more what I call magical thinking, like saying that precognition is a something that’s real even when it clearly violates the principle of causality.

You are almost there but not quite. You just need to keep applying the same principles you highlight above and you will see how discussion about phenomena outside your range of knowledge and experience such as precognition, which is ubdoubtedly real, can be explored with an extension of the same method.
Saying "it violates the principle of causality" is simply saying in other words "it violates my current understanding of the principle of causality, which I take to be a fundamental truth so ergo it can't be real from my perspective".

You are simply stating your standpoint and the limitations of it. Actually the subject of precognition fits fully into the discussion of informing metaphysical views through experiential understanding, and further how science can have a reciprocal relationship to being able to continually develop and try to account for these phenomena (in this case it is physicists working on theories of what is called retrocausality). Many phenomena associated with quantum physics likewise seemingly violate a standard understanding of causality pointing to need for an expanded model.

For a bit of nuance, I do think there’s room for metaphysical theories in realm of religious beliefs or even as a way of processing experiences and having them help with things that are difficult to comprehend. I can imagine that depending upon your world view these beliefs can have a somewhat soothing influence. Like some people take great solace in “knowing” that a dead relative has moved on to heaven.

There certainly can also be solace in the metaphysical belief you appear to adhere to, that of materialist nihilism and the view of cessation of consciousness at death. It brings confort to some the idea there is just a nothingness after death especially if they have had a very hard life. Of course the same belief may may cause fear and anxiety to others it depends on the perspective they take.

 

[Varallo]

You are almost there but not quite. You just need to keep applying the same principles you highlight above and you will see how discussion about phenomena outside your range of knowledge and experience such as precognition, which is ubdoubtedly real, can be explored with an extension of the same method.
Saying "it violates the principle of causality" is simply saying in other words "it violates my current understanding of the principle of causality, which I take to be a fundamental truth so ergo it can't be real from my perspective"

Ah you’re doing it again, please stop assuming that you know anything about my knowledge and experience, or rewriting my words in a belittling way by adding “my understanding or understanding” it just a strange and unproductive way to make a point. It’s an argumentum ad hominem. Please try the substance of the argument like explaining why you think precognition is real and name the scientific evidence itself this wil be much more interesting.

Then on the subject, I think it’s important to clarify the term precognition, I interpret this as one’s ability to see the future. Usually this “information” comes through in the shape of dreams or insights during a certain activity like looking at a glass sphere.

When I say that these proposed phenomena violate causality I mean that I don’t see how predicting the future is possible to prove or that I haven’t seen anything that looks like proof. Just that and nothing more. Please refer to the scientific proof you mention in previous post, I would be happy to review your sources. I did a quick review on the results in google scholar and have only seen papers that demonstrate that precognition is pseudoscience. Autor and title are enough.

 

[Panpsychic]

Ah you’re doing it again, please stop assuming that you know anything about my knowledge and experience, or rewriting my words in a belittling way by adding “my understanding or understanding” it just a strange and unproductive way to make a point. It’s an argumentum ad hominem. Please try the substance of the argument like explaining why you think precognition is real and name the scientific evidence itself this wil be much more interesting.

I am returning the style of phrasing and will continue to do so while you make unscientific and unsubstantiated blanket claims such as "precognition is by definition pseudoscience" that actually demonstrate your adherence to certain blind metaphysical assumptions you supposedly oppose.

Then on the subject, I think it’s important to clarify the term precognition, I interpret this as one’s ability to see the future.

That is correct yes.

Usually this “information” comes through in the shape of dreams or insights during a certain activity like looking at a glass sphere.

It can come through many means, most often dreams or visions. There are also more specific varieties such as 'presentiment'.

When I say that these proposed phenomena violate causality I mean that I don’t see how predicting the future is possible to prove or that I haven’t seen anything that looks like proof. Just that and nothing more.

These are actually two separate subjects. If someone says it violates causality what they usually mean is it violates an understanding of linear time which is indeed true, and this is how I interpreted your statement.

Regarding proof, I actually find the laboratory proof which exists to be far less compelling than the anecdotal experiences of people where there is meaning to the occurrences.

Please refer to the scientific proof you mention in previous post, I would be happy to review your sources. I did a quick review on the results in google scholar and have only seen papers that demonstrate that precognition is pseudoscience. Autor and title are enough.

Here is a review

Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Your objections, which are quite common and represent an auto dismissal without assessing the evidence (ie not following the process of scientific enquiry) are also addressed in the article.
You can do a more thorough search yourself otherwise it risks changing the central subject of the discussion.

 

[Transform]

it risks changing the central subject of the discussion

It's an interesting discussion and certainly the topic of precognition in relation to scientific thinking is worthy of its own thread, perhaps in the philorophy section of the forum. Now seems likea good time for you and @Varollo to summarise your viewpoints in the context of the topic of this present thread(!) before things go round in too many circles. And please remember to maintain a constructive and respectful tone

 

[Varallo]

It's an interesting discussion and certainly the topic of precognition in relation to scientific thinking is worthy of its own thread, perhaps in the philorophy section of the forum. Now seems likea good time for you and @Varollo to summarise your viewpoints in the context of the topic of this present thread(!) before things go round in too many circles. And please remember to maintain a constructive and respectful tone

I agree this needs a separate topic, and the discussion should not continue here. My point remains that the conclusion of the original paper strongly align with my personal views on the matter. The methaphysical nonsens is not helping anyone and in my opinion is polluting the emerging field of psychedelic therapy by giving way to fake gurus and shamans to perpetuate quackery. It would be great that as a psychedelic community we could put to halt this so that the field can grow into something that is taken serious and is not associated with quackery.

