Scholar

No problem, it's always useful to correct such simplifications.

You are overreacting to this problem, because it is a personal issue to you. Taking a stand against it will just create more opposition, this is exactly how the dynamic functions, this is how the internet currently is structured. You will create more resistance, which will bolster the opposition into their position, and both perspectives lose sight of any common ground. The urge for you to do this is the same urge for the women who are invalidating this issue. It's all the same game, and you are participating in it as unconsciously as they are. This is not the way to escape the game, nor how to resolve these dynamics. You have to take a few steps back first and see how silly all of this is, and have enough distance to realize this is not actually threatening you in any way. Then, you can focus on simply helping people if you still view this as an important problem.

Sure, some might get bullied out of it, but we should find a high proportion of detransitioners who have a normal gender-to-sex biological ratio. I find it unlikely that someone would be bullied out of transness after they went through sex-reconstruction surgery and so forth. Either way, using this, we should be able to detect false "trans"-people before initiating gender therapy, and reducing the detransition rate significantly.

The sad thing is, I actually gave him the root cause of these ideologies and he was not at all interested in discussing them with me. Instead, he started to discuss with other people who are not interested in discussing this topic, which makes me question whether or not he himself is actually interested in discussing the topic.

Very interesting if true. This would make it easier to diagnose true trans people and eliminate the subset of people who are mentally ill and buy into the ideology. I would say a brain scan should be required to approve the treatment of more significant sex change therapy, if these changes are not present, the individual should probably be treated as having a mental disease more similar to body dysmorphia rather than being a transgender person. This also would imply that gender is not a social construct, but actually a structure in the brain. The fact that humans have a tendency to create seperations between the sexes in behaviour, fashion and so forth would be a biological reality, but the specific ways in which it manifests would be a social construct. So, gender is a brain structure, and the specific manifestation of gender roles are a social construct. Similar to how the capacity for language is a brain structure, but individual, specific languages are social constructs. They should devise a study where they look at the brains of detransitioners. If this is true, they all should have the brain structures corresponding to their sex.

How do you know this is not just a self-created narrative? Not all that is happening during a trip is an insight into the nature of reality. Much of it is just a processing of your own kind of belief system. This is why people can be brainwashed using psychedelics. You can turn any kind of narrative into reality for individuals. I think you need to learn primiarily how you yourself are creating narratives, and how you have difficulty observing how these narratives influence the way you perceive reality, or the way your own personal reality is created through narratives and concepts. So, what you need to do is create distance between yourself and concepts/narratives, and observe how the process of narrative creation functions and how it influences your subjective reality, and how completely relative these narratives are. It would be good if you reached a point where you realized all narratives are just concepts. That everything Leo told you about God and Love is just a narrative and nothing more. It could not possibly be more than that from your point of view, so you have to create a distance to those narratives, and see them for what they truly are. Just stories you self-create.

There is a condition called HPPD (Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder), and some people report to have it permanently, or for months and years.

I did some more research and it actually seems to just be an ocular migraine. Not sure if this is an after-effect of the substance, or caused by something else.

I found this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19221973/

Well, from what I read from reports of these kinds of things happening, it probably is just your sense of time being screwed around with, in combination with the creation of certain memory structures. You have to remember, your sense of passage of time is completely illusiory. There is no time and no passage of time, it's all a carefully controlled instrument. Right now, if I had the tools, I could stimulate the part of your brain responsible for hallucinating passage of time and the next second you would then remember as if thousands of years had passed, or the next 10 hours as if 1 minute had passed and so forth. You sometimes get those types of things in a dream as well, and so salvia is probably similar to that just that the passage of time and the dream really embed themselves in the mind-structure so they are not distinguishable from the regular reality-making process of the brain.

This is irrelevant, we are discussing whether or not these types of things can be integrated into the scientific methode. Leo proposes certain things to do so, which does not make much sense considering you cannot falsify any of his claims, even if you do exactly what he does and have the exact same experiences. The entire point about the scientific method evolving becomes mute at that point.

And say we do that study, and it turns out that most people would not come to the conclusion you have, or interpret their experience the same way you do. Then, you would of course say "They are all doing it wrong, they have to actually do the proper intellectual work beforehand", which basically translates, they have to have the same ideas about reality as you do before they take the substance. From the scientific point of view, what is then more likely, that you idea about reality influences the experience, or that you somehow discover actual reality through the experience? How will you even go beyond this problem? Even if everyone had the same experience, that wouldn't tell you that experience is true, but merely that the drug creates a consistent effect in the human brain. None of that is surprising, and you still have the same problem. And what revolutionary new insights into material theories were made using psychedelics? Sure, psychedelics make you more creative, but what if we keep doing these trials and nobody actually will improve physics at all, or bring new material theories that have scientific validity? What would you say then? That you are wrong about the nature of existence? No of course you will not say that. Then you will say "Well, turns out these experiences are so beyond the relative they will not help you with this!". So, let us say we do the studies and it turns out that people cannot do so whatsoever, that all the studies you refer to that already have proven this statistically were actually in error. What would you say then, that your hypothesis about the nature of reality is false? No, of course you will not say that, you will juust say "Of course the experience does not translate into physical reality, because God imagines physical reality exactly as he already wants it to be! Your little ego wanting to move objects around is not the same as your True Self wanting the universe to be exactly as it is!". You would never admit you are wrong, none of these studies could ever possibly prove you wrong, and you know that. By definition, your claims are unfalsifiable. Even if I did the experiment myself and did all you said and then concluded you are wrong, you would still tell me I am doing it wrong.

