COMMUNITY PROJECT - Creating an "effects profile" for psychedelics

[Xorkoth]

Any work I'd do on this is still on hold until I can get a copy of the Hallucinogen Rating Scale. I'd put out another call to anyone who might have access to Strassman's study. Does it include a copy of the HRS? Can anyone point me at a copy? All the googling I've done never came up with anything. I really feel like this is the best place to start rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with our own rating criteria.

No point in building a house when I don't even know what the interior is supposed to look like.

What is so special about the hallucinogen rating scale? Isn't it just something like a 1 to 5 scale? Or am I missing the point and it's more complex than that? I mean using rating scales of 1-5/1-10 or -5 to 5 or something is pretty standard... I don't see why it wouldn't be a good system to use.

I should really get this finished... I still love the idea.

Thanks for posting, Obyron... I was just thinking last night about how this thread hadn't had any activity for a while.

 

[Obyron]

Because it's already a scientifically accepted scale put together by a doctor doing this research in the real world, and there's no point in replicating a bunch of effort trying to create a new scale from the ground up when we could use something like the HRS as a starting point and simply tweak it as necessary. As much as I think it'd be an interesting intellectual challenge to come up with a new rating scale, it's easily the kind of thing we could spend a year creating and still not come to any consensus among users about whether it's the right scale to use.

Better to start with something we know is good, and discuss any changes we feel are necessary than try to do the whole thing from scratch.

tl;dr A camel is a horse that was designed by committee.

 

[Xorkoth]

^^ I'm just saying, is it something like a 5-point numeric scale, or is it something more complex than that? Because a 5-point (or N-point) numeric scale is a numeric scale... it doesn't take anything to come up with that, it's just a scale. But if it's more complex than that, then I agree, we should find out about it and use that because it's already been used.

But I mean, if it's just a numeric scale then we don't need to find it, think about it, and start from scratch. We can just use a numeric scale.

The problem here is that I have never seen this scale so I'm not sure what it even consists of. So I could be totally wrong and it could actually be something unique that we can use. I just don't know which is why I'm asking.

The kind of scale I'm thinking of is very simple, like 0 to 5, 0 being this effect did not appear, 1 being the effect appeared but only barely noticeable, 3 being the effect was present through the whole trip but not overwhelming, and 5 being that the effect was overwhelmingly present throughout the whole trip and directed much of the focus of the trip.

Or something like that.

I guess I see what you're saying, though... the way the scale is described will have an impact on how people rate things with it. But it seems to me it wouldn't be all that difficult to create a scale that people could understand and use. Who's to say the HRS is going to be any clearer to understand? And who's to say it wasn't just the first thing the guy who did the research with it thought of, and we couldn't easily come up with one that's just as valid or even better?

Surely someone must know something about this scale!

 

[crOOk]

The morpho-space/x-dimensional mappings samadhi smiles suggested really seems like the only solution to make sense. That might seem a bit narrowminded at first, but how else would you rate a substance WITHOUT potentially misleading users and creating the danger of misinformation. The system would be reflecting all the users' experience, it'd basically be like an online study without any interpretation done, simple statistics, a user created array of information. Anyone reading it could do the thinking for himself when he's considering whether it's worth looking into a substance a little further or not.

Imho it'd be best to start like this:
-We come up with the aspects of the drug that will be rated (the sum of which will be the number of dimensions represented in the mapping).
-A thread is created which simply asks users to rate their psychedelics in each of the x dimensions.
-The thread starter could either list the results in some viewer friendly fashion within the thread or (which would imho be the better choice) would keep record of all posts in order to create a steadily maintained xls/pdf-file on his pc which will be attached to the first post the whole time.

So if you'd ask me, we already have a system, I' be willing to take care of the maintenance unless someone else would like to do it.
All we really need to do is come up with the different dimensions.

I could think of a few very obvious ones here which would have to be included, like onset, duration, visual intensity, auditory intensity, tactile intensity, ego dissolution, humorous aspects, introspective aspects, "dark" (?) aspects, overall rating ... You get the idea. Let's get to work and name those categories which will create an outline. We should probably question users about this as well and then decide which ones should be included. After all, this is a community project.
We should abstain from recommending a dosage though, since it'd be hard to reflect the tolerance of a user in such a mapping... What do you guys think?

