Yeah I am aware of other alkaloids found, but I also never heard or read much more than that they aren't really active by themselves or only very mildly so - and the quantities would be too low to really compare it to say natural cannabinoids and how differently they can act on 2 different receptors. But like I said, maybe there is some mild MAOI effect from them that wouldn't be so strange... and the only significant difference I wondered about is whether mindfuck could possibly be a result of a mix of modified psilocin analogues or modulation of the effects... I could imagine that muddies the waters mentally.
Another difference, but again one that I find hard to get a grip on even if trying a lot of synthetic tryptamines seemed to show me tendencies, is that free 4-HO tryptamines especially when taken in a drink of water, would come up very fast and visually overwhelming but light on the body... The esters would feel more smooth, dilated and drawn out to me and more body oriented. Again, seeing a double blind study would be wonderful.
By the way for pure mescaline vs. cactus I do think people say that the difference is quite noticeable, moreso it sounds like, than synthetic psilocin vs mushrooms. But that's not a good comparison, the better comparison would be between all those cultivars of peyote compared to each other - which I predict would not be a significant difference..
I agree: don't focus on the expectations too much, or if you do, just make it excited positive feelings... that couldn't hurt as a mindset... I never want to push opinions even if I have a strong one myself, but doubt is very important.. believing too much in something just because it is compelling and convincing and appeals to you seems weak and tricky, because compelling ideas have nothing to do with how much they can fool you. It's like that "I want to believe" thing..
I just think people should be careful with that, it is how superstitions start and people start confusing beliefs and facts.
Tbh, I've always find it a conundrum whether it is good to believe in something because it simply makes you happy, or in something more evidence-based that doesn't make you happy. But it becomes a big difference when you bring that belief into say a scientific argument.
But more on-topic: it is IMO wise to invest in influence known factors yourself, with set & setting, preparing say a beautiful walk in nature, some meditation, drawing, a deep personal talk with a friend, or other things that over time you learn make for a priceless psychedelic experience.
Compared to that, the question whether statistically a strain could be slightly different than others in a consistent way, but subtle enough to remain as elusive as it clearly is... seems so futile doesn't it? Invest in making the best of it yourself!