None of this will happen because people are immature. They will not listen to your advice because they are immature, and they want to engage in casual sex however they want because this is the cultural norm. Casual sex culture combined with lack of maturity among the population will always lead to this problem, there is no advice you can give people to avoid this as long as this persists.

There are many dynamics at play, but you also have to realize that much of this is just internet toxicity: We have a history of women being disadvantaged and have been correcting that trajectory over the past decades. Yet, because society has actually become more miserable for everyone, women do not feel like they are being advantaged. Everyone is suffering more today simply because of how toxic technology is for us, and so everyone tries to find a scapegoat for the misery in their life. Identity politics is very popular due to the dynamics of the internet as well, and so it leads to narratives of patriarchy, victimhood and so forth. And because we live in an attention economy, everyone will be subconsciously striving to signal their victimhood. It leads to people competing for narratives. In general, people are far less mature today than they have been a generation or two ago. They project their own personal problems onto the world, and the internet gives them an opportunity to create narratives and gather around those narratives. Femcels and incels function the same way in this regard. Victimhood and identity politics is just very appealling to the immature, modern mind. It is easy to feel threatened by people who make such statements, but the reality is, they are simply immature. It's best not to take them too seriously. There are people like Dr. K, who are addressing men's issues directly in a healthy way and foster and environment of compassion for men's issues. It's better to focus on that rather than wasting time pondering the nature of femcels. Just look at the redpill community and how immature these people are. Women are just as immature, so don't be surprised they fall for silly narratives. You are overestimating the intelligence of women significantly, they are just as dumb as men. And really, by dumb I mean immature. You also have to consider: For every lonely man, there will be one miserable woman. While the woman might not suffer as much from loneliness due to being more competent socially, they will still fail at establishing a long term relationship. Women will casually date, but encounter men who are not interested in them long term. This also leads to them having a scewed picture of men. In general, the kind of hedonistic, casual dating culture disadvantages both the average man and woman, while most of the advantage goes to the top percentile of men. Contemporary culture really is a designed in many ways to make most people miserable.

From my second hand accounts of the inner workings of academia in regards to psychology, I feel like a lot of it is not really motivated by a pursuit of truth but rather by job security. I feel like people just create opportunities for themselves so they then get paid, and they sell their own work such that they get paid. It all feels very circle jerky to me and like everyone is just moving around money hoping it will end up in their hands. And aside from the money, the second motivation seems to be ideological rather than a pursuit of truth.

The problem here is that, casual sex requires maturity, and most people lack maturity, therefore, these things are going to keep happening. You can see people argue for enthusiastic consent for this reason. But really, that just shows you people are way too immature to be handling these situations. The vast majority of these situations can be prevented if just one of the party is mature, and ideal is a situation where both individuals are mature. Of course, the person with power has a higher obligation to ensure they are mature enough, so most the blame will always fall on the man. My main issue is that these issues are discussed by the media in the incorrect way, and it will not fix the problem. Everything is moralized to such a degree that it is impossible to discuss the actual root causes of any of this.

Guys I took the 150mcg 1V-LSD and somehow I talked myself into a panic and am in existential fear now, 30 minutes after intake. I don't want this to be a trip, how do I reoslve this lol?

How many of you guys use psychedelics as a sort of nootropic? I feel like there is a huge potential, especially for artists, to use substances to improve and changed their process. I also feel like these substances could easily be used to help in learning and study. So, if you guys do use these substances this way, whether through microdosing or proper tripping, how do you go about it?

ForestLuv since when are you back? Good to see you again! Yes, I kind of knew from my 20mcg experiments that Right-Brain Mode would be the way to go for the trip, but the panic I had at the start due to being mentally unprepared kind of put me into Left-Brain Analytical mode, and for much of the trip I was holding onto certain concepts because I did not feel it was safe to let go. I did learn lots of things though, but the next trip I will lower the dosage and try to properly enjoy it and let go.

Does your sensitivity apply to all psychedelics, and also to things like alcohol, caffeine and so forth? What is the cause of some people being more or less sensitive?

Yes that seems obvious to me, but I think it is in relationship to the ego. It's not the the psychedelics themselves or the experiences are scary, but rather a question of whether the ego can handle them. But there is also a component of the ego simply creating fear not even in response to a particular experience, but simply because the experience amplifies the fear-structures already present in the ego. The trip I had was actually pretty gentle and comfortable, yet it could have been horrifying only because of the fear the ego created for itself around self-created notions. In fact, without these notions, the trip should have been enjoyable all throughout. The only thing that could have been scary was the point when I was creating my own reality. But really, that wasn't even scary to me, there was only tension because I was so immersed in the concept of a terrible trip.

Got some sleep, brain feels dull and slow. But I have a very strong sense of how silly and made up my fears were. Completely self-constructed for no reason other than my preconceptions of the possibility of having a bad trip. So, the respect towards the substance has to be in relationship towards oneself. I was clearly not mentally ready to take the dose, and more so than the dose itself, that was the main issue. Because, even though what happened was mind melting, other than the self-created fear-concepts there was nothing "terrifying" that happened at all.

How do you not come out of that experience permanently traumatized?

Knock him out how?

What do you guys think of taking Diazepam to stop a worst case panic attack? I will be trip sitting somebody soon and I am a little paranoid that if they go into complete terror I won't be able to help them, so maybe having some around for the worst case is wise? Did any of you ever use such things?