[HN Gopher] Regarding Michael Pollan's New Book This Is Your Min... ___________________________________________________________________ Regarding Michael Pollan's New Book This Is Your Mind on Plants Author : Petiver Score : 81 points Date : 2021-07-09 19:05 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (harpers.org) (TXT) w3m dump (harpers.org) | unixhero wrote: | Internet -> Joe Rogan -> Hacker News | | what a time to be alive | jugg1es wrote: | My psychiatrist father was just talking to me about this book | yesterday, who definitely does not listen to Joe Rogan. Don't | give Joe Rogan so much credit. | dillondoyle wrote: | Perhaps too off topic, but given how easy it is get get opiates | from poppy 'milk' - as shown from the original unpublished | article - I've wondered why we don't see more of it from fairly | tame occasional use like Pollan to addicts going around scoring | and milking poppy bulbs in the neighborhood. | | Poppies seem to grow really easily in a lot of places. You don't | have to be a fancy chemist to just smoke or shoot the gunk. | | Here's a typical Vice story on this, big headline, fairly | unsatisfying reality lol. | | https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/heroin-holiday-in-the-cze... | PragmaticPulp wrote: | This seems like a weird spat over an author deciding to omit an | admission of illegal activity from his published works. It's | quite amazing that Harpers went so far as to commit to defending | him and financially compensating him to extreme degrees | (including the value of his house, if seized) in the unlikely | event that he was prosecuted. | | It's strange that Pollan would turn around and try to shift blame | rather than simply staying quiet. What does he think he stands to | gain by throwing his former publisher, who went to great lengths | to support him, under the bus? Why not simply let it stay in the | past? Or admit the truth and give credit where credit is due? | | I have to say, the more of Pollan's work I read the less I enjoy | his writings. He seems intent on riding the current waves of pro- | drug and anti-enforcement sentiment to propel his own notoriety | as an author. This also manifests as very one-sided portrayals of | drug use that glorify and exaggerate the benefits while | downplaying the negatives. In his book "How to Change Your Mind" | I felt that every pro-psychedelic argument was presented with | little questioning, while he only offered easy strawman counter | arguments as skepticism, easily dismissed by the reader after | reading a few more chapters of his pro-psychedelic writings. | | "How to Change Your Mind" was very popular several years ago and | continues to circulate in certain circles. I've read many | anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics after reading his | book with the expectation of life-changing experiences or | psychedelic treatments for their conditions, only to be | disappointed when they didn't experience the miraculous | experiences and transformations he describes. | | I wish we had a more engaging alternative writer to reference | about the realities of psychedelics and other drugs. Someone who | was more interested in delivering realistic, albeit necessarily | less boring, descriptions of the realities of this space. Some of | the depictions of psychedelics as miracle cure-all medicines have | gotten out of control and have become completely detached from | the actual research, which puts a heavy emphasis on many (10-20 | or more) therapy sessions surrounding the guided and monitored | psychedelic administration. These books tend to downplay the | realities and instead glorify the romantic notion of mushrooms as | a forbidden, mystical cure for all ailments. The realities are | much less clear-cut and definitely not always as positive as they | sound in these modern psychedelic mysticism books. | tayo42 wrote: | I'm surprised by this view of how to change your mind. Most of | his personal experiences in the book mentioned there were no | major changes. I also thought the book was level headed | compared to the typical stuff you read about psychedelics. His | history section was really neutral and all of the trips were | done under supervision of a therapist. If you came away from | that book expecting miracles I think you just hear what you | want to hear. | teknopaul wrote: | If someone is really trying to do you a favor, and all you | see is conspiracy theory, that is bog standard reaction to | too much acid. It doesn't matter _how_ you do it, or how | much, if you get to the stage where, as well as opening your | mind, you close your mind to the good intentions of of | others, you have done too much. All too common I'm afraid. | Bad things happen in the world, someone offering to | underwrite your losses because they respect you as a writer | is not one of them. | pksebben wrote: | I'm curious as to where you got the impression that | conspiracy theorizing is a standard reaction to "too much | acid". I've not seen anything of the sort despite a fair | amount of exposure to the culture. | elevenoh wrote: | >I wish we had a more engaging alternative writer to reference | about the realities of psychedelics and other drugs. Someone | who was more interested in delivering realistic, albeit | necessarily less boring, descriptions of the realities of this | space. | | Was pollen really all that disingenuous in the reality of psych | use/effectiveness at treating medical conditions? | | Seems his claims were pretty in-line with the research overall. | If anyone has a quote of pollen overstating benefits, feel free | to post the quote as I, for one, would like to see it. | IgorPartola wrote: | It's almost