Carl-Richard

Let's just say a person I know bought a THC vape and decided it was a funny idea (while they were high of course) to prank me by breathing a THC vape cloud through the toilet door. Their intention was not to get me high but simply make me smell the vape cloud (which is basically odorless) and see my reaction (which is absolutely stupid if you know anything about pure THC, but hey, he was high and also in general not very knowledgeable about these things). They have done similar things before with a nicotine vape, and he probably expected a similar reaction, which was an aversive one but not very serious. Let me also be clear that I had told the person when they bought the vape to not do such a thing with THC (at least implicitly by saying "don't use it inside the house"), because it's very different than nicotine, but in their stoned stupor, they must have forgotten that. Another fun contextual fact is that this happened exactly one week before my last graded exam for my Master's, and I had planned to read like a maniac for that week (which I still ended up doing), but I did of course have some problems with that. It's not a big deal though because I got a good grade, but anyways, it could've gone pretty bad if I had gotten higher than I did. So how high did I get? Not very (I'm speaking as an ex-stoner here). The cloud was sprayed through the crack of a closed door just above my head, and the cloud must have spread out from there and entered my lungs. Of course, I was in a compromised position as well, taking a dump and being realistically unable to escape when I had gotten the information from the pranker. I had probably breathed in the majority of the cloud before I had gotten the information anyway. What I did notice was that reading the following days became not exactly difficult, but different. It was as if a large chunk of my long-term memories were locked away in a black box in my mind and I was reading the text while being unable to access these memories, effectively seeing things from a new perspective. I found this effect not productive at all for interpreting what I was reading. The only thing I think it could've been productive for would be to review some piece of text that I had written myself and maybe write down some new ideas or see new connections. However, the reading speed was somehow quite enhanced, but again, it doesn't really help much when your interpretation of the text is not so enhanced (or enhanced for that particular purpose: connecting what you're reading with prior knowledge). This can be described as some of the "dissociative" effects of THC, in that dissociation involves blocking access to some parts of your mind (in this case some of my long-term memories). My short-term memory was also definitely affected, but it was not really as much of a problem in comparison. The irony of it all was that I had just started reading about neurotransmission and neuropsychopharmacology (the course I was taking was biological psychology), and eventually, I reached the part about cannabis. It made me more curious about how the THC could be affecting me negatively, particularly memory consolidation (which is central to learning and retaining new knowledge). THC is known to reduce or even eliminate REM sleep, and REM sleep is central to the formation of new memories. I did in fact notice some weird reduction in vividness of dreams, but I did still dream, so I must have gotten some REM sleep. Another issue is how THC increases cortisol, and increased cortisol (especially chronic increase, i.e. over a long time period) has been shown to damage (or reduce the functioning of) the hippocampus, which is of course involved with memories. THC is a nasty substance in this sense as it goes into all your lipid membranes, all your fat stores — basically anywhere where there is fatty stuff, which causes the long elimination half-life (how long it takes for the drug to exit your body). I landed on an elimination half-life of 24 hours as a guideline for myself to track my progress and to frankly cope with the situation. By this estimation: after 24 hours, or 1 day, you'll have 50% of your initial THC left in your body; after 2 days, 25%; 3 days – 12.5%; 4 days – 7.25%; 5 days – 3.625% 6 days – 1.8125% and finally 7 days, on exam day – 0.90625%. So being high on exam day was not really an issue. And I wasn't. However, the additional psychological stress from being poisoned with a substance that could potentially jeopardize the exam, as well as the physiological stress from the increased cortisol from the THC, probably increased the usual fatigue associated with reading heavily (exam stress in the sense of worrying about the exam was not really an issue), so it definitely did impact how much and how well I could read and thus my performance on the exam. But again, it didn't matter that much after getting the grade (although I also value learning things well, which was, again, decently impaired). The aftermath or long-term effects are more interesting and is the reason I wanted to write this thing. Maybe one hour ago, I was riding an el-scooter home from the gym and I rode past a group of people smoking a joint while walking down the street. I only did a little sniff to see if it was actually weed, and indeed, it was weed. And I kid you not, that tiny sniff made me slightly high. It's not at all the same strength as when I was poisoned, but I could definitely notice a difference. I was listening to music while riding and suddenly the music became considerably more immersive, colors became slightly brighter, time slowed down a tad bit; you know — all those weed-y effects. Now, is this just make-believe or could there be actual pharmacological action going on? Well, it's a bit ironic again, but as I was reading for the exam about drug tolerance vs. drug sensitization, I learned that it's (especially) possible to get sensitized to a drug if the drug is administered multiple times but infrequently. In fact, drugs usually don't have a strong effect before you administer them multiple times and you get sensitized to them (which explains phenomena like people not getting high their first time). As an ex-stoner, I had definitely gone through that process of sensitization before, and maybe when I got poisoned, I got sensitized even further. So now, maybe my brain is like a THC smoke detector. Merely a few molecules might be able to trigger an alarm-type response. It could also be a kind of post-traumatic stress reaction, as you could qualify the process of getting poisoned in this way as a trauma, especially when you consider how PTSD is most reliably acquired when it's by the hands of a malevolent actor, often involving a lack of control and a break of trust. So will I forever be doomed by merely the smell of weed (I highly value my sober state of mind), in a world where weed is experiencing more and more public acceptance, or will it wash over some day? We know that PTSD sometimes goes over by itself (I'm not saying I actually have PTSD, but you get the point), so maybe that's a good sign. Anyways, I think I've written more than enough about this. Any takeaways? For me: maybe I need to become much clearer about communicating my boundaries to people. Then again, never underestimate stupidity. For you: don't prank people with drugs.

