At least one psychedelic advocate said that living a life without having a psychedelic experience is like living a life without having sex. He didn’t say that was a morally- wrong decision, only that you miss out on a deeply human, deeply significant experience which has a profound effect on how you view the world.

The choice to do either of these should be made freely and consciously, and each of them can be culturally restricted or promoted in healthy or unhealthy ways. The line between “healthy” and “unhealthy” is going to be different for everyone. I think a good thought exercise is to compare and contrast modern psychedelic advocacy with the 20th century’s sexual revolution.

I would place myself solidly into this category of people, although I try to avoid the negative behaviors that you validly point out.

In response, I ask: how confident are you in your (as I see it) perception/estimation that psychedelics do not (or, are highly unlikely to) have some genuine (in fact) quality that could bring immense value to the world? If we were to find a way to use them in the proper ways (which would include close integration with scientific study of the ongoing process), does it seem reasonably plausible to you that some sort of a significant achievement could be achieved?

i think if they really work well as part of treatment for PTSD and other aftereffects of trauma, and perhaps other mental illnesses, that would be of profound value for humanity.

as far as people taking them in general: from looking at people who take psychedelics, it doesn't seem to me that they're any more or less enlightened or emotionally mature than people who don't. whatever the subjective experience, it seems like all the flaws and foibles of humanity are still there just as much.

it does seem like it teaches people a particular outlook or way of relating to the world -- but I don't think it's one that is superior or inferior to other perspectives. Probably society needs people who relate to life in many different ways.

I would worry about living in a society where it is the norm for everyone to take psychedelic drugs multiple times per year. I think things would get pretty weird.

I think you're missing an idea I'm trying to get at. I think we can agree that psychedelics do weird things (you may have not a whole bunch of first hand experience, and I can report from tons of reading that the variety and nature of first hand experiences is highly variable).

You have noticed (directly &/or read anecdotes & "beliefs" of users) some sample of the results (a subset of all user experiences, which is a subset of all the experiences that are possible in the space), and logically formed some sort of a conclusion about what psychedelics do/offer. I am speaking of that which is beyond - the far more rare experiences of people who have used them very deliberately as a tool (practices & results you are not aware of), and then also that which lies beyond anyone's experiences thus far. Might there be something important within these spaces (think from the perspective of a Venn Diagram), of which you have no information, but does in fact exist (or, could exist)?

it's definitely possible that individuals using these drugs carefully and deliberately could discover some kind of valuable practice or insight. And perhaps this could turn into something that eventually could be shared among many people, with the right context, like the Eleusinian Mysteries or something.

if people want to do this it seems like a good thing, if risky. (although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use -- which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable.)

what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly.

> And perhaps this could turn into something that eventually could be shared among many people, with the right context, like the Eleusinian Mysteries or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries

The Eleusinian Mysteries (Greek: Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια) were initiations held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone based at the Panhellenic Sanctuary of Eleusis in ancient Greece. They are the "most famous of the secret religious rites of ancient Greece".[1] Their basis was an old agrarian cult,[2] and there is some evidence that they were derived from the religious practices of the Mycenean period.[3][4] The mysteries represented the myth of the abduction of Persephone from her mother Demeter by the king of the underworld Hades, in a cycle with three phases: the descent (loss), the search, and the ascent, with the main theme being the ascent (άνοδος) of Persephone and the reunion with her mother. It was a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spread to Rome.[5] Similar religious rites appear in the agricultural societies of Near East and in Minoan Crete.

Conceptualizing something that matches one's priors is easy. Conceptualizing something that does not match one's priors seems to be less easy, if not sometimes even aversive.

> although there are people who claim to be using psychedelic drugs as a tool, but don't seem to be very disciplined and are really just enjoying recreational drug use

There is what seems to be, and then there is what is - the latter portion is often many orders of magnitude larger, and often not conceptualized by the mind (it sees NULL). "Seeing" what literally cannot be seen is non-intuitive - we seem to have the capacity to do it with ease in some domains, but in others it seems very difficult, and the mind is often even strongly resistant (techniques like Venn diagram based thinking can help). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns [1]

> which is probably safe but also not particularly valuable

Safe and Valuable are two variables, of which we do not know the range of possible values, even if it may seem like it. The subconscious mind will gladly and near-instantly detect patterns though, which it presents to our conscious mind as facts. One can easily see this in simple scenarios, like in people who fall for fake news or conspiracy theories. Seeing it in ourselves is less easy.

> what i find troubling is the idea that society would be better off right now in 2020 if most regular people just started taking mushrooms semi-regularly

Consider why you find this troubling. The notion is True, or it is False, or somewhere in between (spread across millions of variables, sometimes forming binarily opposed conclusions, which can all be simultaneously True). Ideas are ideas, they can produce positive outcomes, or negative outcomes, but I don't think pondering them in the abstract should be thought of as troubling (I mean, that feeling is arguably sub-optimal, even if intuitive).

[1] While the remarks initially led to some ridicule towards the Bush administration in general and Rumsfeld in particular, the consensus regarding it has shifted over the years, and it now enjoys some level of respect. For example, Rumsfeld's defenders have included Canadian columnist Mark Steyn, who called it "in fact a brilliant distillation of quite a complex matter",[10] and Australian economist and blogger John Quiggin, who wrote, "Although the language may be tortured, the basic point is both valid and important."

-------> Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Žižek says that beyond these three categories there is a fourth, the unknown known, that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know: "If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values."

German sociologists Daase and Kessler (2007) agree with a basic point of Rumsfeld in stating that the cognitive frame [2] for political practice may be determined by the relationship between what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but Rumsfeld left out what we do not like to know.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.

Framing can manifest in thought or interpersonal communication. Frames in thought consist of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality. Frames in communication consist of the communication of frames between different actors.

In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In other words, people build a series of mental "filters" through biological and cultural influences. They then use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame.

Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. Framing is an integral part of conveying and processing data on a daily basis. Successful framing techniques can be used to reduce the ambiguity of intangible topics by contextualizing the information in such a way that recipients can connect to what they already know.

Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve[citation needed] imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.

One can view framing in communication as positive or negative – depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames, where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways (see framing effect) or emphasis frames, which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue.[1] In the case of "equivalence frames", the information being presented is based on the same facts, but the "frame" in which it is presented changes, thus creating a reference-dependent perception.

I have to agree with this and have noticed the same thing in my circles. It’s like travel. It should make you more open-minded and more well rounded, and yet ... there are people for whom it does just the opposite ...