For stories about specialist research, we've found that HN works better with the most substantive popular article, plus a link to the paper in the comments. It's true that the 'most substantive' popular article is often still rather weak, making more out of the paper than there is, etc., but HN readers tend to point this out in the thread, and the alternative (linking to the paper first) doesn't seem to work as well for discussion–the barrier feels too sheer.
It's different with papers in fields where the HN audience tends to have a lot of specialists, such as computing.
It's bizarre that LSD (among other things) have been banned from researchers for this long. Recently as research has been starting to happen again we've seen such interesting and successful applications for MDMA and Ketamine.
I can't wait to find out what these drugs can do over the next few decades.
Isn't it quite obvious that in any "coldwar type" scenario it's advantageous to ban civilian research on anything you don't want you enemies to also get their hands on? At least if: (a) you're arrogant enough to believe civilian researches will not outsmart military ones, or (b) you believe that what you got so far is "good enough" for military applications, or (c) you think that this might be helpful forcing scientists passionate about the banned fields to work for the military.
Dunno which of do above is actually true about this topic, but for anything "banned in the '60s" it's important to think about the perspective of things in the 60s. Asides from the hippies and new age, this was the era when US military planners contemplated an unprovoked first nuclear strike on USSR simply because they knew the Russians where behind on ICBM tech but not for long. And on the other side the Russians where desperate developing bio and other unconventional weapons because they knew they were behind on nukes and needed something to fill the damn "gap". Psycho-chemical weapons combined with a new level of psychological warfare could've been seen as a pretty enticing "gap filler" material.
I agree with you completely. Francis Crick was using LSD during the days when he discovered DNA's double helix geometry. To me, this means psychedelics are for more than just manic, unhinged thoughts, or illusions of grandeur. It can actually provide intelligent people with valuable perspective, insight, and creativity.
Considering societies current state, a change in perspective wouldn't be harmful. But people are afraid of change...
Typically one uses keywords in a grant application (and its associated scientific papers) to signal relevance to a funding agency. In the USA, "Psychiatric illnesses" is an NIH paper, while "figuring out consciousness" is a NSF paper, "augmenting soldier's consciousnesses" is a DARPA paper, etc.
13 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadSubmitters: HN prefers original sources. When an article is mostly a pointer to another one, please submit that one instead.
It's different with papers in fields where the HN audience tends to have a lot of specialists, such as computing.
Edit: contradicting what I said above, here's a counterexample: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12361666. There are always exceptions.
I can't wait to find out what these drugs can do over the next few decades.
Dunno which of do above is actually true about this topic, but for anything "banned in the '60s" it's important to think about the perspective of things in the 60s. Asides from the hippies and new age, this was the era when US military planners contemplated an unprovoked first nuclear strike on USSR simply because they knew the Russians where behind on ICBM tech but not for long. And on the other side the Russians where desperate developing bio and other unconventional weapons because they knew they were behind on nukes and needed something to fill the damn "gap". Psycho-chemical weapons combined with a new level of psychological warfare could've been seen as a pretty enticing "gap filler" material.
It still rings clear that altered consciousness is something seen as illness or being deficit in som way by the scientific community.
This points out a deeper ignorance within the collective human psyche and is an attitude has to go before any real study can be done.
Considering societies current state, a change in perspective wouldn't be harmful. But people are afraid of change...
"Drop acid, not bombs!"
Legend has it that Bill Atkins was inspired to create HyperCard by an LSD trip.
Or in deep meditation.
The difference is you don't have a choice in the case of an illness, and it can be pretty shitty.