I wouldn't compare something that mimics purine nucleoside neurotransmitters with something that mimics fatty acid neurotransmitters. The Octanol/water partition coefficient in log P for caffeine is -0.07 while it's between 3.78 and 6.95 for THC. They're miles apart: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329157090_Emerging_techniques_for_cell_disruption_and_extraction_of_valuable_bio-molecules_of_microalgae_Nannochloropsis_sp Caffeine is closer to water than it is to THC.

My boss. Jk. Nope.

How does that work? Does it get stuck in the receptor? What is the situation for THC in this case? It could give you an estimate depending on the situation. In my situation (the prank), I was only subjected to the drug once, meaning no cumulative build-up of tolerance, so you would expect the effect curve to correlate at least moderately with the half-time curve, unless, again, you want to provide contradicting information about that for THC specifically. You can talk about random mystery compounds and their counterintuitive properties until the sun goes down, but you can also just talk about THC. What properties does THC have that makes it lose its effects at the lower end of its half-life? As a general rule, half-life is a good estimate for duration of effect. Again, you would have to provide specific evidence to the contrary for the specific substance in question.

The half-life of THC itself is still minimum 20-24 hours. I didn't even think about the metabolite 11-OH-THC which is more psychoactive and has a half-life of minimum 9-27 hours.

Reminds me of when I was talking to this girl when I was 17 and I felt like I was afraid of making eye contact. So I started staring into their eyes like a creep 😂 So it's definitely possible to take a simple advice and not do it in style. But don't let that discourage you either. Sometimes you have to be a little uncomfortable to grow.

Sounds like you're describing a naive realist, or more generally an epistemically naive person, or more colloquially a simple person. You're Norwegian, right? Can you try to type your post in Norwegian for me? It's just to test if I can understand you better (Don't worry about breaking the forum guidelines at this particular occasion. I'll allow you one Norwegian post ). It seems maybe a bit unrelated, but this is a very clear and concise deconstruction of naive realism that I just came across (by the D-man himself):

Haha I predicted that was the case. But that sort of makes the rest of your post fall flat. You don't often visit surgeons: only 20.7% of doctor's visits are to surgical specialists according to a study of the US population.

How did she do that? YouTube revenue?

You always have to play the survival game. Your choice is how.

Where do you get these definitions? "Hypomania is a form of anxiety" seems to imply that it's a sub-category of anxiety, which it isn't. Hypomania describes extreme changes in mood, which may include anxiety, but also all other kinds of emotions and energy levels, like depression, sadness, joy, ecstasy. But sure, anxiety could be a common component, as anxiety disorders are the most prevalent of the DSM disorders. Compulsion is simply the feeling of the need to perform some action, and not doing so may lead to discomfort. My turn to drop an out-of-pocket one-liner: you're peculiar.

The DSM test you gave us said that "compulsive" and "hypomaniac" were my biggest traits. I don't know about "anxious"

I can choose to interpret a feeling I get as pure illusion. I've tried that, and it works. But you know what? I don't like it. It's intentional dissociation. You're intentionally numbing out your sensitivity, your alarm systems, your intuition, and by extention your sensemaking, overall intelligence and ability to orient yourself in the world. As a general strategy, it's not worth it imo. I'm otherwise very aware of how I interpret things. For example, I have learned to catch myself getting seduced by most people's neurotic tendencies, particularly my fellow students ("ahhh the subjects are so hard!", "we have to read so much!", "I'm so burnt out!"). I have to ask myself "do I actually agree with this, or am I just playing a social imitation game?" and then adjust accordingly ("no, I don't believe with that"). Another similar big seduction (also from fellow students) is externally motivated behavior (e.g. only reading subjects when you absolutely have to for a grade, or choosing to strategically read some subjects over others to maximize grades), which might seem like small things, but I'm highly internally motivated for my studies, which is an invaluable resource, so any social influences that might subtract from my intrinsic enjoyment of my studies I've started to look upon with great suspicion. However, when it's not something merely cognitive or conceptual but also involves sensory aspects, emotions and feelings, like feelings in the body or my overall assessment of my internal state, I've become highly suspicious of "doubting" these things. These things are irreplaceable tools that you need in order to be an embodied and grounded being in reality. You can choose to ignore how your foot feels when it hurts, but this decision can lead to disastrous consequences when taken to the extreme. That's just one example, but it applies to anything, even how you interact with other people.

