Silicon Valley Avant-garde Have Turned To LSD in a Bid To Increase Their Productivity (1843magazine.com) 306
Every three days Nathan (not his real name), a 27-year-old venture capitalist in San Francisco, ingests 15 micrograms of lysergic acid diethylamide (commonly known as LSD or acid). From a story on 1843 Magazine: From the start, a small but significant crossover existed between those who were experimenting with drugs and the burgeoning tech community in San Francisco. "There were a group of engineers who believed there was a causal connection between creativity and LSD," recalls John Markoff, whose 2005 book, "What the Dormouse Said", traces the development of the personal-computer industry through 1960s counterculture. At one research centre in Menlo Park over 350 people -- particularly scientists, engineers and architects -- took part in experiments with psychedelics to see how the drugs affected their work. Tim Scully, a mathematician who, with the chemist Nick Sand, produced 3.6m tabs of LSD in the 1960s, worked at a computer company after being released from his ten-year prison sentence for supplying drugs. "Working in tech, it was more of a plus than a minus that I worked with LSD," he says. No one would turn up to work stoned or high but "people in technology, a lot of them, understood that psychedelics are an extremely good way of teaching you how to think outside the box." San Francisco appears to be at the epicentre of the new trend, just as it was during the original craze five decades ago. Tim Ferriss, an angel investor and author, claimed in 2015 in an interview with CNN that "the billionaires I know, almost without exception, use hallucinogens on a regular basis." Few billionaires are as open about their usage as Ferriss suggests. Steve Jobs was an exception: he spoke frequently about how "taking LSD was a profound experience, one of the most important things in my life." In Walter Isaacson's 2011 biography, the Apple CEO is quoted as joking that Microsoft would be a more original company if Bill Gates, its founder, had experienced psychedelics. As Silicon Valley is a place full of people whose most fervent desire is to be Steve Jobs, individuals are gradually opening up about their usage -- or talking about trying LSD for the first time.
We covered the dosing morons in an earlier article (Score:2, Informative)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/05/16/0330245/uploadvr-had-a-kink-room-pressured-female-employees-to-microdose-alleges-lawsuit
Long story short, if you need this crap to "perform", it's time to get out of the gene pool.
Re:We covered the dosing morons in an earlier arti (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the use of tools and technology not the key motivation behind human evolution?
Psychoactive drugs can be tools, and are most definitely technology.
Re:We covered the dosing morons in an earlier arti (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't mass adoption of caffeine help spur on the Age of Enlightenment.
Re:We covered the dosing morons in an earlier arti (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's just tricky to stay on the Ballmer peak.
Re: (Score:3)
No I don't think so. The modern age of coffee-fueled offices is entirely a product of Maxwell House's 1950s advertising with the slogan, "Take a coffee break." I kid you not. The modern "coffee break" is the result of an ad campaign. It was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Before that time, coffee was only consumed in the home, probably at breakfast and after supper. And if you go back even farther, coffee wasn't really a part of American households until after World War I when returning veteran
Re: (Score:3)
Ah brilliant. I suppose we're talking about the minimal decades of testing of people trying to kill themselves with psychedelics and failing miserably, as compared to alcohol, which very easily creates miserable people on the way to liver damage, or things like Tylenol and SSRIs which will kill you or put you into opioid-like withdrawal.
I do not like to consume alcohol. Marijuana (ingested) and LSD are on the menu, however. I'm sure it's ridiculous to you that I would use some critical thinking skills to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that we already use copious amounts of drugs to "perform" in everyday society right? Caffeine, sugar, alcohol, nicotine, the list goes on and on. I find it equal parts amusing and disturbing when people harp on about drug users while sitting next to a pile of Monster drink cans or a week after they went balistic beacause the coffee ran out in the break room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We covered the dosing morons in an earlier arti (Score:4, Insightful)
Caffeine, sugar, alcohol, nicotine, the list goes on and on.
Sugar is not a drug.
Alcohol is awful for society, as is nicotine.
