
LSD microdosing: a randomized, blind self-experiment - gwern
http://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing
======
DanielBMarkham
I'm upvoting this, and I hate to be cranky asshole guy, but something's been
buggin' me and I'm not sure how or where to provide this feedback.

Gwern's articles are, well, _deep_. There's usually huge wall of text with
lots of allusions and footnotes. Looks like a term paper somebody would write
for a college course, (only extremely well done, btw)

My problem is that I'm finding it difficult to actually consume the articles.
Sure, if I had an extra hour everyday to lounge around studying the intricate
details of his self-experiment with LSD, such things might interest me. But
the sheer volume and technical facade of the piece works against it. At best
it engages my natural inclination to nit-pick. At worst it's just boring. In
either case, I'm not left with a greater understanding. Having said that, if
it's something I already agree with, it does make me feel like _gee, I 'm
really smart for feeling this way. Here's this well-researched article that
agrees with me!_

I freely admit to being an outlier, so take my feedback for what it's worth. I
am interested, however, that my feelings validate what newspaper editors found
out centuries ago: state your conclusion in the lead, then supporting
evidence. Write in a pyramid fashion. That way people can review the point at
their leisure, then dive down if they feel it's worthwhile. Articles for the
general public should not read like mystery novels. Say what you want to say,
punch them in the nose. Then make your case and impress them with how smart
you are.

Since I'm playing grumpy old guy already, I'll also note that these essays are
getting upvoted _way_ quicker than it's possible to actually read the things.
I'm not implying a voting ring, more like a bandwagon effect. (Same result,
but without all the sinister implications)

~~~
pstuart
Fellow grumpy old guy here. Executive level summaries with the ability to
drill down to points would be great.

As for voting up -- it also adds to your profile's "saved stories", so that
might be a motivation too.

------
joezydeco
Impressive amount of data and data reduction...but it all hinges on a 100 ug
dose of LSD purchased anonymously from Silk Road?

How can the OP be sure that the 100 micrograms was pure and accurate? If you
can't prove that, what good is all the math?

~~~
NathanKP
The OP also wrote a very detailed study of how Silk Road works:

[http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road#lsd-case-
study](http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road#lsd-case-study)

In it he mentions a potential test to verify that what you receive really is
LSD:

 _An Ehrlich test is a reagant for indole alkaloids, a category which includes
psychedelics like LSD & psilocybin. As such, it can be used as a kind of
quality check._

I'd assume given the rigorous treatment I've seen so far in all his posts that
he probably did this test.

~~~
leoedin
The test addresses the presence of the molecule. It doesn't address the
quantities present. If the doses he gave himself were smaller than he
believed, even by 50%, then the fact that there's no perceptible effects isn't
surprising. Given the tiny quantities that he's dealing with anyway, any
slight variation of the input conditions (which he didn't account for) would
make a huge difference to the output.

------
Alex3917
"The claims made by psychonauts are frequently extravagant and unjustified;
the tangible benefits are either unrelated to the truth of the experience
(such as lessened anxiety of death)"

I don't think this is accurate. The key mediating variable for reduced anxiety
is having a mystical experience, and one of the defining characteristics of
the mystical experience is that it feels more real than real life. C.f.
csp.org/psilocybin

"Physicalism, by contrast, could be easily falsified. If science ever
established the existence of ghosts, or reincarnation, or any other phenomenon
which would place the human mind (in whole or in part) outside the brain,
physicalism would be dead."

I know he's just quoting Harris here, but this is BS. There is literally no
known phenomena which you couldn't explain away with some as yet undiscovered
materialist phenomena. C.f consciousness, spooky action at a distance, etc.

"Many years later, I have yet to have a mystical or religious or peak
experience which could either convert me or leave me unmoved, and thus
empirically settle the issue as to why I am an atheist - absence of
experience, or reasoned belief?"

Given that 80% of people have these experiences in the lab while on
psilocybin, if you are judging without having had these experiences yourself
then that's just lazy. Even if you don't want to go the drug route, the vast
majority of people also have chakra type experiences within the first few days
of taking up meditation in a retreat setting.

