LSD Microdosing Gaining Popularity For Silicon Valley Professionals (rollingstone.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Rolling Stone reports that an unusual new trend is popping up around the offices of Silicon Valley companies: taking tiny doses of LSD or other psychedelic drugs to increase productivity. "A microdose is about a tenth of the normal dose – around 10 micrograms of LSD, or 0.2-0.5 grams of mushrooms." According to the article, the average user is a 20-something looking to improve their creativity and problem-solving skills. Some users report that the LSD alleviates other problems, like anxiety or cluster headaches. That said, it's important to note that such benefits are not supported by scientific research — yet.

Comments

Increase productivity??

[Viol8]

I don't think so. A small increase in creativity for a short period of time maybe. Though quite possibly it makes you *think* you're being more productive, just like people who take concaine *think* they're being incredibly interesting when they chat, whereas usually the complete opposite is the case.

Re:Increase productivity??

[Capt.Albatross]

Agreed - self-reported results have little credibility (see homeopathy), and those of psychoactive substance use are particularly suspect.

And neither productivity nor creativity gains, even if real, are worth much unless accompanied by good judgement.
 

Re:Increase productivity??

[Ol Olsoc]

I don't think so. A small increase in creativity for a short period of time maybe. Though quite possibly it makes you *think* you're being more productive, just like people who take concaine *think* they're being incredibly interesting when they chat, whereas usually the complete opposite is the case.

Same with ethanol. Nothing is more annoying than walking into a party where people have been drinking. It usually takes me a couple drinks before they stop being asshats.

Re:Increase productivity??

[Anonymous Coward]

ive tried just about everything that grows on plants, ive done lsd a few times before and for the past few years ive basically been tripping twice a year because i like it. My honest opinion? i highly doubt this works as advertised for the exact same reason you give. Furthermore, most people that i know who do lsd more often keep having "genius" ideas that have absolutely no real world application or practical value, the times i did lsd i kept having grand ideas aswell that just dont look as good once you sober up.

Theres probably some people here and there that this would work for, but i highly doubt its something most people should even wonder about... perhaps "microdose" helps because its not that much. but as someone who actually does drugs.. i have my doubts id sure as hell never want to try it at work

Re:Increase productivity??

[hey!]

Comparing recreational doses of cocaine to microdoses of LSD is an apples-to-oranges comparison though. Cocaine is a stimulant; LSD is a hallucinogen; it would make more sense to compare it to marijuana, although all these drugs have radically different (and very complex) mechanisms of action. Because we call them all "illegal drugs" doesn't mean they're the same thing or act the same way. Even the same drug at different dosages can have dramatically different effects.

It's very plausible that microdoses of LSD produce illusory creativity, since many drugs do indeed undermine self-perception -- not that that tends to be very reliable in humans anyway. But drugs are unlikely in my opinion to be a substitute for struggle in the creative process. Creativity has two components: novelty and appropriateness. Drugs are an easy way to get to novelty, but when it comes to judging appropriateness there's no substitute for plain, naked struggle with the obvious but inadequate approaches to a problem. Only then, after you've been forced to gain a deep and intimate connection to the problem's constraints, can some kind of flash of insight do you any good. Until you've struggled with a problem your insights are worthless, whether or not they come to you in a flash.

So it's essentially inconceivable that any drug could make you creative. However it seems plausible that some drugs could act as a kind of adjuvant to creative struggle when you're approaching a creative breakthrough. Such breakthroughs often come at a time when you're critical faculties are slightly deranged; when you're exhausted; dropping off to sleep; or just say "screw it for now" and do something unrelated.

Note that "plausible" isn't the same as "probable", much less "likely". The problem with information with drugs is that it's almost always slanted one way or the other. For example I think MDMA has a lot of potential to alleviate suffering, however research on it has been restricted by the fear that if it proves useful then controlling its recreational use will become harder. On the other hand I wouldn't take the word of recreational users and dealers unquestioningly either; I can easily find people who swear by homeopathy. There's a distinct lack of objectivity and reliability in information about recreational drugs.

The "good" news, I think, is that there's no substitute for creative struggle; and I think you can mentally train yourself to make that leap of intuition once struggle has prepared you.

Re:Increase productivity??

[Viol8]

I don't remember being drunk and unable to function for 16 hours after a pint of beer.

Re:Increase productivity??

[Computershack]

Then look at the countless number of people who have had their lives wrecked by it and not only those who were taking it. Long distance truckers on Amphetamine have had many accidents where they've killed some poor bastard in their car who was unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of the truck driver on speed.

Re:Increase productivity??

[ceoyoyo]

His post was saying "don't trust a drug user, get some real data." Seems reasonable. Recreational drug users always espouse the benefits of their drugs. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't use them.

Re:Increase productivity??

[danomac]

But you do get inspirations and ideas pouring into your mind all the time - I got tired of it in the end.

I was thinking that this explains a lot of the daft UI design we've seen recently.

Re:Increase productivity??

[hey!]

Here's my anecdote: Many interesting ideas I had back in the day came to me under the influence of pot. Some of those ideas brought me a great deal of money.

I never said this doesn't happen, but your reasoning is post hoc ergo propter hoc: your ideas came to you while you were stoned, therefore they must have come from the pot. In order to conclude that you'd have to have done all of your thinking about the problems while you were stoned.

