tired of crap
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
When something like this happens: initial glowing reports, followed by others confirming them, of the "unique" nature of this particular PEA - doesn't it really hammer home the huge amount of expectation/placebo effects going on here?
And given this timely reminder - do you think to question that maybe some of the time, it's good old set n' setting that accounts for a significant part of the variance, rather than the different molecular structure?
Many experienced psychonauts claim that tryptamines feel one way, the halogenated 2Cs another, but subtly different to the alkylated versions, etc etc...
This has, I'm afraid, always struck me as rather unlikely. Given the number of other variables in a psychedelic experience, the tweaks to the molecules might well get washed out by other factors. I have a strong hypothesis that doing a double-blind test, with an experienced user, choosing drugs of similar duration, that they would not be able to guess better than chance which substance was which.
Some interesting thoughts there. I (believe I) remember reading Shulgin, in either pihkal or Tihkal, stating that when introducing a new compound to the group he had to be careful not to lead them on too much.... as the words we (he and other creators, not I lol) use to describe the subjective experience of a new substance give it part of its character....
Tho I’m with @Xorkoth . I believe the subtle differences are what keep all the alphabet psyches around.... if they were all so similar I don’t think the novelty alone would be enough to keep them around..
Also the differences in receptor affinities is why I believe all the lsd pro-drugs shouldn’t be called “acid” ...