 

[Panpsychic]

My point remains that the conclusion of the original paper strongly align with my personal views on the matter. The methaphysical nonsens is not helping anyone and in my opinion is polluting the emerging field of psychedelic therapy by giving way to fake gurus and shamans to perpetuate quackery. It would be great that as a psychedelic community we could put to halt this so that the field can grow into something that is taken serious and is not associated with quackery.

Recognizing when you yourself may be holding to blind metaphysical nonsense beliefs and assumptions, such as shallow reductive materialism, will be part of how this field progresses and how science itself progresses.

Charlatans can usually always be spotted, and should not detract from the reality of some of these phenomena and genuine people who can experience them.

Psychedelic therapy will be just fine. It adheres to accepted psychotherapy systems of practice and doesn't try to change them. If people want shamanism let them go for that experience and work with those frameworks within genuine shamanic traditions.

It's a great irony that in actual fact proponents of this type of reductive materialist metaphysical faith (of which there is zero evidence since they have not come anywhere near to explaining the mind-body problem) are much more aligned with a simple mechanistic 19th century understanding of physics, than a 21st century quantum one which is more more capable of explaining the array of phenomena that psychedelics can elicit.

 

[Transform]

I'm inclined to suggest both have something to offer, and choosing one path should not exclude the possibility of being informed by the other.

Our modern society is not the only possible way of doing things, and it pays to reflect on one's own shortcomings from time to time, too.

 

[Prima Materia]

What is mind? No 'matter'.
What's the 'matter'? Never'mind'.

Or is it?

Enjoy your day folks!

 

[Panpsychic]

What is mind? No 'matter'.
What's the 'matter'? Never'mind'.

Enjoy your day folks!

Dualism has its limits though. Some degree of mind may be intrinsic to matter.

As Max Planck, Nobel laureate and the father of quantum mechanics said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness".

and

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: there is no matter as such!
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent  mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

 

[Prima Materia]

Dualism has its limits though. Some degree of mind may be intrinsic to matter.

As Max Planck, Nobel laureate and the father of quantum mechanics said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness".

and

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: there is no matter as such!
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent  mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Therefore the doubtful question at the end.

 

[Panpsychic]

See also this interesting and relevant paper

On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research​

On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research - PMC

The essential proposal of this text is that psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences should be integrated and evaluated with recourse to metaphysics. It will be argued that there is a potential extra benefit to patients in psychedelic-assisted ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and commentary response

Commentary: On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Paper includes this nice infographic elucidating various metaphysical views that may be taken. For many modern scientists and atheistic non-scientists or otherwise non-religious/spiritual people physicalism is the assumed belief system, a dogma they take to be true with a great deal of faith.

 

[terencimaquena]

See also this interesting and relevant paper

On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research​

On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research - PMC

The essential proposal of this text is that psychedelic-induced metaphysical experiences should be integrated and evaluated with recourse to metaphysics. It will be argued that there is a potential extra benefit to patients in psychedelic-assisted ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and commentary response

Commentary: On the need for metaphysics in psychedelic therapy and research - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Paper includes this nice infographic elucidating various metaphysical views that may be taken. For many modern scientists and atheistic non-scientists or otherwise non-religious/spiritual people physicalism is the assumed belief system, a dogma they take to be true with a great deal of faith.

View attachment 97046

It was a matter of time Sjöstedt was cited here! Great thinker, really interesting studies going on at Exeter Uni.

I share @Varollo 's concern about fake gurus. Just one little note there: fake guides have existed for all of humanity. It is not a matter of punishing thinkers for derailing from your idea of what science should be, specially since many scientists –probably way more important and knowledgable than us– have postulated a fundamental consciousness, like @Panpsychic cites. There are many more examples, as well as the famous Chalmers–Koch bet.

Philosopher Antonio Escohotado(✝) used to say "truth doesn't need any defence. Lies do." and I think that sums up my view on this.
A defence, in any language, implies and consists of definitions, which are a way of abstract-discerning between different experiences. Fundamentalism requires something ineffable to be the grid that contains everything else, and we know that not being able to explain something doesn't make it the ultimate reality. Specially if it can be worked on and eventually solved with science, through decades or centuries of improvements. There is only one problem that has not been solved, and we are not anywhere closed to solving it... The hard-problem of consciousness. So maybe, and just maybe, trying to be scientific implies being able to make this assumption. Or at least considering the possibility, taking into account the incredible scientific advancements in many fields, and the lack of progress on the main question. Or maybe not, and we finally discover the intricacies of consciousness in a physicalist framework, which honestly seems boring AND dangerous to me. History tells us a couple things about how science has been used as well.
Doesn't matter what the case is, just don't get mad for it, it's not worth it

Anyways, I feel like this thread has already gone way off topic, so I'll probably be exiting the conversation unless some remarkable comment gets made. Or if @Varollo and @Panpsychic suddenly become best friends, which would be cool to see. Having friends with radically different ideas from me has greatly improved my life, give it a try.

Glad to read you!