EDIT: Oh and btw, I don't think this Strassman thing is going anywhere really, first of all our study would potentially have a considerably larger group of people available for questioning (I doubt Strassman uses internet forums for his) and the fact that he has already done the work shouldn't stop us from doing ours. Especially in science one cannot rely solely on the work of others. We are not replicating Strassman's concept, we are trying to create something that's as good as possible, if possible favored by the targeted audience over Strassman's rating system. If we stumble across his system, we could still integrate some of his ideas...

 

[crOOk]

Because it's already a scientifically accepted scale put together by a doctor doing this research in the real world, and there's no point in replicating a bunch of effort trying to create a new scale from the ground up

A) My guess would be that there are a few doctors browsing through these forums.
B) We are all in the "real world". And actually, reading some of Strassman's theories, one could for a few seconds doubt HE is from the real world (I don't think he himself is at all times sure which world he belongs to)

Like I said, if we stumble upon his findings, let's see if we can implement some of his ideas. Aside from that, I really don't see a reason why Dr. Strassman's work would be of such great importance, if we don't even have any info on it lol...

 

[Obyron]

^^ There probably are doctors reading this thread. If any of them have performed a major university study on a controlled substance, and have published a respectable review of said study that also includes an in-depth rating scale for the "grading" of entheogenic effects, I'd love to hear from them.

My argument for the HRS isn't based on any great love for Strassman, but rather on the fact that I think it'd be easier for everyone to agree on a scale that has already been used in a respected scientific study than try to invent something ourselves and argue back and forth about whether or not it's ready for use. In other words, I think trying to create a new rating system would further delay this project to the point that it will probably just never get done.

EDIT TO ADD:

My understanding is that the HRS was a list of something like 130 questions, asked in different stages, so it ended up being like 250 questions, each with a 0-4 rating.

The following quote is a summary of the "factors" they used in formualting the questions. I'm almost 100% sure this was already posted in this thread.

Based upon our initial interview with DMT smokers, and the narrative accounts of our subjects of their experiences, we arrived at six factors that appeared to "hang together" conceptually. They also were appealing from a descriptive, phenomenological, "mental status" perspective. These factors were:


Affect/Emotion: questions concerning "anxiety," "fear," "euphoria," "urge to laugh," "urge to cry;"

Somaesthesia/Interoception: questions addressing "feeling flushed," "effect on bodily weight," "shaky feelings," "effect on bodily temperature;"

Intensity: questions concerning "how high were you," "how intense was the experience," "how strong was the rush;"

Perception: questions addressing primarily visual and auditory effects such as "visual imagery," "visual effects," "presence of a geometric grid over objects," "sounds sounding different;"

Cognition: questions concerning effects on thought processes or content, such as "thoughts speeded up," "effect on quality of thinking," "insights into occupational or personal life;" and

Volition: effects pertaining to "loss of control," "feeling sane or insane," "ability to more around if asked to."

The source is MAPS, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 1992.

 

[Solipsis]

It's good to see the input of people willing and able to contemplate this project.
The HRS would of course be a very valuable asset for the development of our study and going back and forth about a custom made survey would stall it considerably, I agree.
First of all: I am aware that the original link to my survey is dead, I will repost it asap - take this in mind when reading my critique:
I would like to state for the last time that I think that while we wait and hope for someone else to cut out our work for us, it might be very worthwhile to actually discuss the content of the survey I wrote! Honestly, I appreciate the effort so far but it's not like we are in a hands-tied stand still... Suppose there is negative input about the actual questions I posed in the document we can improve on that point whether we can use the HRS in the future or not. And if enough agree that we are indeed finished and have a valid survey that is consistent and in a way envelops our scope while not being so long as to deterr people completing it and rendering it unsubstantial ... we have something to work with!

For you nay-sayers: I totally agree that on a very important level the psychedelic experience (or human experience even) is indescribable or intransmittable. Still, we shouldn't consider language or categorisation in a defaitistic fashion...
The ultimate goal would be a balance between profiling and reducing effects to categories and on the other hand keeping it as impersonal as possible to maintain a universal quality and prevent misuse and wrong conclusions or interpretations followed by according actions.