~~~
virtualwhys
> the vast majority of people also have chakra type experiences within the
> first few days of taking up meditation in a retreat setting

and here I sat several retreats with dagger-like pain in the knees, wandering
mind, and a deep desire to somehow exit stage left unnoticed.

Meanwhile I guess everyone else was blowing open the dharma gates. Possible,
but if everyone progressed as quickly in the retreat experience as you're
implying, we'd soon have an enormous number of teachers (whereas the reality
is that a teacher is a rarity and a student is one of the vast majority).

As for hallucinogens, they certainly provide immediate, and sometimes
unwanted, entry into non-self/non-body, but as a way of life, not so sure. If
you look at the great mystics of past and present, you'd be hard pressed to
find one that depended on external stimuli.

Saying that, I take a journey into the woods a couple of times per year, life
is short.

~~~
Alex3917
"If you look at the great mystics of past and present, you'd be hard pressed
to find one that depended on external stimuli."

A good (albeit possibly apocryphal) example would be Jesus. His epithet was
'the anointed one', because he regularly covered his body in an oil that
contained enormous amounts of cannabis, among other psychoactive ingredients.
(At least a according to several linguists.)

"and here I sat several retreats with dagger-like pain in the knees, wandering
mind, and a deep desire to somehow exit stage left unnoticed."

You're not going to have a mystical experience from meditation as a beginner,
but it's pretty typical to start experiencing various energy phenomena after a
few days. It depends what kind of meditation you're doing though.

~~~
virtualwhys
re: Jesus and annointing himself with cannabis, I'll stand by the historically
great mystics (Jesus,Buddha,...many others,Ramana Maharshi,Krishnamurti,etc.)
not _needing_ anything to alter or enhance what is.

re: stages of meditation, sure, energetic experiences will come soon after
starting a retreat, but in my experience, while interesting events will
happen, there was a certain grind to a 5, 7, or 10 day retreat that left me
feeling more bored out/raw than realized.

Don't do retreats anymore, drawn fully back into the world, for better or
worse, not sure ;-)

~~~
Alex3917
Isn't Buddha normally depicted as being surrounded by datura flowers on his
death bed? They might not have needed these things on any given day, but given
that it's a path, you might need various tools from time to time to get around
obstacles blocking the way. You might only use a substance once or twice in
your life, but if not for that you might never have advanced any further.

~~~
virtualwhys
If we take the sutras attributed to the Buddha as coming from one being, it
would be laughable to think that this utter non-person would require anything
to alter an already complete experience.

Repeating myself, but the same goes for the great mystics past & present. As
to what they did prior to awakening, perhaps some did take hallucinogens, but
given that none of the extant teachings suggest ingesting external substances,
we can conclude that hallucinogens are non-essential to awakening.

In the west, where materialism reigns, many of us grow up spiritually bankrupt
and turn to strong experience (hallucinogenic intake in my case) as a means to
fill the void. Provides a much needed break from technology and rational
thinking, but not convinced that this does much more than spin the wheels in
place.

------
munchhausen
Dear gwern:

Your scientific experiment was fatally flawed on multiple counts.

A lot of (possibly most) LSD sold today (even LSD from Silkroad, and,
amazingly, even LSD from vendors favorably reviewed by The Avengers (see:
selective scamming)) is, in fact,a different drug altogether. Most often, an
n-benzylated phenethylamine (e.g. 25I-NBOMe). The only thing these drugs have
in common with LSD is that they are potent hallucinogens, but you wouldn't
notice the difference anyway on a sub-treshold dose.

Even assuming that those two tabs really did contain LSD (and dosed at 100ug,
at that), "extracting" LSD from blotter by submerging it in water for 24 hours
is...not known to work reliably, to put it mildly. I can tell you from
anecdotal experience that this method leaves a significant amount of the
substance embedded in the blotter.