As I said, I think it quite plausible that drugs can, at the right time, help you escape the limitations of self-censorship in your thinking. But in my experience people who are stoned all the time certainly have novel ideas, but those ideas aren't particularly useful. That's because creativity actually involves a kind of interplay of critical and imaginative thinking. Enough people have anecdotes like yours to think there's something to it, but the very nature of creativity -- at least as I'm defining it -- makes me doubt you can get it entirely out of a bottle.

For the record, I consider creativity the finding of novel approaches to a thing that are better in some way than pre-existing approaches. This almost certainly presupposes an intimate familiarity with pre-existing approaches, unless we count pure dumb luck as creativity. Picasso, for example, didn't draw the way he did because he couldn't to realistic work. He had very good drawing skills, and his early works were representational. That level of draftsmanship doesn't come without struggle; and from that he derived his interest in geometric figures, most easily seen in the development of his landscapes. Note if "House in the Field" seems a bit crude, it was painted when he was twelve years old.

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Right! Drugs should be available to all.

The problem...

[i.r.id10t]

The problem I see with this - and base this statement on first hand experience - is that you either tend to be very distracted and always looking at the next thing, or you tend to be incredible focused on one single thing for a very long time.

Granted, dosing wasn't an exact science and far from measured, much less consistency of product between uses. And the only "micro" part of any dose I did was when a friend found some 15+ year old purple microdots when he was moving (they still worked, sorta... only had a couple and there were 4 or 5 of us sharing them and we all ended up adding some blotter to our systems to really get going)

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately LSD has very little association with violent organized crime. The profit is way too low for them to bother, as it's not addictive (in fact, after taking it you cannot take it again within a few days).

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was really that we should take this enthusiasm and use it to push for legalization so it ISN'T just a rich man's game.

Instead over the past 10-15 years we have expanded prosecution of the Analog Act to ban anything REMOTELY psychedelic.

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

These are drugs, no matter how wealthy or powerful you are, and using these drugs helps criminals.

Only if you acquire them through illegal channels. If you can obtain them through your doctor (or from confiscated drugs if you have friends at DEA) you don't help criminals.

Still, being tired is the way your body tells you to slow down. While studies haven't been done on these drugs in particular we know that using caffeine instead of sleeping is bad for you in the long run. I don't see how any other drugs will be different.
Any substitute for sleep and relaxation is going to be a lot more complex than just your common drugs.
The body also gets your brain in order and sorts out memories while you are sleeping. Even if you find drugs to give your body everything that sleep provides the brain also has work to do.
Best case scenario would be if you could "sleep" while doing your workout or whatever, but you will still need to take a break from your work.

Re:Important to note

[GLMDesigns]

Of course if it was legal one wouldn't be "helping" criminals now would we?

Re:Important to note

[DamonHD]

Exactly: GP is attempting to fix the wrong problem...

Regulate, manage, tax, but don't prohibit except possibly a tiny number. Two of the four most harmful drugs are alcohol and nicotine so we should be able to regulate most of the rest at least as well...

Rgds

Damon

Re:Important to note

[mi]

Let's have a little equality.

Absolutely. Maybe, LSD should not be prohibited to begin with. Maybe, nothing should be prohibited at all — citizens of a free country ought to have the right to kill themselves in any way they wish. But the rules must be the same for everyone.

On that note, I argue for automated law-enforcement wherever practical — such as with traffic-cameras, which would fine an upstanding resident of the same town just as much as passer-by from 2 states away.

If you're a $100k/yr engineer

[rsilvergun]

such things don't apply. In America we have a multi-tiered justice system. It's pretty well documented. Wealthy and educated people get treatment programs, while poor (and let's face it, black) people get jail. It's because what we're really using our drug policy for is to keep the poors in check. Think of it this way. If your poor chances are you or one of your friends is using drugs to cope with poverty. Now, our drug laws, in particular our asset forfeiture laws are basically guilt by association. Combine that with juries that are inherently conservative (since you generally have to be well off to be able to afford to server on a jury for any length of time).

So when poor people show up in wealthy neighborhoods they not only stick out like a swore thumb, but odds are good the cops can bust them for the drugs at least one of them is carrying. This keeps poor people out of wealthy school districts and parks, and lets the wealthy enjoy their (much, much better) public services.

Basically, our drug policy is central to maintaining our class divide...

Re:Important to note

[sjames]

Funny thing, strip the nicotine from the terrible delivery system (and the MAOIs it contains) and nicotine becomes much more benign.

But in general, most of the actual harm from drugs comes from the prohibition itself.

Re:Important to note

[sudon't]

I'm tired at the lack of acceptance, entirely based on ignorance and received disinformation.

The important question to ask is, how does the government have the right to tell people what they can and cannot consume? After all, it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale and manufacture of alcohol, yet, they could not prohibit the consumption! Our forefathers still understood they did not possess this right over citizens. How was this lost? In what way are other drugs any different? Indeed, most recreational drugs are, if not entirely harmless, certainly less harmful than alcohol. The majority of harms associated with drug use are a direct result of prohibition, not the drugs themselves. The truth is, the government does not have this right. Drug prohibition is simply unconstitutional. The federal government has usurped the Constitution via the Commerce Clause, which has been interpreted to allow the government to do practically anything.

Why does drug-taking help criminals? Because taking drugs has been criminalized. Let us not forget that all drug prohibition has its roots in racism. "Health" is a much later justification, a justification made necessary by the slow erosion of the acceptability of overt racism, and made possible only by prohibition itself.