If it's the second option, stoners should be jealous (meh, it's not like I had to lie down and eat two bags of chips and a pizza).

I did for my exam. ChatGPT lies.

I meant like measurable in the sense that there are actual THC molecules docking in my brain at a substantial amount or if the smell triggered some learned psychological response. I agree that the psychological response would have a measureable physiological side, but that is not the measurement I'm talking about. As for molecules docking at the nose, we know that the sense of smell only requires a few molecules to trigger an experience, so I would definitely imagine it's possible to smell weed long before you're getting high from it.

It definitely affected me. The question is if it's something objectively measurable or if it's all in my mind. That said, does it sound right to say "PTSD is all in your mind"? (Again, I'm not saying I have "actual" PTSD).

KKK is a perfect reflection of Christianity.

I think I know some 😉

While it's probably the most interesting conversations you can have, it's also probably the hardest conversations you can have, which is why almost nobody has them. Even when Schmactenberger is directly asked the question of how to implement his ideas in practice, he doesn't actually get to the point, or at least I can't remember ever seeing it. I'm thinking specifically about his conversation with McGilchrist and Vervaeke where he was directly asked that question. He seems stuck on defining the problem but not actually acting on it. And I don't blame him. I can't even imagine an attempted solution that is not microscopic in its impact without presupposing a level of coordination and integration between different systems that would automatically solve the very problems we're trying to fix (a perfectly internally coordinated and functional organism is not a house divided against itself).

You have a serious thing for beliefs 😆

Isn't the answer almost always not "not this" but "balance"? Give me one example of something leftists promote that conservatives do not promote at all. This sort of hearkens back to an earlier point I've made about how when you have a certain wideness of perspective, every conversation like this just becomes an exercise in rehearsing concrete examples of a phenomena, of refreshing your understanding of an already understood abstract concept. For example, merely mentioning things like "socialism", "drug legalization", "open boarders" is simply a way to cue our minds to the larger concept ("harmful", "going too far"), because in reality, we know that all these things largely depend on their degree of implementation, not whether or not they're implemented. Nobody really thinks government should have zero say in people's lives (unless you're a fool). Nobody really thinks drugs should be under either 0% legal control or 100% legal control (what does that even mean?). Nobody really thinks boarders should be either 100% open or 100% closed. That is not to say these conversations are useless. It's just interesting to point out how it's less about specific "policies" (the "whats") and more about how they're implemented (the "how much", "in what way", etc.), but that we still decide to mention specific "whats" to create a conversation. Maybe an interesting conversation could be to try to identify if there is a common pattern in degree of implementation that can be identified across different cases that leads to harm (a sort of systems thinking inquiry into the notion of balance itself). Or maybe even more interestingly, are there patterns of behavior or societal and psychological drivers that predictably lead to these failures in degree of implementation? Isn't that what Daniel Schmachtenberger and his ilk are doing with concepts like the Metacrisis, Moloch, Meaning crisis, Game 1 vs. 2? Isn't that what a lack of wisdom is (a lack of balance)? And how do you implement these concepts in practice and in a wise way? That's probably the most interesting conversation you can have.

He is young, passionate and aesthetically-oriented, not unlike many spiritual people, artists, etc. He just chose bodybuilding as his passion. When done to the extremes, it has certain trade-offs, like most things done to the extremes. I spent my late teens/early twenties frying my brain with weed (later replaced with meditation), sitting in the woods thinking about crazy stuff and listening to music, neglecting school, friends, etc. It's partially a part of being young, and some people are more extreme than others, and there might be some trauma and insecurities involved too. Still, despite the obvious trade-offs, you can still have a highly reasonable, insightful and inspired person underneath. Seeing the need for balance is something that comes with age.

@Wisebaxter He met her at a gaming-related thing, but I'm not sure if she was into smoking back then. She seemed like she didn't like to smoke that much the times we hung out. She was absolutely stupendously hot though 😤😮‍💨

My friend found one, or rather he created one. They broke up.