Finally, putting LSD dissolved in an aqueous solution in a regular fridge is a
horrible way to go about storing it. LSD must be protected from light and from
changes in temperature, so a fridge doesn't work very well in this regard.
Plus, dissolving LSD in a solution makes it degrade much faster, if the
solution comes into contact with oxygen, since the surface area where
reactions with oxygen can occur expands vastly.

It may seem harsh to say that the -vvv essay, into which you clearly put a lot
of effort, is useless, as far as its "scientific"", or even informational
merit is concerned. But that is the unequivocally the case. We learned
something about you through this essay, but we learned nothing about LSD.

And I can't resist a little addendum - you would have done much better if you
simply swallowed those two tabs, sat down in a comfy chair, put some nice
music on, and tried to figure out what are those extravagant claims of
psychonauts about ;)

~~~
gwern
> A lot of (possibly most) LSD sold today (even LSD from Silkroad, and,
> amazingly, even LSD from vendors favorably reviewed by The Avengers (see:
> selective scamming)) is, in fact,a different drug altogether. Most often, an
> n-benzylated phenethylamine (e.g. 25I-NBOMe).

Your source for these sweeping claims?

> The only thing these drugs have in common with LSD is that they are potent
> hallucinogens, but you wouldn't notice the difference anyway on a sub-
> treshold dose.

I wouldn't, no. But that doesn't explain why when I tripped on the second tab,
it exactly matched what I was expecting from what I'd read about LSD trips.

> I can tell you from anecdotal experience that this method leaves a
> significant amount of the substance embedded in the blotter.

How exactly does that work, given that LSD is water soluble and the solution
was very dilute?

> Finally, putting LSD dissolved in an aqueous solution in a regular fridge is
> a horrible way to go about storing it. LSD must be protected from light and
> from changes in temperature, so a fridge doesn't work very well in this
> regard. Plus, dissolving LSD in a solution makes it degrade much faster, if
> the solution comes into contact with oxygen, since the surface area where
> reactions with oxygen can occur expands vastly.

It seemed a standard approach which protects it from light and heat
degradation, and there would be no 'changes in temperature' given that the
tabs were stored in the refrigerator the entire time before being turned into
a solution which itself was stored in a refrigerator the entire time.

> And I can't resist a little addendum - you would have done much better if
> you simply swallowed those two tabs, sat down in a comfy chair, put some
> nice music on, and tried to figure out what are those extravagant claims of
> psychonauts about ;)

I am amused that you think I didn't do exactly that. So, you have made these
claims assuming that I did not trip or listen to music. Now that you have
learned that I did, and I regard my previous opinions as still correct, are
you changing any of your beliefs?

~~~
munchhausen
> Your source for these sweeping claims?

No source. Just information that you may for all intents and purposes call
hearsay. What is your source that proves your tabs had LSD on them? Why didn't
you get them lab-tested? Or at the very least reagent tested?

> How exactly does that work, given that LSD is water soluble and the solution
> was very dilute?

Didn't you say you took the blotter out after a day? Can you prove there was
nothing in the blotter?

> It seemed a standard approach which protects it from light and heat
> degradation, and there would be no 'changes in temperature' given that the
> tabs were stored in the refrigerator the entire time before being turned
> into a solution which itself was stored in a refrigerator the entire time.

Were the tabs stored in an airtight container before being turned to solution?
How did you account for condensation when you took them out?

I'm sorry if I unfairly doubted your LSD storage-fu. Your post, however, did
not give me the impression that you knew what you were doing when you were
handling the substance, and I remain unconvinced even after reading your
reply.

> I am amused that you think I didn't do exactly that. So, you have made these
> claims assuming that I did not trip or listen to music. Now that you have
> learned that I did, and I regard my previous opinions as still correct, are
> you changing any of your beliefs?