Caffeine is mostly innocuous, and often mostly pointless. Once you become a regular caffeine user, you depend on it to get to your normal. People who drink x cups of coffee daily perform the same as people who don't drink coffee (or otherwise consume large amounts of caffeine).
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar is not a drug.
Wow that was silly.
For people who are addicted to sugar, sugar obviously is a drug.
People who drink x cups of coffee daily perform the same as people who don't drink coffee (or otherwise consume large amounts of caffeine).
Yes and no.
The people who are depended on caffeine drop in performance significantly if they don't get it.
No? (Score:3)
You have no basis for comparison.
You know of all my personal experiences and knowledge how exactly? Simple answer: You don't. Your claim of intellectual high ground is based on an appeal to a non-existent authority.
Contrary to how they are often depicted, drugs are typically pretty boring.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment. Which is a complete bullshit argument with little basis in reality. People use drugs for reasons like depression from any number of causes, wanting to fit in to any number of circumstances, and from peer pressure (resulting from statements
Re:This! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you need them, you are doing something wrong somewhere.
Nobody needs LSD. But, some people believe that their quality of life improves with occasional use. Use of LSD can absolutely be a spiritual experience. Who are you to decide that what people are doing is right/wrong?
If you are claiming they are "okay" or "needed" for "work", you are a disgusting person.
Tell us what you really think! We're all dying for your approval.
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
Re:This! (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I haven't dropped acid in over 15 years.
And you are proud of advertising that?
Not advertising. Disclaiming. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of trying psychedelics in college. Why should I be?
Drugs are "Spiritual"?
I didn't say "drugs" in general. I said LSD can be. The experience differs based on many circumstances and the determination on whether the experience was "spiritual" is entirely up to the user.
Sorry, but you are doing the same thing as TFA. Glorifying drugs!
Not all drugs are worthless. Not every drug experience is negative. Is that glorifying? I think it's just truth.
Will you next claim how I'm just a prude for being against drunk driving?
Nobody said anything like that. Obvious strawman is obvious.
Re:This! (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that certain drugs are okay because they "may" be Spiritual would be like saying loads of other extremely dangerous experiences are okay because they "may" be "Spiritual".
Most drugs are "ok".
Society/laws that outlaw them makes them not ok, unreasonable expensive, only available via criminal sources, polluted by substances to thin them out (and you can not go to the police and accuse your pusher "oh, he sold me 100% pure stuff, but it was not only just 45% but also contaminated with baby butt powder"), requiring you to become a half criminal as well, to acquire them, either because of black market or money issues or addiction, wich you probably would not have if you simply could get a nice shot every weekend from your pharmacy.
Sorry, but if you have no clue about drugs then stay out of the discussion.
Disclaimer: except alcohol and canabis I did not use drugs. But I don't know a single person that did not try LSD, mushrooms, Heroine or Cocaine. Well, now while I type this, I think I know one person who did not, perhaps two.
And guess what: none of them is an addictive drug abuser.
The idea about drugs in the US or mainstream european politics are just absolutely absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why not use the ACTUAL definition of the word instead of a synonym which seems to be an attempt to discount my position? Because the actual definition backs my position?
Spiritual [merriam-webster.com]
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for the definition. It sounds like an LSD trip has the potential to be "spiritual" on all 5 counts. 5a's contestable.
Re:This! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you just come off as kinda silly, uptight and naive. The reason your moral high ground feels so hard to cling to is because you don't actually have any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to educate yourself instead of misrepresenting your prejudices and confabulations as fact.
Okay, lets play a game (Score:3)
Tommy John surgery used to be for injuries to pitchers. It has been glorified and normalized so that many very young kids are getting the surgery, often causing long term permanent injury and disability. You don't see a problem with popular web pages posting articles with claims "Tommy Johns surgery makes you a better pitcher, and everyone is doing it"? You really don't believe that this impacts young athletes? Parents even thinking they need to push their young adult/teen just a bit further and promote
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that practically all modern medication are drugs, right? The aspirin relieving your of your headache, anesthetics that enable surgery and provide pain relief for chronic illnesses, also, that coffee you drink in the morning...
