Psychedelics in psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy

Yeah, and the fact that a placebo can pull off similar results just proves people can hit those same marks without needing any psychoactive junk in their system...

redharbor9 said:Yeah, and the fact that a placebo can pull off similar results just proves people can hit those same marks without needing any psychoactive junk in their system...

So, we're talking about high anxiety and a psychotic break? 🙂

Nah, I’m talking about altered states of consciousness and how you perceive things... but that’s way outside the code of conduct so there probably isn't any 😛

redharbor9 said:Nah, I’m talking about altered states of consciousness and how you perceive things... but that’s way outside the code of conduct so there probably isn't any 😛

It "doesn't exist"? Even the most hardcore behaviorists never doubted consciousness was a thing...

What would be interesting to see is how much those states—whether reached via psychedelics or naturally—actually overlap. People's experiences with psychedelics vary depending on what they take (for instance, an ayahuasca trip feels qualitatively different from psilocybin or LSD), and even different people using the same substance have unique journeys, yet certain themes always seem to resurface.

Has anyone looked into how similar or different the altered states of a yogi or a hermit practicing in the desert actually are compared to someone on psychedelics?

Maybe someone into spirituality can weigh in...

We really need to dig deeper into the neuro side of this. We should be tracking how brain function shifts under the influence of specific substances, hypnosis, or even just altered states of consciousness.

I haven’t stumbled across much research doing exactly that. Honestly, the answers are probably out there if you just start connecting the dots between studies that look at these ideas individually...

For instance, I can't find many studies actually comparing meditation to hypnotic trance from a neurological standpoint. But since both topics get plenty of individual attention, you could easily find the overlaps...

The gold standard would be an experiment where you track the same subject through all of it.

I recall two similar studies, though my knowledge comes more from personal experience than formal research. One involved a guy who founded an institute for this kind of work; he practiced hypnosis himself before shifting his focus toward other states of consciousness, eventually concluding they weren't quite the same thing. Then there’s that comparison between hypnosis and the specific state a famous writer used to enter during creative bursts—something Erikson studied. Even they concluded that while there are similarities, they aren't identical. This is why I can't stand it when people (looking at you, Bandler) try to lump everything together under the umbrella of hypnosis.

Personally, I think if we wanted to actually study therapeutic benefits, experimenting with Ayahuasca or Iboga would be far more productive than using LSD, at least based on what users report.🤔

I recall some researcher—maybe an Eastern Bloc academic, a psychologist from somewhere near the old Soviet sphere—who conducted certain studies back in the day. I can't quite pin down the name right now, but there should be plenty of documentation online if you look for it.

If we were to assume a set of perfectly idealized conditions—where recruiting ten to a hundred volunteers isn't an issue, you have a full team of specialists on hand, and nobody is asking where the LSD, salvia, or psilocybin actually came from... how would one even go about conducting functional experimentation using legitimate scientific methods given a sufficient sample size?

For instance, what kind of hypotheses or core questions would actually justify launching such an experiment? How would one control for variables, or what sort of standardized questionnaires could be utilized—or perhaps some other methodology—to properly assess the subjects?
What exactly would the objective be?

Let’s say this was all being run as a "B-side" production—nothing fancy, no budget for high-end laboratory equipment. We're talking nothing more than a digital camera, a kitchen scale, some paper, and a pen as the primary instruments...
and the human brain, obviously.

So, what’s the actual process for testing any kind of psychiatric medication?

I mean... it might not be in Big Pharma's best interest, but if there's even a shred of truth to using ibogaine for addiction, I find it wild that we aren't seeing more research on it. Instead, we just keep pushing half-baked solutions like methadone. 🤔

Sure, it's all just talk right now, but that's exactly why we need to be doing the research. 🤷

I read somewhere that Ecstasy was actually used in psychotherapy back before it was banned—specifically for couples counseling and family therapy.

Rebecca Bennett41 said:And what would one even consider a standard dosage in this context?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STANDARD DOSE!

redharbor9 said:We really need to dig deeper into the neuro side of this. We should be tracking how brain function shifts under the influence of specific substances, hypnosis, or even just altered states of consciousness.

I haven’t stumbled across much research doing exactly that. Honestly, the answers are probably out there if you just start connecting the dots between studies that look at these ideas individually...

For instance, I can't find many studies actually comparing meditation to hypnotic trance from a neurological standpoint. But since both topics get plenty of individual attention, you could easily find the overlaps...