I have not changed my beliefs, and why would I? I objected to the way you
conducted your experiment, not to the fact that you did not go for a
psychedelic dose. Knowing that you did go for it, changes absolutely nothing.

In fact, now that you have clarified that you ran your entire experiment with
mere 1(!) tab worth of LSD (let's give the tabs the benefit of doubt), I can't
help but be amazed at how quick you are to arrive at conclusions.

~~~
gwern
> No source. Just information that you may for all intents and purposes call
> hearsay.

So I can ignore it.

> Can you prove there was nothing in the blotter?

Umm... No? Can you prove there is not a teapot in orbit around Mercury? The
LSD dissolving out is exactly what one would expect of a _water-soluble_
substance. The burden is on you.

> Why didn't you get them lab-tested?

Because I am not rich. Send me $300 and I'll be sure to lab test any
additional batches.

> Or at the very least reagent tested?

Because an Ehrlich reagant only shows the presence of indoles, and wouldn't
show me what I needed to know, which was whether there was LSD, and what total
dose was present.

> In fact, now that you have clarified that you ran your entire experiment
> with mere 1(!) tab worth of LSD (let's give the tabs the benefit of doubt),
> I can't help but be amazed at how quick you are to arrive at conclusions.

That's the thing about _micro_ doses. They're, well, _tiny_. You only need one
or two normal doses to make enough microdoses to test. That's what the power
calculations were about, whether I needed one or two entire tabs.

> Were the tabs stored in an airtight container before being turned to
> solution?

They were shipped airtight and kept airtight until I tripped, then the
remaining tab was mostly but not entirely sealed until a week later. Given
that people routinely stash tabs in books and other places, I doubt that the
week did it much damage.

> Your post, however, did not give me the impression that you knew what you
> were doing when you were handling the substance, and I remain unconvinced
> even after reading your reply.

Given your failure to provide any real information, despite your criticism,
I'm not convinced you know what you're doing either.

> Knowing that you did go for it, changes absolutely nothing.

Really? Let me remind you what you wrote in your little supercilious comment
about the fatal flaws:

> And I can't resist a little addendum - you would have done much better if
> you simply swallowed those two tabs, sat down in a comfy chair, put some
> nice music on, and tried to figure out what are those extravagant claims of
> psychonauts about ;)

You should have resisted, because you look like an idiot when you say that and
I turned out to have done exactly that without the consequences you apparently
expected.

------
leoedin
An interesting analysis with a fantastic level of detail. Much of the gwern's
stuff is similarly well researched - I'm a big fan! However, I can't help
feeling that it's fundamentally flawed.

I understand that much of the statistical analysis done is to provide as
rigorous a study as is practical, however I think in some cases it misses the
point slightly. The biggest issue is that the variables that drive all the
analysis are ultimately almost all perception based. I'd imagine that gwern is
far more in tune with his perception of things than the average person will be
(a by product of doing so many double blind tests), but ultimately he's still
just a human. For me, many of the variables in the study - how well I slept,
my mood, my willingness to work - vary considerably day to day anyway.

Ultimately, the study found no difference. Given that we know that LSD is very
active at the right doses, the only thing that you can really take away from
this is that the dose wasn't high enough. Until a study has been done which
yields perceptable differences, positive or negative, you can't really draw
any conclusions. It's probably also fair to assume that the dose used was
likely to be smaller than stated (a by product of the black market), and so
the microdoses used were correspondingly reduced.

~~~
gwern
> For me, many of the variables in the study - how well I slept, my mood, my
> willingness to work - vary considerably day to day anyway.

Certainly. That's why it took closer to 6 months rather than 6 days. The more
variation, the more data you need.

> Ultimately, the study found no difference. Given that we know that LSD is
> very active at the right doses, the only thing that you can really take away
> from this is that the dose wasn't high enough.

