The point of Kaj Sotala’s comment is that there is a selection bias that is severe enough that your comments need to have major caveats to them (deepthoughtlife made a similar error.) I won’t determine your risk tolerance for medicine, but what I can say is that we should update in the opposite direction: That psychedelics are safe and maybe useful for the vast majority of people, and the ones that were truly harmed are paraded as anecdotes, showing massive selection biases, and not representing the median person in the world.
Suppose you start taking LSD. Not as a part of a scientific experiment where the dosage was reviewed and approved by a research ethics board, but based on a recommendation of your friend and an internet research you did yourself, using doses as big as your friend/research recommends, repeating as often as your friend/research considers safe.
(Maybe, let’s also include the risk of self-modification, e.g. the probability that once you overcome the taboo and find the results of the experiment appealing, you may be tempted to try a greater dose the next time, or increase the frequency. I am mentioning this, because—yes, anecdotally—people experimenting with psychoactive substances sometimes do exactly this.)
Are you saying that the probability of serious and irreversible harm to your brain is smaller than 1%?
Or are you saying that the potential benefits are so large, that the 1% chance of seriously and irreversibly harming your brain is totally worth it?
I think that at least one of these two statements needs to be true, in order to make experimenting with LSD worth it. I just don’t know which one (or possibly both?) are you making.
Note that the 1% probability of hurting your brain (heck, even 40% probability) is still hypothetically compatible with the statement that for a median person the experiment is a net benefit.
The point of Kaj Sotala’s comment is that there is a selection bias that is severe enough that your comments need to have major caveats to them (deepthoughtlife made a similar error.) I won’t determine your risk tolerance for medicine, but what I can say is that we should update in the opposite direction: That psychedelics are safe and maybe useful for the vast majority of people, and the ones that were truly harmed are paraded as anecdotes, showing massive selection biases, and not representing the median person in the world.
Suppose you start taking LSD. Not as a part of a scientific experiment where the dosage was reviewed and approved by a research ethics board, but based on a recommendation of your friend and an internet research you did yourself, using doses as big as your friend/research recommends, repeating as often as your friend/research considers safe.
(Maybe, let’s also include the risk of self-modification, e.g. the probability that once you overcome the taboo and find the results of the experiment appealing, you may be tempted to try a greater dose the next time, or increase the frequency. I am mentioning this, because—yes, anecdotally—people experimenting with psychoactive substances sometimes do exactly this.)
Are you saying that the probability of serious and irreversible harm to your brain is smaller than 1%?
Or are you saying that the potential benefits are so large, that the 1% chance of seriously and irreversibly harming your brain is totally worth it?
I think that at least one of these two statements needs to be true, in order to make experimenting with LSD worth it. I just don’t know which one (or possibly both?) are you making.
Note that the 1% probability of hurting your brain (heck, even 40% probability) is still hypothetically compatible with the statement that for a median person the experiment is a net benefit.