The gold standard would be an experiment where you track the same subject through all of it.

Ethically speaking, it’s a gray area, especially considering the "substance" involved.

Then there's the fact that the effects of various hallucinogens are completely heterogeneous. Basically, the topic itself is way too broad and generalized for a single study. Hallucinations alone are the result of a whole web of neurotransmitter systems being stimulated in the brain. It isn't as simple as saying, "Oh, dopamine is up, so that's it." I'm exaggerating slightly, but still—what about the other effects besides just hallucinations?
It's too varied. You’d need to select much more precise parameters to get anything remotely useful.
Otherwise, if you narrow those three things down to specific parameters and look closer, they aren't actually that comparable. They only seem that way on the surface. For example, based on how the default mode network functions, psychotic states and meditative states should be fundamentally different—almost opposites. Maybe that’s exactly why this kind of research is lacking.

bluemason3 said:So, what’s the actual process for testing any kind of psychiatric medication?

I mean... it might not be in Big Pharma's best interest, but if there's even a shred of truth to using ibogaine for addiction, I find it wild that we aren't seeing more research on it. Instead, we just keep pushing half-baked solutions like methadone. 🤔

Sure, it's all just talk right now, but that's exactly why we need to be doing the research. 🤷

Of course it's not in their interest—producing iboga is probably a hundred times more expensive than mass-producing methadone, and apparently, the results are basically the same.

Wait, which scientific journal did you read that in? Where exactly does it say that iboga is "more effective" than methadone when it comes to keeping people off harder drugs?

crimsonhound80 said:Of course it's not in their interest—producing iboga is probably a hundred times more expensive than mass-producing methadone, and apparently, the results are basically the same.

Wait, which scientific journal did you read that in? Where exactly does it say that iboga is "more effective" than methadone when it comes to keeping people off harder drugs?

None. Do you think research studies just happen by accident?

I haven't heard anyone say it's used for "maintenance." I have heard about people getting off drugs after taking iboga, and I know it can't be addictive because the effects wear off and don't hit the same way twice (if I'm remembering correctly—and honestly, it isn't exactly a pleasant experience, so nobody is using it "recreationally" or on a regular basis). It doesn't seem like it could "maintain" someone the way methadone does. To me, they don't look even remotely similar.

"Quote:"

bluemason3 said:So, what’s the actual process for testing any kind of psychiatric medication?

I mean... it might not be in Big Pharma's best interest, but if there's even a shred of truth to using ibogaine for addiction, I find it wild that we aren't seeing more research on it. Instead, we just keep pushing half-baked solutions like methadone. 🤔

Sure, it's all just talk right now, but that's exactly why we need to be doing the research. 🤷

There’s actually some official research out there on this—it’s not like nobody is looking into it. For example...
Check out this study on Ibogaine: www.ibogaine.org/Ibogaine_JEP_Alper_et_al_2008_9-24.pdf

bluemason3 said:None. Do you think research studies just happen by accident?

I haven't heard anyone say it's used for "maintenance." I have heard about people getting off drugs after taking iboga, and I know it can't be addictive because the effects wear off and don't hit the same way twice (if I'm remembering correctly—and honestly, it isn't exactly a pleasant experience, so nobody is using it "recreationally" or on a regular basis). It doesn't seem like it could "maintain" someone the way methadone does. To me, they don't look even remotely similar.

The real issue with long-term addicts isn't the physical detox—clearing the drugs out of the system—it's staying clean because of those new neural pathways that formed during years of drug use.

It's just like the old rumors about LSD supposedly helping people "easily" kick alcohol addictions through hallucinations!!??

And then what!?

Hardcore addicts and severe alcoholics are still latent addicts even after they've cleaned up; they can slip back into the cycle in a month, a year, or ten years down the line.
Very few people actually stay sober for their entire lives without relapsing into alcoholism or drug use.
There are no miracle cures, no matter how romanticized that idea sounds.

Methadone is a medication prescribed for "maintenance" after the initial detox. It essentially feeds those hungry synapses and neuroreceptors that got completely messed up (read: expanded) during long-term drug abuse.

A lot of people think the struggle to maintain abstinence is purely psychological, but it really isn't—it's physiological, neurological. It's the disrupted structure of the brain cells responsible for neurotransmission.