No. What you can take away from this is 'while no one doubts that at 100μg and
higher one gets dramatic psychedelic effects, the suggestions that at tiny
doses like 10μg there are non-psychedelic genericly positive effects, may not
be true'. Don't confuse your hypotheses here.

~~~
munchhausen
> No. What you can take away from this is 'while no one doubts that at 100μg
> and higher one gets dramatic psychedelic effects, the suggestions that at
> tiny doses like 10μg there are non-psychedelic genericly positive effects,
> may not be true'. Don't confuse your hypotheses here.

What?? No, you can't take that away. In fact, what GP said still makes a lot
more sense. 10ug didn't work for you, thus the dose was too low. Have you
tried 15? 20? 30? It would almost certainly be sub-threshold when it comes to
the psychedelia (unless you are a true freak of nature), but, who knows, maybe
you would get an amazing nootropic effect!

Why did you decide to abort your experiment after trying only an arbitrary
dose of 10ug?

~~~
gwern
> Have you tried 15? 20? 30? It would almost certainly be sub-threshold when
> it comes to the psychedelia (unless you are a true freak of nature), but,
> who knows, maybe you would get an amazing nootropic effect!

What? Dose-response curves do not work that way. They do not look like binary
circuits where at 10mcg they do absolutely nothing and then at 15mcg go to the
moon. They look like curves. If 15 mcg was better than 12, then I should have
observed something like a medium effect. If 20mcg was better than 12, I should
have observed something like a small-medium effect. If 30mcg was best, I
should have seen signs of a small effect, possibly not statistically-
significant, but clear point-value shifts. I observed none of that.

> Why did you decide to abort your experiment after trying only an arbitrary
> dose of 10ug?

It was closer to 12mcg, I did not 'abort' the experiment but carried it out to
completion exactly as I had planned, and it was not arbitrary but close to the
middle of the reasonable range of 5-30mcg.

------
amerryprankster
Throwaway here, for obvious reasons.

I'm aware of a double-digit participant, single-blind, randomized study of
microdosing LSD. ~30 individuals. There are gaps in the survey results, but
the whole thing was...intriguing.

No one is willing to take the risk of publishing, even anonymously. I won't
insult your intelligence by discussing the results of such a chimera. I post
only to lament the loss of scholarly freedom in our age.

~~~
gwern
> No one is willing to take the risk of publishing, even anonymously.

I find it hard to believe that such an experiment could not be written up in a
way that made it impossible to guess who the participants were. In fact, I
would be happy to do just that and add it to my page for you; you can find my
PGP key in
[http://www.gwern.net/Links#contact](http://www.gwern.net/Links#contact) (I am
routinely contacted by people through PGP, especially post-Snowden, so your
email would not stick out).

------
cnp
My microdosing experiments have always left me on the depressed and anxious
side of the spectrum, even with ensured quality LSD. Its not something I would
repeat. That said, my personal lower threshold is around ~300-400ug, where all
of the negative effects disappear, and the positive, well-observed longer-term
ones remain.

~~~
lelf
300-400μg? Lower threshold?

~~~
tsaoutourpants
The μ means micro, so it must be small! ;)

Taking 300μg LSD would make most people quite... uncomfortable. A normal
recreational dose is 100μg, so I'm not sure how what this guy has done is in
any way similar to microdosing unless he weighs about 1,000 lbs.