Sure, some drugs are more addictive and harmful and therefore more dangerous than others. Like Coca Cola, for example. That deadly caffeine and sugar mix has many people especially in the US addicted to it, leading to obesity and all the health problems that go with it.
Yet
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that you can perform to exception, not to standard.
Salvinorin A if we go with this shit, please. Toxicity is unknown because extreme overdoses have so far shown 0 toxicity; injuries from the drug have never happened (unlike MDMA, which will frigging destroy your 5HT system); and, honestly, it runs for about 5-15 minutes and then burns out of your system, versus 15-20 hours on LSD.
Let's be reasonable: Kappa-Opioid Receptor Agonists are well-known as anti-addictives (YES!) and "insight
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to promoting other licit drugs?
I don't get why some people have a moral bee in their bonnet about this kind of thing.
If its bogus, then these so-called creative types do worse, fail at their jobs and people not invested in the idea of taking LSD do better and replace them.
If its not bogus, then maybe they do better at their jobs and the only real outrage is we all don't have access to micro doses of LSD.
In either case, the argument for moral outrage doesn't seem to accomplish much. If LSD is hok
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't worry, I'm not for the legal prescripts in many cases either. Doctors hand out so many types of synthetic codeine that a whole new drug market popped up for treating side effects of synthetic codeine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also very sympathetic to people with pain. I have been on the operating table numerous times, and have chronic pain from injuries. Teaching people to get off pain medication is lost to most people in medicine, because they can be sued for not handing out more and more drugs.
I
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen so many of these microdosing of LSD articles that I can't keep the fresh bullshit from the stale bullshit, but I'm mostly convinced that nobody has said its *necessary*, just that they felt it was "useful" for lack of a better word.
About the closest I've seen to someone advocating for it as a beneficial *therapy* was a severe depression sufferer who didn't get relief from the usual anti-depression drugs.
In the case of computer-type office work, I think most of this whole microdosing thing (and I'd
Re: (Score:2)
I find it appalling that people are trying to promote these types of elicit drugs.
I find it pathetic that someone who can't spell illicit wants to tell us what kind of drugs we should be on, especially when they seem to skip their meds every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You joke but self trepanation is a thing. I met the woman who did it. She made a damn movie. Here's an article about her. Yes, the photo is a still from the movie.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You met "the" woman who did it? She's not the only person to have done that. Plenty of other idiots have done it.
That explains a lot (Score:2)
So how many hits did it take for some creative "genius" to come up with the Juicero?
Re: (Score:3)
"So how many hits did it take ..."
The world may never know.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't done acid in decades. But I can still recognize a 'cocaine idea' when I see one.
So they're going to be arrested now right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, it's still a Schedule-I narcotic which makes it unobtainable even with a prescription. What more does our anti-drug leaders need? It's a confession made free and clear in a news article. That should be more than sufficient grounds for a search warrant for house, car, and office.
Re:So they're going to be arrested now right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, it's still a Schedule-I narcotic which makes it unobtainable even with a prescription.
I think you need to review your definition of "unobtainable".
it was clear from context (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What more does our anti-drug leaders need?
Common sense? They've needed it for quite some time, though.
Silly plebeian (Score:2)
tricks are for billionaires...
Re:So they're going to be arrested now right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'd argue the exact opposite. Sure they could probably use the article as a grounds for arresting these people, but they'd be weakening their own position on the matter. You see, the only reason drugs, especially psychedelic drugs, have remained such a taboo and illegal for so long is that once people realized the 'reefer madness' -level claims about weed were BS, the same arguments were moved to psychedelics. To those who haven't tried it or haven't done any reading about it, which I'd say constitutes most people outside the psychedelic community, mind altering substances are still mythical in nature.
This has fed into the drug-war propaganda and fears that people have. It's created this dichotomy in which people are divided into 2 categories of 'proper hard working people' and 'druggies', and the claim in the propaganda is that there is exactly no overlap. Because of this, people who actually use these substances responsibly, for personal gain or just for pleasure, have not typically come forth about it as they're afraid of losing face and being labeled lunatics. This allows for maintaining the control. If people - even the people who never have and have no desire for ever trying these things by themselves (which I can understand) - would understand how many of the 'decent' people they know and rely on have experimented with stuff other than alcohol, their image of the entire spectrum of drug use and drug users would start to change to a less black and white direction.
