Talk:Psilocybin/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic

You used "fambly" in the description. Are you an ICHC fan??-αmεσ (!) 19:46, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I dunno, what's ICHC? I've just alwiz speled it lik that. PS, glad to know someone is enjoying my edit summaries! human^{be in} 19:57, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Mycology is for pleasure. tmtoulouse ^irritate 20:08, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Looking glass reference

Actually, it would appear the mushrooms referred to in the book are actually Fly Agarics (Amanita Muscaria), whose psychoactive chemicals are Ibotenic Acid and Muscimol, not Psilocybin. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a classic example of reality and popular consensus diverging. Yeah, Carrol was not talking about psilocybin, but that has had remarkably little effect on whether or not Alice in Wonderland is an iconic piece of literature for the shrooms crowd. Or, put another way, the joke is considerably funnier than the pedantry. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Random BoNdroppings cut from article

"Actual psychedelic experiences and the like

Almost nothing you actually encounter in popular descriptions of experiences on psilocybin, LSD, or other psychedelics has any resemblance to reality. Actual psychedelic experiences tend to be more along the lines of a six hour free association exercise than a re-enactment of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Mostly, the key things to know are that hallucinations produced by psilocybin are very much distinguishable from reality, and that they rarely take the form of fully realistic and detailed visions of lizard people and the like. This, combined with the fact that they're expensive, nasty-tasting, and non-addictive, may the relative paucity of regular psilocybin users. It's almost like ingesting insect nerve poisons isn't as good an idea as it sounds on paper.

Psilocybin is also one of the textbook examples of societal lunacy regarding drug laws, being as it's non-addictive and basically impossible to overdose on, two traits it fails to share with widely legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. These arguments usually carry little actual political weight, however, because most of the people who are really invested in legalizing psilocybin are also the sorts of people who want to take lots of psychedelic drugs, which is to say, unusually easy to dismiss as nutjobs, often due to their being nutjobs."

Crap header. First sentence simply wrong. Rest of first paragraph just random emptiness. Second paragraph, how does one "overdose" on tobacco? Rest of second paragraph is so badly written it barely says what little it says. ħuman 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, I suppose we can trot out sources on the first sentence. My source is roughly "Well, none of the several times I've taken psilocybin have involved anything like what's depicted in any TV or filmic "psychedelic trip" I've ever seen, and were mostly just a sort of extended tendency to free associate and be really metaphysical." Feel free to fine-tune, but, I mean, to my mind, if I take my memory in one hand and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in the other, they don't much resemble each other. In an article that is otherwise a bunch of jokes about real life Alice in Wonderland experiences, this seems like kind of useful information. As for the second paragraph, you are aware that nicotine is actually a really effective poison, right?

I'm fairly sure that the depictions of trips in stuff like Fear and Loathing, Beavis and Butthead, Harold and Kumar, etc. are all meant for the benefit of the drugged-out viewers, and not to accurately display the effects of whatever drugs the characters may have taken. 199.195.109.134 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about the writing style, as that mostly just seems like you complaining without actually saying anything. I mean, I think "Mostly, the key things to know are that hallucinations produced by psilocybin are very much distinguishable from reality, and that they rarely take the form of fully realistic and detailed visions of lizard people and the like," while possibly wordy (sorry, I have severe brain damage due to seven years of graduate education in the humanities) is, actually, a pretty straightforward and factual claim, as opposed to emptiness. I do, however, quite like "it barely says what little it says." Derrida would have a field day there. Feel free to propose a more clear wording of "People who complain about drug laws like to point out that psilocybin is, in most regards, much less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. On the other hand, people who complain about drug laws tend to be habitual drug users that are generally ignored by people who make drug laws." 71.88.35.24 (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a word missing here: may the relative paucity -- Nx / talk 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Psilocybin and the law

I feel like this section draws some questionable conclusions. It says if you argue psilocybin is relatively safe, you must not only use mushrooms but abuse them. Even if someone has used mushrooms, there's no reason to assume they've abused them to such an excess that they're incapable of critical thinking (not that this ins't a possibility).

Some people enjoy the drug's effects without attaching meaning and metaphysical explanations to their delusions, how does that make them nutjobs? ^{— Unsigned, by: Nfrae / talk / contribs} 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree - fixed. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is stupid

Looks like some 16 year old kid from Shroomery wrote this. --76.30.0.202 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from improving it. Bongolian (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

BoN, you make a fair point. Please start editing it and we'll review the changes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This article as it stands

While the information about the drug is correct, I don't think a skeptic will gain much from this entry. In my view, it sounds ranty at many points. I think a reader will gain more from studies about users being highly likely to develop mental disorders and experience panic attacks. Basically, more studies, more citations, less anecdotal evidence.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

True about adding sources and studies, absolutely — but different article portions are allowed to contain different things. And don't forget, all of RationalWiki is original research. We're here for the homebrew writing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, RationWiki is free to draw it's conclusion from sources, but the sources itself are sparse and low in quality. Take for example the section "Curiosity killed the cat". Let's list the refs:

1. Wikipedia article
2. Joke
3. Urban dictionary
4. Source for one quote

In conclusion, this is not grade A material. I do think there's many interesting things to expand up. Especially consider many journals are recommending this drug to treat depression and improve your brain, while other studies suggest suicidal thoughts.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. But for the sake of human compassion, please allow me to just point out the following — it is 06:20AM in Sweden right now. Looking at the timestamps for my edits, I've been editing for, like, 10 hours on end today. That big entry you correctly called for not being perfect yet? That big chunk of prototype text alone took me three hours to write (compare 02:08 with 05:19 — I was editing in Preview mode all along). I don't claim that it's polished yet, because how could it be? And I'd like to say that as stupid as I'm sure half of it will look by morning, I did pour my heart out a little bit writing it. So I'd just gently ask that the court adjourn for the moment and return to it all in a day or two instead. I'm 100% just tired right now, so it's not even that I disagree with what you're saying (per se). All I'm saying is, let's sleep on it. Thanks in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine. As for the content on its own, I think it makes a fine essay. Like you said, it does feel like you poured your heart and soul into it. Th language is persuasive and smooth.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you pal! And naturally I agree with what you're saying as well. Also, couldn't help myself. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, while it's all anecdotal, reading some of the better 'case studies' can be helpful in demonstrating that, on a topic as inherently 'trippy' as the one we're faced with, it's no wonder if some things about it all necessitate a certain dimension of... emotional delivery. Oh well, time to force myself to bed. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall reverting that previous edit of mine, unless mods have powers to do that? Anyway, this userpage article illustrates the type of content I envision on here. The goal is to have the same type of quality as the Bottled water page. Obviously, there needs to be commentary on the studies, but it's a rough draft:)—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was impatient. Feel free to revert, or something.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 02:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)