HALLUCINOGENS MAY CREATE OPENMINDEDNESS!?! WHAT NEWS!!!!!

Wow, my mind is blown right off of it's jar lid with this astute observation. Indubitabley so. In fact, I rate this up there with "Bong rips may induce relaxaing effects and minor lung damage".

THANKS SCIENCE :U

Finally, there is research which is sponsored by a national drug association and is done without bias. Although it is true that an increase in any of the big five personality traits (OCEAN) I do think an increase in participants of openness and imagination is a positive thing.  

They should do a study on its effect on people with depression! specifically existential depression.

They should also study the effects of Ayahuasca.  I wonder how it would compare to this experiment...

I had a friend in high school that took mushrooms once and became severly withdrawn afterwards because of the halucinations he had. He ended up comitting suicide. Not all personality changes are good.

As facinating as this is, and as little as I oppose to using recreational drugs for medicinal puroses, I cant help but think "Got a nicoteen addiction? Have some magic mushrooms!"

It causes PERMENTANT PERSONALITY CHANGES? That actualy new and interesting!

The methodology of this study is suspect. 

Volunteers who knowingly sign up for a study of a drug they know or suspect to be mind-altering are not a representative sample of the range of normal personalities that exist in the general population.  They are likely to be risk takers, open to new experiences and impressionable.  Curiously, that list includes the variable that is supposed to have significantly changed - in the same direction. 

It is also noted that "nearly all" the subjects were actively "spiritual" - whatever that term actually means.  Such a high percentage of people who consider themselves "spiritual" does not occur naturally, even in a population as religious as the United States of America.  In other industrialized countries a population that was nearly all "spiritual" would be quite abnormal.  On this dimension, the U.S. is an aberrant outlier.  At the very least, this suggests that the psycho-social environment of life in the United States is a hidden and unacknowledged variable here.  Gullibility and openness to subjective change may be a function of the average American environment.  The already existing predisposition to this personality triat may have merely been enhanced by the titillating participation in an experiment with a substance that is illegal in that country. 

That factor alone indicates that the subjects are more likely than an average person, especially one educated in a more rational environment, to be open to mental suggestion and "openness" to new experiences.  The reactions from a bunch of skeptics, or even a sample culled from average residents of Sweden or Japan, would probably be quite different.   In other words, there is no guarentee that the results would be repeatable in other cultures or with people with other pre-exisiting personality types.

It was reported that more than half the subjects had "post graduate degrees".  These are presumably American level degrees which do not correspond to (the generally higher level of) same-name qualifications in other developed countries.  In the U.S. a "postgraduate degree" is not a good indication of intellectual competence or superiority, as evidenced by a recent President with a postgraduate degree from a prestigious American university who consistently demonstrated a level of mental competence that appeared lower than the national average, even for that country.  Degrees that are awarded for fact regurgitation rather than independent research, or on the basis of the ability to pay the tutition fees,  are not good indicators of critical thinking ability or of a person's resistence to social influence or suggestion.

It is hard to know whether it was the drug or the experimental experience that caused the apparent personality change.  There is nothing to indicate that it could not have been caused by the placebo effect of expecting the experience to be salient and mind-altering in some significant way.  There is also no way of determining the level of objectivity of a "personality test" that may have relied entirely on self-report and subjective interpretations.  

No negative effects were recorded. These are almost always apparent in large scale studies of drugs which are otherwise shown to have a generally useful effect on most people.  This is a strong indication that the results are incomplete, invalid or non-representative.  There may have been experiemental or reporting bias, a less than optimum sample size or a sample that is non-representative of the normal population (as I have already claimed.)

BTW, the experimenters appear to be psychiatrists (trained in medical science and psychological medicine), not psychologists (trained in behavioral sciences and psychometrics.)   If the study were designed and repeated by competent behavioral scientists (rather than mental health practitioners) it would be hoped that the study would be more methodologically sound.  The results of well-designed study could be very different. 

There is no mention, at least in this article, of the size of the effect.  Was it large enough to make a significant difference in the lives of the subjects?  Or was it merely an interesting trend?  What about the effects on the control group of subjects?  Was there a control group?  Were there a bunch of subjects with matching original personalities that were given another illegal mind-altering drug that could have been reasonably mistaken for the experimental one by a niave subject?  Were the subjects niave? 

Meanwhile, no-one has asked how the personalities of the researchers interacted with the personalities of their subjects and whether the experimenters also underwent a "personality change".   The phenomena of "false memory recall" is more widely applicable than an impressionable adult falsely believing that they were raped by a family member in their formative years. 