~~~
cnp
What I meant to express is that longterm, small 10-30ug microdoses _do_ have
an effect on me, and that effect is largely negative, but that my "sweet spot"
in terms of experience is very high. Less that 300ug creates almost no
observably "psychedelic" effects; its like a wasted experience with purely
psychological residue. And so, following, one would think that for someone
with such a high tolerance actual microdosing would have no effect at all; it
does, and that effect manifests itself in a sort of unpleasant underlying low-
level depression and anxiety.

~~~
pessimizer
Small amounts probably put your thought processes into a sort of "uncanny
valley," where you can notice something is wrong, but not enough to revel in
it.

It's like going outside with your zipper open, rather than with no pants at
all:)

>for someone with such a high tolerance

I don't think that there's a tolerance with LSD. There's a learning curve,
rather; it doesn't affect you any less, you just deal with it better.

------
Kapura
Ultimately, as many, many, users are pointing out, this is not a controlled
lab experiment despite its rigour. I applaud the author for taking initiative
and I'm so happy that people are looking at drugs that are anecdotally
supposed to have these positive effects, but ultimately the weaknesses
inherent in testing a schedule I drug without gov't approval sink any real
findings.

That being said, I find this experiment fascinating. I've taken LSD several
times and intend to take it again in the future, and I've always had
incredibly positive times with the drug in active doses (>150 micrograms each
time). I think it's not illogical to assume that some of the positive benefits
can be reached with a much smaller dose, but I agree with the author that
anecdotal evidence is not convincing enough on this point.

Were this experiment to be repeated, I would like to see several key changes:
\- A more accurate knowledge of the EXACT dosages used. LSD, as many have
pointed out, is keen to react and de-nature. A chemist making and distributing
the chemicals in a more professional manner than tabs from silk road would be
a huge step forward \- A broader user base to sample on. Drugs don't
necessarily have the same effects, at the same dosages, for different people.
I believe that the author didn't receive positive effects from his dosages,
but that might be the dosages or him or it might do nothing.

These nagging points hinder an otherwise very well-thought-out and conducted
study.

------
mbrock
How about doing a binary search to find the threshold dose and then
investigating the effects of that?

~~~
mordae
Which is basically how serious psychonauts perform this experiment for
themselves. The microdose threshold seems to be somewhere between 8ug and
30ug, depending on the person.

SWIM have tried 20ug and reported increase of energy comparable to drinking
several energy drinks and have crashed pretty hard after 5 hours with
increased perspiration, chills and unusual tiredness. He talked about mood
elevation, heightened perception and both ability to faster enter "the zone",
but also inability to stay there for a longer periods. He wanted "to have some
fun" and "be more active" instead of programming.

He did not recommend it, because simply getting a better sleep and a nice
breakfast have been more productive for him.

------
alecsmart1
Wow that's a lot of data. I found it a little too complicated to understand.
Would it be possible for someone to write a small summary? Did microdosing
work for the author?

~~~
brianlweiner
In the first section:

"I concluded that if anything, the LSD microdosing may done the opposite of
what I wanted. Given that this is the opposite of almost all microdosing
anecdotes and this pattern suggests placebo & expectancy effects, I strongly
urge any future self-experimenters to up their methodological rigor, and
especially to blind their doses."

~~~
kh_hk
The last part you quote is really important to understand the conclusion.

Expectancy and mood can really alter psychedelic experiences. Can't be sure
for microdosing, though.

Now, how could an experiment up the methodological rigor? Maybe signing a
contract where one does accept to be given microdoses of LSD randomly in a
period of 5 years, and secretly spilling it on his water?

------
gnidan
I wonder what the OP's previous experience with psychedelics is, and if it
would have any effect on this sort of experiment.

~~~
gwern
I had none. Before starting the microdosing, I tripped with the second tab I
had bought. It was an enjoyable and very interesting experience.

------
Tenoke
A very thorough study by gwern and an enjoyable read.

I am very glad that he has decided to conduct the study and to post the
results online and hope that people won't judge him for experimenting with
illegal substances for the sake of science.

------
vilhelm_s
With drugs like Ritalin there is a sweetspot. Some people (in the extreme case
ADHD sufferers) have low levels of dopamine, and the drug can help them
concentrate. Others already have high levels, and taking more hurts their
study performance.

Under gwern's "temperature" theory, it seems the same should be true for this
kind of LSD microdosing -- surely we should expect to see both people who
benefit from additional creativity and people who already are creative enough?

------
dsrguru
Given the recent tendency for similarly potent drugs like the DOx class of
psychedelic amphetamines to be falsely sold as LSD, I'm highly skeptical of an
experiment whose supply comes from a random dealer online and doesn't seem to
have been tested for identity or purity.