We can either decide that such a balance is not possible or we could actually be progressive and try to find it. If the quality of our results are good enough in a non-imposing way I trust that responsible people will understand that it is not definitive and guarantuees absolutely nothing. Unresponsible people will exist as long as there are humans, if it is made clear that we do not proclaim any truth that should be enough.
Otherwise the next step would be to say that elaborate information is dangerous because misinterpretation is a real risk. I say let us not remain uninformed out of fear.
What I'm not sure about is if we could also make a simplified indication table of substances rating the tendencies to produce certain effects. Maybe we can do this only with the less arbitrary factors like nausea.
Putting this on the side may be helpful to have an overview of the probable effects a substance will have, I imagine someone considering 2 different 2C-X's giving this overview a gander and deciding that the negative physical effects of one of them is too pronounced. I see no problem in giving a statistic on a phenomenon we have a pretty clear definition of. In fact I think a good number of psychedelic effects can at least be categorised into terms we are familiar with. Take paranoia for instance: is it really neccessary to discuss what it might mean to another person?

reminder:
Please, can I ask you to judge my survey on content and maybe even take a leap towards this multidimensional profile idea of S_S ? I will post a new link when I get the chance.

Many thanks to your contribution!!!!!

 

[crOOk]

I'll be waiting for the link then Solipsys!

Affect/Emotion: questions concerning "anxiety," "fear," "euphoria," "urge to laugh," "urge to cry;"

Somaesthesia/Interoception: questions addressing "feeling flushed," "effect on bodily weight," "shaky feelings," "effect on bodily temperature;"

Intensity: questions concerning "how high were you," "how intense was the experience," "how strong was the rush;"

Perception: questions addressing primarily visual and auditory effects such as "visual imagery," "visual effects," "presence of a geometric grid over objects," "sounds sounding different;"

Cognition: questions concerning effects on thought processes or content, such as "thoughts speeded up," "effect on quality of thinking," "insights into occupational or personal life;" and

Volition: effects pertaining to "loss of control," "feeling sane or insane," "ability to more around if asked to."

These would be great starting points for the various aspects that will be rated. Additionally we should add things like duration, onset, peak duration, duration of after effects etc. Nausea is important as well (maybe a boolean value for vomiting).

So basically, all we need is to get these categories down right? This can't be so hard. Of course I'd like to have a view at that survey of yours, Solipsys, as well as Strassman's findings. But after all, it's really just:

-Finding the categories
-Starting the survey

Right? The format suggested by samadhi_smiles and elaborated further by myself should be the only way this thing can be structured right? If anyone disagrees, please try to present an alternative model so we can get this thing going. I just discovered this thread and I'm seriously wondering why there hasn't been any real progress since SEPTEMBER 2007...
I'd be willing to do all the work, let's just agree on the categories/aspects of the various substances that will be evaluated.

 

[Obyron]

These would be great starting points for the various aspects that will be rated. Additionally we should add things like duration, onset, peak duration, duration of after effects etc. Nausea is important as well (maybe a boolean value for vomiting).

Agreed. All of this could go in a section on quantitative effects, along with weight, height, etc. The rest of the questions of the experience would fit into qualitative effects.

I think a big part of why there's been no progress is that the people involved have been doing other things. I've really been in the middle of leaving my job, moving, settling in, starting work again, etc., since January. I'm finally in a position where I'm settled enough and have the time and resources to work on something like this again. I don't think there was any loss of interest, but rather it was more of a "shit happens" thing.

I'll be glad to take a look at Solipsys's survey when it's back up.

I would think a list of questions, each graded on the same scale of 1 to 5 or what have you, is the best way to go. As long as we can get some meaningful averages, and retain the ability to do statistical comparisons (ie: x% of people using 4-HO-XYZ rated nausea a 4, or based on 10 reports from Person B, their typical level of nausea is 20% lower than than the mean) without having to do some kind of mathematical gymnastics to get the numbers into a format we can use. I think this part is probably a no brainer.

EDIT TO ADD:

I pick 1-5 because it's a scale small enough that you can get a meaningful number without overly taxing the person who's reporting the experience. It's easy to say, for example, Nausea: 1 = No or insignificant nausea, 2 = Mild or transitory nausea, 3 = nausea throughout the experience, 4 = high degree of same, 5 = severe. It's easy for anyone looking to know the difference between a 1 and a 2. Can you say the same for a 10 point scale? What's the difference between 6 and 7? If you've just had this mind-blowing trip, are you overly likely to pick the higher number if there is a small enough difference that you're not sure that it matters? God forbid -100 to +100. What's the difference between your +10 and my +17? We should keep the information concise, but also make it easy for the person reporting it. I can't imagine answering 100 questions about an experience I'm still integrating where I'm asked to reliably differentiate between a 7 and a 6.

Also it comes to mind that experience with the chemical could be an important quantitative factor. Say you want to try 5-MeO-MIPT. You could look at an average of all trips from first timers, and see how it differs from the same average for people who are experienced with the chemical. Does the anxiety smooth out? Do you ever get used to X or Y? Does Z seem stronger in people who are experienced enough to tell the difference? Could help people decide whether to give something another shot in the face of a "just average" first experience.