The sad thing about such studies is that readers without the statistical or research skills to assess the information will draw unwarranted conclusions about its significance or reliability.   Another unfortunate effect is that such studies attract research funding and grant money. 

Thanks, Dan.  I will check out the original article.  Thank you for providing the link.

Welp, looks like Dan already addressed that issue. Thanks.

By the way, the authors should compare their results with the "waiting list phenomena" familiar to psychotherapists.  One third of all potential patients improve simply by being placed on a waiting list.  No therapeutic intervention required!  

Dan: 
Thank you for the link.  I am printing the document out, will read it carefully and get back to you.  I am, of course, prepared to change my opinion, should my criticisms prove to be unfounded, overstated or inappropriate.

Rich:
I am not disputing the importance of psychiatric involvement in the study. As you point out, it was imperative.  However, unlike you, I have good reason to be highly skeptical of the level of statistical ability among the average research psychiatrist.

During my specialist training years my fellow colleagues on psychiatric ward rounds were involved in testing patients who were part of teh unit's study into the memory and executive problems associated with chronic alcohol abuse.  The study was designed and run by psychiatrists working in that unit.  Unfortunately, the methodology and statistical sophistication was embarassingly niave. 

To begin with most of the subjects in the study were recruited by sending out letters to people whose hospital records listed them as having been admitted to the general hospital with an alcohol problem in the preceding years.  The letters were went to the previous patient's last know address. In this letter these former patients were invited to attend the hospital at the appointment time given. 

It did not seem to occur to the research designers or those directing the study that this recruitment method would result in a biased subject population.  It appeared designed to effectively screen out patients with the worst memories and alcohol related executive dysfunctions.  The exceptions would be those ex-patients who were being cared for and monitored by family members who did not have these problems. This would introduce further biases related to nutrition and domiciliary adequacy and stability.

The nine specialist psychology students were professionally embarrassed to be (forcibly) involved such a study.  We were in agreement that we would almost certainly have failed the mandatory advanced methodology componant of the standard professional degree had we made similar mistakes.  We were not even sure that we would have made the quota it into the final two years of that four year program.  Yet here we were being professionally "supervised" by someone with this level of research incompetence.

Of course, this is no proof that all psychiatrists are as deficient in research skills of this nature, or that the ones involved in this particular drug study are either.  It does, however, mean that I am slow to assume that someone with this academic and practising professional background is necessarily competent in these areas.  Nor can I assume that the person who is technically directing such a study is willing and able to prevent the commission of such flaws or that participating professionals with these skills have any power to affect the research procedures. 

That is a pretty glaring error in research design. However I'd caution against your own "availability bias." Unless you've seen systematically that psychiatry programs do a poor job of preparing researchers, you shouldn't assume most are incompetent. I'm sure there are quite a few incompetent psychology researchers out there, too.

After a quick glance, it appears that some of your concerns are addressed in the article. The authors question the generalizability of the study because most were spiritual, well-educated, and hallucinogen-naive. Would agnostics and athiests also have mystical experiences that translate into greater openness?

The study is double-blind in that some participants got increasingly stronger doses and others got increasingly weaker doses, this allows for a comparison of when increased openness began to take place, wsa it after the 0mg dose or the 30mg dose, etc.? Evidently, they wanted to study the effect of ascending vs. descending doses as well.

Seems like a decent study suggesting psilocybn correlates with some people becoming more open. It would be nice to see a study with a simple double-blind control that you mention.

Umm, psilocybin is exactly what causes hallucinations.  Just because it's metabolized to psilocin in the body makes no difference.  If you remove the psilocybin from "magic mushrooms", you remove the trip.  It is both necessary and sufficient to induce hallucinations.  And yes, psilocin is structurally similar to serotonin, and that should come as no surprise.  Did you expect a "magic mushroom" receptor in the brain?  Drugs exert their effects in the human brain (or any brain for that matter) by acting on receptors that have been evolving for thousands of years.  And "structurally similar" does not mean "the same", or drug companies marketing SSRIs like Prozac, Zoloft, etc. which increase the amount of brain serotonin, would have thousands of customers under their bed in the fetal position because their refrigerator was trying to eat them.

Two words: set/setting!!!!

fully grown adults without a history of recreational drug use, using psilocybin in a clinical, controlled environment = Certified Good Trip

but a teenager using psilocybin recreationally is a gamble. You don't know what's going to happen.

Any intoxicant will act upon personality traits and then exaggerate their effect depending on the circumstance. I would be interested to see this study used with other drugs; alcohol or perhaps ketamine. How many people do you know that are more open minded when drunk, and then when sober, equally so. Are not other people more close minded when drunk, and then when sober, the mindset remains. Then again, they are also depressed a little bit more as well. Loosening ones grip on self control only acts to do just that, bring about polarized and often long lasting shifts in personality. 