~~~
cnp
I think an important piece of information that is missing from the experiment
is the name of the vendor who he purchased the tabs from. For those with an
interest in high-quality LSD, Silk Road was the place to go, and certain
vendors were repeatedly tested, both laboratory-wise as well as via trip-
tests.

(Let me take a moment and say RIP to SR; legitimate, multilayered good-faith
efforts at harm-reduction were just dramatically reduced.)

But continuing, knowing the vendor, as well as his overall reputation, would
add credence to the 100ug assumption.

~~~
gwern
> I think an important piece of information that is missing from the
> experiment is the name of the vendor who he purchased the tabs from.

VitaCat. For all the details you could want, see
[http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road#lsd-case-
study](http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road#lsd-case-study)

~~~
dsrguru
Thanks for responding. I'm no longer skeptical!

~~~
gwern
I didn't include it in the original writeup because I thought 'well, it's not
like SR sellers are household names and anyone would go "oh! VitaCat! I know
that dude, he's good stuff"'. Guess I was wrong...

/edits writeup to be more explicit about the LSD source.

~~~
dsrguru
It's not that I know of the specific seller. I have never consumed LSD. I have
never been on the SR and now obviously never will. However, you included so
many details to demonstrate the rigor of your process, yet you didn't explain
how you knew you were even using LSD, which seems to be far and away the
single most important detail of the experiment. Now you have!

------
schenecstasy
I've always been curious about microdosing -- would the effects not be
dissimilar to certain antidepressants that work on serotonin receptors?

~~~
schenecstasy
I see he's referenced such an example here:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/Drugs/comments/1ok9iy/another_lsd_mi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Drugs/comments/1ok9iy/another_lsd_microdosing_experiment/)

------
dreamdu5t
So has gwern done a psychedelic dose of LSD?

> Everything I’ve heard or read is consistent with what such experiences seem
> to be: the brain in a very unusual state, malfunctioning in many respects
> and perhaps functioning better in a few other respects.

I simply cannot take that seriously from someone who has not had a proper
psychedelic trip from LSD. "You have no idea" would be a massive
understatement.

Take 250ug then try and write an article about it.

~~~
nilved
Why not? Isn't that what it is?

~~~
dreamdu5t
No. 10ug of LSD does nothing, it has no psychedelic aspect to it at all. You
need 100ug+ to have a decent trip, and 200ug+ to have the kind of trip that
people become religious about.

An analogy would be saying that taking a sip of a glass of beer had some sort
of effect. It's like if someone said they'd never had a drink in their life
but are going to see if they can reproduce some positive effects of being
drunk by taking a sip of beer once a day.

~~~
tedks
This is about microdosing, not tripping. There are some claims (one recently
on reddit/r/nootropics) that taking very low doses of LSD will have various
positive cognitive effects. Gwern here attempts to test these claims.

If people said that taking a sip of beer had positive effects, I'd expect
Gwern to test that as well.

------
mumbi
Micro-dosing is a waste of time if you're actually curious about the effects
of LSD.

~~~
blaabjerg
No it isn't. It's a waste of time if you're curious about the effects of a
full dose of LSD or want a trip, but that's not the purpose here.

Did you read even the first sentence of the article?

~~~
mumbi
I read the first few paragraphs. The comments turned me off to the rest.

------
vcavallo
Gwern always delivers something interesting (and dense!)

------
paul
Materialism is such a narrow and limiting dogma.

~~~
pessimizer
In that it limits you to alternatives that at least have the possibility of
being correct, yes.

~~~
gruseom
That is circular reasoning.

------
alecsmart1
Thank you. I missed that.

~~~
gwern
Very easy to miss, as I only posted it publicly this morning.

~~~
alecsmart1
I was actually replying to my other comment regarding the summary.
Accidentally it got posted as a separate comment and then got downvoted like
hell. I wish there was a delete option in HN (alteast like a delete within 5
minutes).