I think it's clear to see that I'm more interested in making sure the information is USEFUL than in advocating any one way to collect it-- assuming the way we come up with is simple and concise. My first opinion on morphospaces is that they are overly pedantic on one hand, and overly simple on another. Is it reasonable to expect someone to be able to qualify vague differences about a general subject (e.g.: pleasure. How intense? For how long? Generalized or specific location? Generalized or specific trigger? etc.) out of part of a larger experience? Is it useful or representative that 2 people out of 15 happened to have a tingle in their left elbow, lasting from 12-17 minutes? Overly simple in the sense that if you're going to ask 10 questions about 10 different "dimensions" or "categories," then you really have to pick ten very useful categories, in which case don't you run the risk of being overly GENERAL in certain cases?

I'd just have to see examples to have an opinion, I guess. I could see it being really good or really bad, just depending on how it's done.

For the record, this is why I thought it'd be nice to start with someone else's work.

 

[Xorkoth]

Great ideas, man.

I think a big part of why there's been no progress is that the people involved have been doing other things.

Yep, that's exactly it. This past few months I got promoted and bought a new house and I will be moving into it completely in August. Then I will be working from home permanently and no longer working night and day to buy a house, so I will have some time again.

 

[The Hoff Bomb]

One Theory

Things start making since in a completely different way. Pieces seem to come together and you see life in a completely different perspective. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Your senses are intensefied to the point where one part of your brain is not enough and they cross over(synthesia). This causes chaos and your brain makes up for what it cannot comprehend. I can hear things really good when I'm on acid.

 

[EntheoDjinn]

^^^ ??

Anyway - I'm going to get access to Strassman's HR Scale - but I'll need to scan it. Does anybody here still want a copy?

 

[Xorkoth]

^^ Yep, that would be nice. Thanks!

 

[EntheoDjinn]

OK. Should have it done by middle of next week. Anybody else just PM me and I'll send it on.

 

[Obyron]

I'd love a copy, assuming you don't just post it in the thread.

 

[EntheoDjinn]

^I'm not sure what the score is for posting it in the thread - I presume it's a copyrighted document. If it's copyright-free then I'll just do that. If not I'll PM it to whoever wants it. Been a slight delay as my friend went to London without giving it to me - he'll be back in a week or so, so will sort it out then.

 

[SKL]

I'd like a copy as well for curiosity's sake. Thanks!

 

[Delsyd]

^put me on the list.

 

[Solipsis]

Current survey

Sorry for taking so long but here is the current state of affairs:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/8qjnwl

Let's modify this until we feel confident about it and look for distinguishable parameters. If we can break a general state of consciousness down into it's algorithms a change in consciousness may also be assessed. It shouldn't be overly difficult as it parallels the same categorisation I built this survey on in the first place.
Personally I can only see interesting and informative results coming from this. Maybe it's sometimes hard to put an experience well into words, especially transcending experiences and it could be impossible to overcome this personal barrier. But we CAN look at the transpersonal factors. At the very least I'd be curious about the most superficial of psychedelic effects.
The classic psychedelic effect to me is generic in a way. But having tasted a lot of different substances I'd also say it's inherent that if two drugs differ in a way that is chemically or pharmacologically relevent the resulting experience gets a difference in flavor or character. Maybe one drug changes the appearance in size of objects more and another tends to produce more closed-eyed imagery and patterning.

^^ I keep saying this. Let's not focus on the fact that everyone is different but on the similar tendencies of substances.

 

[Obyron]

Sorry for taking so long but here is the current state of affairs:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/8qjnwl

Let's modify this until we feel confident about it and look for distinguishable parameters. If we can break a general state of consciousness down into it's algorithms a change in consciousness may also be assessed. It shouldn't be overly difficult as it parallels the same categorisation I built this survey on in the first place.

The survey looks like a good start. I'm not sure I like the format of question 1.2, and would ask what you think of breaking it into 2 questions. Why use -3 to +3? Seems like 0-5 or something would work equally well.

I'd like the visual effects further differentiated or explained (ie: "strobing" might be another good lay example for flanging), or the list pared down. I consider myself a hardened psychonaut, and I'm not sure I could tell you the difference between visual flowing, visual melting, and visual rippling. Aren't they the same thing at different speeds? Are there too many options for things that are hard to quantify?

The rest looks good so far, but I'm going to dig more into it on Tuesday when I have some time off.