A manic depressive will act more or less more manic or more depressed. A schizophrenic, will act more schizophrenic. Someone depressed, more depressed. You get the idea. It acts upon current systems, it does not create new dichotomies. Unless permanent changes are made within the brain chemistry that carry over, then the argument is that the experience is what alters the mindset and believe it or not, people tend to strengthen positions they hold. 

The idea that this creates openness is contrary to current models of understanding the effcts of drugs, and is therefore interesting. However, I would tend to argue that anyone within this study, must be pretty god damned open minded.

Like, super liberal hippy open minded.

Test conservatives and you may find that closed mindedness is the result.

Now THERE is a sensible suggestion! How do we get it to them? Water supply?

Reddit strapped me to a chair and forced me to watch kiddie porn!

This is good news, we need to give this to all the american politicains.

I can think of a few people I'd like to experment on, where can I get some? 

maybe the people who are against the use of hallucinagens could try some to become more OPEN MINDED!

thank you science for confirming something we all already knew! :P

Psilocybin and other similar drugs are not necessary for the experiences and results referenced in the article. Stanislav Grof, one of the pioneers of consciousness research (including at Johns Hopkins), developed Holotropic Breathwork as a way to achieve this without using 'drugs'. Much of the current research on the healing benefits of non-ordinary states of consciousness are revisiting Grof's work from decades ago. See Grof's site here: http://www.stanislavgrof.com/

Bill, is HPPD not a 'physical' change in the brain, i.e. inhibitory neurons in certain areas, that presents long term problems for sufferers in that they have constant visual disturbances long after (up to 30+ years in some cases!) the drug has worn off?

Interesting paper below:

http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/pharmacology/visualdistortions.html

Love it.

Hahah I've done shrooms about 10 or so times myself now, and boy it is an experience that i think everyone should have. This being said however my flat mate had some, and his trip was something else, but it really does make you wonder what reality and consciousnesses is when you think about a food, a simple mushroom that you can eat can alter you mind and your perception of everything. Deep stuff!

Let us never forget the immortal words of Mr. Mackey.

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Two types of people reading and posting here.  Those who have a clue what they're on about and those who don't.  I would say that the length of the post is directly proportional to the amount clue'd up.

Hmmmn, as an after thought I'd better waffle on a bit longer hadn't I, or I'll fall victim to my own rule.

I'm no academic, but I've always known that ANYTHING I put into my body in a sufficent quantity will be bad for me.  Not just "bad" drugs like E or weed or LSD or whatever, but "softer" more socially ok drugs like alcohol too.  Come to think about it, exactly how much aspirin would it take to damage me?  Because if it's damaging in any quantity surely it should be banned right?  Yet it's still legal to be served in a shop when the only things in your basket are boxes of painkillers and litres of vodka.

And then what about monosodium glutamate?  Or hydrogenated vegetable oil?  And then look at what sugar does to your teeth!  Enough of anything will give an effect less than desirable,  the only question is quantity required.

Looking at both sides I suppose at least mushrooms are natural and don't require a lab or factory machine to make.  Unlike everything else I've mentioned in this post which are all manufactured with extra added chemicals to make them last longer or look a nice colour.

There.  Clue'd right up me init!  Now Viktor can give the president the 'shrooms.

you can't ban nature, and why tell people what to do?

the people voted you in, stop telling them what to do, they should tell you politicans what to do instead! (but you never listen)

why ban mescaline,shrooms,weed,salvia,dmt ?

the only reason is that people will find out that money isn't the most importatnt thing in life like they have been brainwashed to think, the government (as we know it) would collapse if everybody did psychedelics

they would start living simple life, they don't need to consume as much, they don't need money when they can grow their own vegetables etc., they would start loving and sharing and being more open minded, it would be very bad for the economy likely

but I agree that our leaders should do psychedelics at high doses, they're the most closed minded people I can give examples of

psychedelics are no more dangerous than ordinary life if used with respect, chosing the wrong career and spending many years on it can give you a 'bad experience' just as much as a bad experience with the mushroom, or finding the wrong girlfriend etc.

psychedelics can help you free your mind of its limits, social limits (social anxiety) etc., so you can talk to strangers etc., they will throw your problems in your face, so you know exactly what to work on, and they don't make you lazy(foggy) like weed do, you will feel more ready to work the next day.

they can make you see the world with the eyes of a child again, wouldn't that be wonderful? no fear, just acceptance of everything there is, and yourself, as well as enjoying everything you see (egodeath can do that).