Any drug, alcohol included, can lead to a person becoming a problem user or inflicting damage on themselves or their psyche. Think about if we only judged those of use who drink alcohol on the merits and state of alcoholics. I mean if you take someone and you give them the idea that 'alcohol use' is synonymous with, and will always lead to. alcoholism, then they'd obviously be likely to oppose the substance altogether, which is how prohibition was justified in many western countries back in the past. The culture of secrecy/silence allows for the continuation of this myth that all psychedelics-users are out of their mind raving eraserheads that've had their mind melted by a psychosis, and that while it remains okay and acceptable to inhibit/alter your neurons with ethanol doing permanent physical damage to them or now cannabis in many places, temporarily altering their action with other kinds of mechanisms is somehow heretical and must be kept illegal.
What makes this all the more absurd when you get right down to it is that everyone, even those of us who use no substances whatsoever, are used to having experiences of a psychedelic nature every night while we sleep. Dreams are not obviously identical to the way psychedelics work, but they most certainly are an altered state of mind.
Compare these 2 scenarios, a person has some kind of a problem, personal or work-related, and they do one of these:
A) they think about it for a while and go to sleep. In their dream, they come up with a new way of approaching the problem as their unconscious mind develops an angle on it that they did not consciously see before. They wake up and proclaim to have solved the issue. Someone asks how they did it and they say they had a dream where they saw the solution.
B) the same person takes a tab of LSD or some mushrooms and has a similar outcome for similar reasons. Someone asks how they solved it and they reply that they took some psychedelics.
A) Will not cause any sort of uproar. There are quite many prominent scientists who've said openly that solutions sometimes 'appear' to them while sleeping and it's more or less generally accepted that sleep can have a positive effect on problem solving,
Modafinil (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about LSD, but Eric Raymond makes a plausible case [ibiblio.org] for modafinil [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about LSD, but Eric Raymond makes a plausible case [ibiblio.org] for modafinil [wikipedia.org].
Eric Raymond is mentally ill, I doubt that he is capable of making a reasonable case.
Fools (Score:5, Insightful)
1) This isn't new. Creative people have been doing this since the discover of drugs. It's a common trope of the drugged out artist. Tech people have always had more in common with artists than businessmen, so it's no surprise that techs prefer the artistic drugs over the businessman's drug (cocaine).
2) It doesn't work the way people think it does. You are not more creative under the influence of drugs, you are actually less creative. But you stop asking yourself "Is this a good idea?" and just do it. It's basically brainstorming for one person. They also make you stop worrying about outside distractions (failure, your marriage, etc.)
Drugs do not add anything to your mental capacity. Anything you do under the influence is something you could have done anyway without it, as long as you did not let your own personal demons get in the way.
But some people are ruled by their personal demons, so they do better work on the drug than off. Sad really.
Re: (Score:2)
So like how I worked out a social insurance plan by basically burning the world on paper, rebuilding it, and then finding a way to do it in real life without burning the world on the way there? Social insurances are filled with sacred cows nobody will even suggest touching, much less remove in a thought experiment and then re-create later in that experiment.
Re: (Score:3)
This loser's a "27 year old VC". That pretty much means he was lucky enough to be sitting in the right place at the right time, has no real technical ability (otherwise he'd be out on the lecture circuit or picked up by a tech company to lead X, Y or Z), he's trying out the "businessman" thing (since investing and managing your inv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not more creative under the influence of drugs, you are actually less creative. But you stop asking yourself "Is this a good idea?" and just do it. It's basically brainstorming for one person.
Robin Milner, computer scientist and Turing-award-winner, sometimes used sleep-deprivation to the same end. When he was sleep-deprived, he said, the internal censor that too often says "this is a bad idea" was suppressed long enough for him to get the idea down on paper. Then he could evaluate it the next day.
Been there, done that .... (Score:3)
Back in my younger days, I played guitar in a band for a while, and hung out with a group that liked to experiment a bit with psychedelics.
