Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A few counterpoints to your statement, "if you look at what the do, not what they say, they don't seem much different." Francis Crick attributed his discovery of DNA to LSD. Steve Jobs attributed much of his accomplishments in life due to his experiences on LSD (iirc, his aversion to buttons was developed during one particular LSD trip, and this led to the design of the one-button mouse, the click-wheel on the iPod, and the button-less front face of the iPhone). Jimmy Hendrix also attributed much of his creative abilities due to LSD.

I think you'll find as many examples of people who are transformed by it as you want to. Put your blinders on, and it's just a drug to "turn on, tune in, and drop out". First-hand experiences of the drug, like psilocybin (chemically basically the same drug), show that people truly do have positive life-altering changes in their lives after the experience.




That cuts both ways - people can equally say "I was able to <X> because I never took <Y>."

Without some objective data, there's no way to attribute the abilities and accomplishments to the absence or presence of LSD.


Crick developed his understanding of the structure of LSD during an LSD trip. Steve Jobs developed an active aversion to buttons during one of his LSD trips. These were merely two examples of direct counterpoints to the GGP post. These weren't concepts that were enabled indirectly by LSD; they were the direct results of the LSD trips, not cases of "I was able/not able to do <X> because I took/never took <Y>".


Strawman. While those stories MAY be true, it's equally valid to posit that those discoveries/thoughts may well have happened otherwise, too.

Just like all the things that have been discovered while not on LSD, for example.


I think you're confusing a "straw man argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) with "anectdotal evidence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ). I never claimed anything but anectdotal evidence, as I presented three separate cases of anectdotal evidence as direct contradictions to the original post. These examples are, indeed, direct contradictions to the original post. The original author then edited their post to add the bit about possible therapeutic properties of the drug, but the original content stated categorically that LSD did not contribute to any significant development in people that took it, and I presented three counterpoints, two of which claim that their insights came while on the drug, as a direct consequence of the drug's effects on the mind.

In either case, the additional edit stating "that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity" was not in the original post, and is something that nobody here, as far as I can tell, is promoting. LSD, like psilocybin, is a powerful drug, and should be respected as such.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: