• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

COMMUNITY PROJECT - Creating an "effects profile" for psychedelics

Oh ok i see.. and then maybe the final scoring could be out of 100 to give more accurate representations of what characteristics certain chemicals may have.. because if kept on a simple 1 - 5 level i can see alot of chemicals producing the exact same figures.. where as if u introduce a more precise scoring it will stop that problem from occuring.

So, lemme see.. if 100 people answer the 1 - 5 survey, we could add up everyones answers to the same questions.. 5 being 5 points.. so say 57 ppl answered 5 for euphoria, 17 answered 4, 5 answered 3, 6 answered 2 and 5 answered 1.. we add the scores up so this particular one would be.. *gets calculator out*.. no wait.. sorry.. i'm lost :(
 
Well, in that case then the average score could be, say 3.74 or something. It really would be pretty accurate I think.
 
Oh yeah.. dumbass me forgot about addin a couple places after the decimal rather than before 8)
 
invert said:
Likewise, if my help could be useful in developing this, and if a time-turner can be acquired, I'd be delighted to help. Questionnaires/surveys aren't the sort of methodologies I typically use, but my research is in the area of perception and - increasingly - neuroscience, so I may be able to bring something useful to the table possibly. But, yeah, some sort of day-increasing device may be needed. What with my PhD to complete this year, and my DiPT-research in my spare time; I'm all researched out at the moment, really.

ETA: This may be an obvious/silly question, or it may be one more suited to ADD, I'm really not sure... Presumably (since at least a contrast between DiPT and any typical psychedelic should make it obvious that different sensory systems may be affected differentially by different psychedelics) some structures are better at playing with receptors in some areas of the brain than others, regardless of the expression of the relevant receptor types across regions... The same person (with a given distribution of 5HT2 receptors in their auditory and visual cortices) will experience auditory distortion on DiPT and visual distortion on 4-HO-DMT, say. Do we know (or is there any indication) of the sort of factors and mechanisms that determine which bits of the brain (regardless of receptor expression) a given chemical will be able to target? Is it to do with whether the chemical can physically get into the relevant part of the brain (e.g. DiPT is better at getting into the auditory cortex)? Or is it to do with different subtypes of receptor in different regions of the brain (e.g. 5HT2 receptors in the auditory cortex are structurally different from those in the visual cortex, and this difference makes them more amenable to the structure of DiPT)? Or something entirely other? (Conceivably, an alternative would be that the differences aren't at the level of the specific sensory cortices, but in the connections between the sensory cortices and integration regions.)

Oh, and a supplementary question... To what extent do we know what parts of the brain are directly affected (i.e. the drug reaches and acts on receptors in those regions; as opposed to indirectly stimulating activity in other areas, as a knock-on from the activity caused directly) by psychedelics (I know a fair amount's known about which receptors are affected, but I've not heard of much on which brain areas are involved). I guess this would require a radio-labeled psychedelic to investigate this, right?

ETA: On reflection, this question could clearly benefit from being asked in ADD, so I'll post it over there.
Click to expand...

Based on everything i've read, yes you would need a radio-labeled drug for this type of experiment. If i remember correctly DOI has been used to some degree in this manner, with radioactive iodine, i believe. It may be possible to infer some of the brain areas involved from subjective effects, but this is a tricky area. If you could find enough neurology students willing to dose themselves with strange chemicals, it would probably yield some at least interesting results. Probably some interesting conversation as well, ha.

Dr. Shulgin expresses a lot of interest in this type of work in his commentaries in PiHKAL and TiHKAL, but due to restrictive laws in many countries this type of research has been stifled to say the least. As I'm sure many of you are aware there is also, a Book III is in the works by the aforementioned Dr. and his wife that is basically an Encyclopedia of Psychedelics. Psychedelic Index i believe is the working title, and it sounds pretty similar to what you guys are talking about
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
Although i can't see how this can accurately work taking into account dosages.. i do have to disagree with ur ranking of hostility and bodyload.. Mushrooms, out of all the pyschs i have done, are the most likely to be scary and unfriendly (and alot of other users have reported the same in my thread: Worst Psychedelic http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=361334&) I have also found the body load to be very pronounced and a very annoying part of mushrooms.. which alot of my friend agree with. (whereas i find acid to have virtually none)..

Another thing that would have to be taken into account is of course; Set & Setting. Someone taking psychedelics at a rave will have a completely different experience to someone taking psychedelics to better their life while sitting alone in their garden. Also.. everyone is different! And when it comes to psychedelics that plays a massive role in what kind of affects the drug will have / which affects will be more prominent.

This to me is just proving that everybody's trips will be so different it will be nigh impossible to come up with an affective effects profile for psychedelic drugs.

Maybe a more accurate profile could be achieved using a comparison model.. ie: how each psychedelic compares to another (using most well known and used as a base)..
Click to expand...

agreed. This scale seems a bit too subjective. I think a 1-10 rating for specific effects would provide much more usable results. Perhaps something like:

Visual Effects:
Rate Each 1-10
Color Changes
Color Enhancement
Shape Distortions
Facial Distortions
Depth Perception Impairment
Patterns
Morphing
Hallucinations (objects that aren't actually there)

Auditory Effects:
Rate each 1-10
Enhancement of aural stimuli
Enhanced appreciation of music
Aural Distortions
Auditory Hallucinations

Cognitive Effects:
Rate Each 1-10
Euphoria
Free-Association
Fear/anxiety/panic
Synasthesia
Thought Loops
Inappropriate Affect
Obsessive/Compulsive Behavior
Time Dilation

Other Effects:
Olfactory Hallucinations
Excessive Laughter
Mydriasis
CNS Stimulation
Nystagmus
Bruxia


Obviously this is just a formatting suggestion. These are simply effects I've noticed with psychedelics which could be changed or more accurately described. A specific definition of terms should be included in any literature to accompany the survey to clear up any confusion subjects may have
 
^^ This is actually exactly what we're doing, if you read the rest of the thread. ;) The post rickolasnice was responding to was from someone who did not understand what we were trying to do.
 
ah, my bad. I only read the first, then a couple of pages back, I found the more complete surveys and they look pretty good. And as already mentioned, the only really difficult thing will be to determine dosages of the more potent substances, i.e. LSD, Bromo-DFLY, DOx's, as many of those can me much less than a milligram.

There also seems to be a lot of attention given to set & setting. These are very important, obviously, but it would be a hard sell to convince me that they could change the pharmacology of a substance. The level of effects can be affected by this, as well as many other subjective factors, but the way a substance effects the brain is going to be at least fairly standard. How it affects the mind may be a totally different story.

[EDIT] If there's anything I can do to help let me know!
 
Last edited:
Will do. :) We haven't gotten to work on this for quite some time. I plan to devote time to it shortly to get it done and running. I really think the result could be valiable and I don't think it's been done before.
 
Just thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts - I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already (I just sort of speed-read through the thread), but I think a frequency graph would be a much better representation than just reporting averages (as in a graph for each question that had a bar representing the percentage for each answer - so like one that instead of saying avg 3.7, would say 20% chose 1, 14% chose 2, etc). A lot of chemicals affect people in different ways, but different ways that could still be seen with some accuracy in a frequency graph. Here's my thinking, using a somewhat exaggerated example:

Let's say, taking a cue from the survey prototype Xorkoth posted on the 4th page of the thread, we're looking at paresthesia (prickling/tingling/itching feeling). Suppose for some substance A, 80% of respondents reported "Have not experienced," 5% reported "Experienced lightly," 10% reported 4 (in between Experienced Strongly & Overwhelmingly), and 5% reported "Experienced Overwhelmingly." Now, the numerical average of those responses would be 0.7: between "Have not experienced" and "Experienced lightly."

Now there's nothing incorrect there per se, but let's say some fella comes along who, for whatever reason, is COMPLETELY freaked out by paresthesia - that prickling feeling, while tripping, always makes him think he's covered in bloodsucking cockroaches or some shit. This guy does NOT want to do a drug that gives him paresthesia. If the effects profile for substance A only says "Paresthesia: 0.7," then the guy's gonna think "Well hey, that sounds great, I guess I can handle some really subtle tingling." He knows the correct average, but he doesn't know that 15% of respondents had overwhelming or very strong paresthesia.

Now if there instead was a frequency graph showing the normalized frequencies of each answer, our friend here might say to himself "Y'know, that 15% there does not look too pleasant. Not worth the risk for me, I'm gonna stay away from this one." Our friend has a much more pleasant weekend.

Even for someone not super-adverse to some particular characteristic, this would let them go into the experience much more prepared. If you take a new drug knowing that 90% of respondents didn't feel sick at all, but a slim minority got some intense nausea/vomiting, you'll probably be freaking out less when you're hugging the porcelain and puking your guts out than if you were under the impression that no one ever got sick from whatever you took.

Also, reporting through frequency graphs instead of straight averages would give a whole lot more information without a whole lot more work. Excel can all but make these things for you, it would maybe take an extra minute or two for each question (which I think would be well worth it).
 
Last edited:
Hey, cool idea man. Thanks for your thoughts. :) I'm really trying to make time for this. I'm quite excited by the possibilities of the idea still.
 
I've decided I need to really buckle down and do this. I think it could be very valuable and interesting. So hopefully, it will soon be finished and we can start to see the results. :)
 
I was wondering on how I could participate. What is the common form on creating an effects profile for this project?
 
Well it's not done yet, but it is a survey... when a lot of people take the survey, the results will be compiled into an "effects profile". It's explained on the first few pages.
 
I've never had a really awful bodyload on mushrooms except once when I ate 10g. But that was stupid of me anyway. I tripped for 12 hours and wanted to be done after about hour 9. That feeling is always unsettling.
I always feel good and upbeat the next day, but still a bit "mushroom-headed" for about 24h after I dose. I always have a very ritualistic way of approaching them, and it produces consistent, positive results. I've had powerful 3+ experiences and even hit a 4+ once with a couple of very close friends. I've hoarded mushrooms for 60ish days trying to find a good mindset for the experience. I just wish I had better contacts in my area, as I've been here less than a year. I'm sure they'll be found sooner or later.
 
is the survey for this finalized yet? I'm about 6hrs away from my psych BA, so i could certainly help with that if it isn't completed yet
 
Alright... I've re-read this thread and I'm quoting a post that contains the current survey as I had it in 2007.

Xorkoth said:
Alright guys, I've massively updated the survey to include most of the things I'm thinking about the design of the survey. I would of course love to have anyone's input into how to make it better. The main thing about the survey is that the effects are asked in a series of questions, one question per grouping of effects. It's in a grid, and for each effect you select either "Did not experience" or a rating from 1 to 5. The rating scale is explained in the survey.

I'm using the free version of the survey software so far, so I can't put the questions on separate pages. But I'll be upgrading when it's time to launch the survey so it'll be on separate pages then.

Solipsys, I'm about to get into your Word document survey and try to incorporate things from there as well.

Here's the link: psychedelic survey prototype
Click to expand...

What do you guys think of this? I think it's not quite complete, as some of the sections are a bit short, but please post ideas. Take a look, and post ideas. I would still love to get this started because I still believe in its potential. :)
 
Section 10 has questions regarding increase/decrease in tactile sensation and taste - why not extend to the other senses as well? Visuals are probably well enough covered already, but at least increase/decrease in sense of smell (I've noticed an increase in sensitivity to smells on shrooms, for instance). Hearing as well - there are later questions specific to music, but I don't think that's the same as general increase/decrease in auditory sensitivity.

Visual section looks great btw, very thorough and descriptive. Some more detailed descriptions of effects in question might be helpful (so people know what is meant specifically by visual distortion/morphing/crawling/breathing/etc).
 
Melikey...

A few thoughts, suggestions...

How accurate can we expect people to be who are self reporting dosages, especially with things like lsd, when most of the time people don't know how much they took exactly, as number of "hits" is highly inaccurate? I wish I had a good suggestion for this, but can't think of one at the moment. I know there's a "don't know" option in the dropdown menu, but that may result in large amounts of unusable data...

There should also be a general health, both mental and physical, checklist somewhere so that we can identify pre-existing conditions that could otherwise be confounding variables, i.e. anxiety disorders, depression, hypoglycemia, epilepsy, decreased renal or hepatic function, blindness, deafness, things of this nature.

Some of the things listed as psychological side effects may be considered simply "effects," i guess thats a bit semantic, but things like confusion and short term memory issues are pretty intrinsic to the psychedelic experience, in my opinion. Also, I suppose the emotional and psychological effects could be combined under the heading cognitive maybe? And physical side effects could be combined with physical effects? My brain is starting to feel a bit scrambled trying to assign aspects of psychedelic intoxication into "effects" and "side effects" Also, a space for "Other, please describe" should be in every effects section, who knows what kind of things some people may experience.

And finally a (not at all)0-10(overwhelming) scale may provide slightly more accurate data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top