My recollection of LSD was it felt like "shorting out your brain". Your sense of touch would become all mis-translated, so for example? The sensations you normally block out as irrelevant (like the feeling of the back of your leg pressing against the seat of the chair you're sitting in) all became "significant". You might have the "wires are crossed in my head" experienc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even need drugs to have a similar effect. I can't say how many times I wake up with a brilliant idea from a dream, and a few minutes later go, that was really stupid...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything you do under the influence is something you could have done anyway without it
That is nonsense.
As always, I suggest: read a book about it.
Re: (Score:2)
"But some people are ruled by their personal demons, so they do better work on the drug than off. Sad really."
Do you just not understand how LSD works and that it isn't addictive? We're not talking about Hemingway drinking himself to death so what demons do you mean?
Wow. I'll bet you didn't even hear the loud "whoosh" made by the comment you're replying to as it sailed past your head.
Philiip K. Dick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PKD was a speed freak. No doubt he did some LSD, but the speed was what made him batshit.
It's also why at least half his stories don't have endings.
This explains plenty. (Score:2)
You would need to be among people that take hits of LSD every day to think a $400 fruit squeezer was a great idea.
Is it just me? (Score:2)
Or does this strike anyone else as looking particularly desperate?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, you don't do any better on drugs, you just think you do. Besides this whole psychedelic thing was tried in the sixties and nothing of value ever came out of it. Ken Kesey [wikipedia.org] wrote one good book then took to the road with his Merry Pranksters [wikipedia.org] who daily groked on psychedelic soup and then self destructed. See also Timothy Leary [wikipedia.org], anyone even remember him?
Re: (Score:2)
School Days (Score:2)
Steve Jobs Emulators (Score:5, Insightful)
The article summary says it right there -- everyone in startup land is trying to be Steve Jobs. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos fame even wears black turtlenecks to try to complete the look.
It's just the personality version of cargo-culting. Plenty of business types do this but most don't have the degree of success they think they will:
- Tons of people try for the Jobs personality, or the Linus Torvalds personality, etc. Most end up only picking up the mannerisms and not the intelligence part. (Linus acts like a jerk, but he's usually correct and doesn't seem capable of being nice about it.)
- Go into any airport bookstore and look over any of the books aimed at MBA types. Since most of the customers are consultants, it's a pretty easy predictor of what "brilliant innovative groundbreaking paradigm shifts" will be tried at their customers -- and subsequently by tons of others.
- Similarly, any executive who starts using other executives' direct quotes is definitely wishing for similar success. My favorite of late, which I've heard come out of tons of "thought leaders" is the "2 pizza team" concept that Jeff Bezos talked about when he referred to keeping product groups small enough to feed with 2 pizzas.
If it requires taking LSD, they'll do that too. It's just a bunch of MBA weenies emulating their heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that Steve Jobs was against emulators because it allows you to bypass security measures.
How the fucking hell is he supposed to be fucking nice when everyone around him is a fucking idiot?
And let's not forget what MBA really means: Must Be Asshole.
Almost tried it once (Score:2, Funny)
I couldn't find LSD, so I tried taking LCD instead. There's one major downside to it: everything looks pixelated now.
It probably works *some of the time*. (Score:3)
But it's not a substitute for effort.
Researchers who've studied creativity define it as an unusual and appropriate solution to a problem. It's easy to get unusual with drugs, but appropriate is more of a challenge.
Creativity presupposes an unsually deep understanding of a problem domain. That's why your weird doodles aren't worth as much as Picasso's. He could do representational art if he wanted to. He drew this [nga.gov] when he was twelve years old.
Now in my experience moments of creative inspiration come after you struggle with a problem for a long time, and you've exhausted all the conventional approaches to it. But because inspiration only comes after a struggle doesn't mean it always comes.
In particular you can be derailed by certain distractions. Fear of failure is one. A little bit of fear is healthy, but if you're ruminating about what comes after failure you're off-task. And another thing that takes your brain off-task is wanting to appear creative.
So I wouldn't be surprised if someone who'd put in the blood sweat and tears but wasn't letting his brain get on with the job might benefit from a little chemical help. But I'd be amazed if someone could waltz into an unfamiliar situation, pop a pill, and know what to do.
Yeah, bullshit until proven otherwise (Score:2)
LSD is a freakin' drug. It is not the miracle substance that will make you better against the government conspiracy blah blah blah.
Yes, LSD is fun. No, it won't kill you. Want to try, sure, go ahead. There are risks but if you take the necessary precautions, it is not that risky.
But as a productivity booster, no way. I suspect it is a bit like cocaine : you feel better but you aren't. It may give you a bit of inspiration if you are in a creative profession but I don't see how it can help with the rational t
Cargo container of LSD == Juicero? (Score:2)
How much LSD did it take to get VCs to invest $120 million in Juicero?
Open-minded (Score:2)
To be creative, I don't use drugs. Instead, I remember that "a way" to do something != "the only way". Maybe there's a better way.
sponge (Score:2)
Ah, so LSD anesthetized Steve Job's conscience enough he didn't feel bad about taking his friend's ideas and getting rich off them, while not paying to support his daughter growing up.
Clearly it's a useful tool to the american corporate executive.
Feynman wrote about this in his book (Score:2)
Same thing with dreams. Make perfect sense while you're having them. Make absolutely no sense once you're awake and thinking clearly. Occasionally a good idea will pop out of the noise. Just like occasionally you'll win the lottery or have an apropos captcha in the comments section.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe he was, in 1960.
You think that cities/towns so boring that tipping cows is a pastime don't have acid and everything else available?
At to the main point, no. Acid doesn't give you 'profound' thoughts. It lowers the standard for 'profound' until stupid ideas seem profound to you. Write your profound insights down, so you won't forget, read them when you're sober. You'll just shake your head.
The 'Book of the Subgenius' says it best: People get no insight into the universe on LSD, they are just 'Dr
Re:Okie from Muskogee (Score:4, Interesting)
At to the main point, no. Acid doesn't give you 'profound' thoughts. It lowers the standard for 'profound' until stupid ideas seem profound to you. Write your profound insights down, so you won't forget, read them when you're sober. You'll just shake your head.
Can confirm. Experienced transcendental levels of profundity after hours of in-depth conversation. A group of us were convinced that we had obtained some new level of understanding which we had all managed to forget somehow.
A portable cassette recorder was obtained for the next session, and a recording made.
Upon playback, 4 fools were heard laughing and talking over each other saying "Yes! That's it! It *all* makes sense." Absolutely nothing profound was discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally off-topic, but ages ago you made a joke about observing (or encouraging) a debate between an animal rights activist and an AIDS activist and watching the fireworks. I ended up borrowing that scenario for a scene in my most recent novel. Just felt I should mention or offer the snippet if you were curious.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing that did seem semi-legitimate was wandering campus for hours and discovering interesting quirks of campus architecture.
The stupid concrete amphitheater built in the early 1970s that nobody ever used? As it turns out, it's a pretty perfect parabola and produces some interesting audio effects if you stand at the focus.
There were other bits about campus buildings we had never noticed despite being in or around these buildings every day for classes.
I do think there's something in there about having
Re:Okie from Muskogee (Score:4, Interesting)
While they're on it, agreed, most people are somewhere between pretty silly and slightly incoherent. However, in the days and week after, I think there can be some genuine carry-over effects on mindset and creativity levels. That same kind of carryover could also probably be accomplished by a long vacation, a creative bootcamp, a vision quest, an intense religious experience, and a bunch of other things, but this is one of many ways to shake things up and search for other perspectives. I'd like to see some studies before claiming with confidence it's a sure thing, or to what extent it's effective, but it's at least mildly plausible that there's some potential benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something deeply cleansing about getting shitfaced drunk, once in a very long while. Same.
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing it wrong.
Re: Okie from Muskogee (Score:3)
The government might think differently than you when it comes to the effects of LSD on creativity.