I won't go on a tangent about alcoholics being put on maintenance, but they're often prescribed antidepressants or anxiolytics, and former drug users get Methadone on top of all those "preparations."

Because of those disruptions in the nervous system (which I'm trying my best to explain here), there is no magic plant or magic pill that can snap you back to your "original" state overnight.

So, the prevailing standard seems to be that psychedelic experiences are essentially dismissed as "meaningless"—as if they don't actually count toward a clinical picture. If a client or patient were to sit down and describe a deeply personal, transformative encounter with such a substance, would a psychiatrist or psychologist simply check a box noting a "psychotic episode" and call it a day? Is that really where the conversation ends?

I’m asking whether anyone actually considers the entire cognitive and emotional discourse an individual carries away from such a state—those profound, albeit sometimes chaotic, realizations... or even the specific shape and content of the hallucinations themselves, which could serve as a window into the person's psyche. Or is all of that just brushed aside as nothing more than side effects of intoxication?

Furthermore, how does the psychiatric approach to dreams differ from how they treat psychedelic experiences? One is studied, the other is dismissed... or so it seems.

There’s actually been quite a bit of research done on LSD over the years.
Back in the day, even the US Army looked into whether LSD could be used as a weapon. Psychologists also started using it to get a better handle on patient disorders, and eventually, it was even explored as a therapy for all sorts of things, including stress.
In the past, if someone wanted to try it, they could basically visit a psychiatrist to get a dose, though you had to stay at the clinic until the effects wore off. It usually went something like this

Once you took the dose, a nurse would lead you to a dark room that was totally soundproofed. You’d lie down on a couch, they’d cover your eyes, and some soft music would start playing. You’d just lie there for a few hours and soak it all in. Basically, LSD works by scrambling your brain receptors. It makes it hard for the brain to tell the difference between sound and sight, or even physical sensations. A lot of people say when they listen to music during a trip, they actually start "seeing" the music as a visual thing rather than just hearing it—it’s honestly pretty impossible to describe, but it sounds wonderful.

There’s a documentary floating around online somewhere; you should look it up on YouTube. It’s really, really interesting. I’ve personally tried it three times over the last ten years, and it’s just indescribable. I honestly think anyone who is stable enough to handle a trip should definitely try it at least once in their life.

Exactly. My only suggestion would be to make them do it at their own risk. In other words, if they end up getting sick, they should foot the entire medical bill themselves. We shouldn't be draining the taxpayers—people who actually work for a living and rightfully avoid this stuff—just to subsidize someone else's choices. It comes down to a simple choice: do you find meaning in being responsible and keeping your feet on the ground, or is the "meaning of life" found in "receptor confusion" and mystical trips? (If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.)
If anyone still thinks this sounds like a great idea, go for it!

Keith Jones76 said:Exactly. My only suggestion would be to make them do it at their own risk. In other words, if they end up getting sick, they should foot the entire medical bill themselves. We shouldn't be draining the taxpayers—people who actually work for a living and rightfully avoid this stuff—just to subsidize someone else's choices. It comes down to a simple choice: do you find meaning in being responsible and keeping your feet on the ground, or is the "meaning of life" found in "receptor confusion" and mystical trips? (If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.)
If anyone still thinks this sounds like a great idea, go for it!

If only it were that simple. You really have to ask yourself: "why does someone start using drugs in the first place?" Not everyone does it just for fun. For many, it starts with psychiatric issues—things like a rough upbringing, losing loved ones, and all those other factors that create a sort of black hole in the subconscious that's incredibly hard to climb out of.

The human psyche isn't quite as straightforward as you seem to think.

By that logic, you’d tell people on psychiatric meds: "Hey, you creeps, stop taking your antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, or anti-epileptics, because YOU are the ones driving our healthcare system into the ground."

Everyone should pay for their own illness. Screw socialized medicine—I’m healthy, so why should I care? 🙄 🙄

Anxiety is clearly clouding your judgment. Take a closer look and you'll see the logic behind my response to post #30. I'm quoting here:

This is incredibly interesting stuff. I’ve tried it three times over the last decade, and honestly, words can't really do it justice. I truly believe anyone with enough mental stability to handle a trip should experience it at least once in their lifetime.

And now, I'll quote your misguided rebuttal:

Not everyone uses drugs just for fun, and not everyone started doing it for that reason either.

The point is, I'm talking about recreational use—and someone here certainly seems to be doing exactly that!