Take a look here, try the results section:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Now, the people in this test weren't your average every day fucktards, like most of us who frequent this site, so their results may be different than mine or yours. Also, the circumstances of the test were different than the normal dosing regimen for people consuming LSD. There were no lava lamps or loose women, no long haired psychona
Re:Explains a lot ... (Score:4, Funny)
May also explain "systemd" ;-)
Indeed, high people are usually not good at weighing complex practical trade-offs. How a green spider reacts to a given UI is usually moot because green spiders are not the target audience.
Perhaps the trips are to generate raw ideas to be evaluated later while sober, but too many trips could mess up your sober thinking also. For example, perhaps S. Jobs would not have been stupid enough to postpone visiting a cancer doctor, and still be alive today if he didn't fry his brain.
Re:Explains a lot ... (Score:5, Informative)
Microdosing isn't the same thing as getting high or tripping. You might barely notice the effects of 15 micrograms of LSD (1/10 the normal "tripping" dose) the first time you did it. But not the second time, three days later. If you've done some science showing a causal link between LSD and brain cancer, you should publish. It would be a first.
Re: (Score:3)
150 mics? Lightweight.
When I was a kid, acid was 250 mics minimum or we wanted our dollar back. We rarely did only one.
Before my time, but I understand the average dose in hippie days was 1 milligram. No wonder they bought into so much bullshit.
Re:Explains a lot ... (Score:4)
Read the article. It does a much better job of explaining why people think microdosing is good for creativity than I could.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not usually one to defend Jobs, but if that's how an acid-fried-brain works, give me some acid. The thing is, the kind of cancer he had, you don't get better from. My mom died from pancreatic cancer, and it's not a pretty way to go. Your whole digestive system basically shuts down.
Re:Explains a lot ... (Score:5, Informative)
This account suggests different. [forbes.com]
"while the news was not good, the upside was that the form of pancreatic cancer from which Jobs suffered (a neuroendocrine islet tumor) was one of the 5% or so that are slow growing and most likely to be cured. But Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods."
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, did not know that. My mom had the other kind.
Re: (Score:2)
LSD can have long-lasting side-effects. .
This will bring us ever-more-entertaining data breaches in the future.
studying for my drug test (Score:3)
If you have a real IT job then you don't get drug tested, and certainly not at random. Insurance might compel one for certain types of accidents (that aren't common to keyboard jockeys) but that's about it. Also, to a first approximation they only test for cannabis use: most other drugs are consumed in pretty small quantities and don't leave many lingering metabolites, and this is most true for LSD, which is one of the most potent psychoactive substances known.
Other people's drug habits are terrible; only t
Re: (Score:3)
bs is not confined to "startups and the idiots who fund them", most of the big techs are throwing away money at developing all sorts of non core products, they have no knowledge about, and then killing almost all these project after year or two. all the while their core competencies denerate.
google/alphabet is the prime example. it has acquired and wasted money on lots of projects, in all sort of areas, and then killed them impatiently. meanwhile google search results are getting worse(and i don't think th
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. What explains that is the psychology of gain. The anticipation of making a killing is, literally, mind altering.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's how they came up with the idea of the flat app interface! Take those rendered buttons that you could identify on a screen outdoors and replace them with mystery meat navigation that you can only see indoors. At first I thought the state's newly legalized pot was responsible, but now I know it's the acid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Explains a lot ... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Fuck the downside, speedy, 'trips over' part. No fun at all, boring as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Fuck the downside, speedy, 'trips over' part. No fun at all, boring as fuck.
Get better drugs. Of course, that's a PITA specifically because of prohibition, but anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly confident I sampled a cross section of 'the good stuff'. LSD just has a long, boring, sleepless downside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drug tests are low grade IQ tests. You should be able to pass one while actively stoned or you're too stupid to work in tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. They're a bad joke. Not intended to catch anyone. Theater.
If drug tests worked, no 'crete would get poured, no paint would be slopped etc etc.
They have tests almost impossible to cheat on (yet). They're expensive and business has to stay staffed. But they want the better workers comp rates, so joke testing it is.
Re: (Score:2)
At that dosing, you'd never know unless they told you.
Re: (Score:2)