as if taking cannabis (and a few other things) off | schedule 1 would allow for publicly funded research into the | dangers and benefits of these drugs so that we all could be | better informed. | teknopaul wrote: | People do study pyschadelics. A lot. Cool stuff about | ketamine is coming out o HN, turns out the trick is not to | take 5 grammes a day. ;) | | I have been involved in publicly funded recreational drug | research, it does happen. Trouble is drugs takers don't like | the results, which unfortunately are not entirely positive. | e.g. huge numbers of people in mental institutions in the Uk | had their episode triggered by recreational drugs, especially | weed, which we all consider a soft drug. Studies happen, the | information is there but people don't like it because it does | not help their arguments. Despite many studies it still comes | down to the question of weather an individual has the right | to fuck themselves up or not. There is still no study that | shows smoking is good for you. | | Yet. | | Dont hold your breath. | IgorPartola wrote: | Per NIH/NAS [1]: | | > Despite these changes in state policy and the increasing | prevalence of cannabis use and its implications for | population health, the federal government has not legalized | cannabis and continues to enforce restrictive policies and | regulations on research into the health harms or benefits | of cannabis products that are available to consumers in a | majority of states. As a result, research on the health | effects of cannabis and cannabinoids has been limited in | the United States, leaving patients, health care | professionals, and policy makers without the evidence they | need to make sound decisions regarding the use of cannabis | and cannabinoids. This lack of evidence-based information | on the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids poses a | public health risk. | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ | galaxyLogic wrote: | Clearly something is terribly wrong if law or policy | dictates scientists can not study a specific subject, | based on political reasons | reducesuffering wrote: | Living up to your name, I see. | | Wholeheartedly agree. People looking to cure their depression | are going to quite surprised if they actually find themselves | in the worst imaginable hell possible. | | It's so bewildering how substances like psychadelics and opiods | can simultaneous be the thing producing the most heavenly | euphoria or the most terrifying hell; by a roll of the dice too | in psychadelic's case. The universe is funny. | thehappypm wrote: | I've enjoyed and gotten a lot out of every book of his I've | read. | hcrisp wrote: | He does seem to be sliding down hill. A decade ago I picked up | his book _The Botany of Desire_ not knowing what kind of writer | he was or his fame. It was a very interesting read, especially | the part about apples and the history of their variety. It led | me to try other, more delicious varieties than I had known. It | also included a more surprising section on cannabis. He | recounts a time when he grew it in his garden (which tells you | that his interests aren 't only agrarian or abstract). The | cannabis growing account ends with a rather humorous story | about him selling firewood to a person who shows up in his | driveway and turns out to be a sheriff in his day job. A | frantic attempt to dispose of the aforementioned illegal | controlled substance ensues so that the sheriff doesn't finds | out, and I won't ruin the ending. | | Fastforward to the other articles and books mentioned here, and | I'm starting to wonder if this earliest episode led him to try | more daring and far riskier exploits. Has writing about drug | cultivation and his conflicts with authorities large and small | become his shtick? | leephillips wrote: | I haven't read his more recent writings, but _The Botany of | Desire_ is a fascinating book. It will show you how | interesting the history of plants and their relationship with | culture can be. I read it many years ago, but I still find | myself going "did you know..." to people before recounting | something I learned there. | pmoriarty wrote: | _' I've read many anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics | after reading his book with the expectation of life-changing | experiences or psychedelic treatments for their conditions, | only to be disappointed when they didn't experience the | miraculous experiences and transformations he describes."_ | | Now this sounds at least as interesting as anything Pollan | himself writes about. | | I'd be interested in hearing the details of what they tried and | how (ie. their set and setting). | | Why these substances work for some people and not others (even | when administered in the exact same therapeutic settings and | using the same protocols) is one of the biggest open questions | in psychedelic research. | Animats wrote: | See "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman". Feynman was | convinced by Dr. Timothy Leary, in the 1960s, to try LSD. | Feynman then thought he'd solved some problem he was working | on. But when he went to give a talk on the problem, he | realized that he had not solved the problem. He had only | hallucinated that he had solved the problem. After which | Feynman didn't try LSD again. "I like to think. I don't want | to break the machine", he wrote. | svat wrote: | The "I don't want to break the machine" part from the book | was mainly about alcohol, and only secondarily about LSD: | | > I started to walk into the bar, and I suddenly thought to | myself, "Wait a minute! It's the middle of the afternoon. | There's nobody here. There's no social reason to drink. Why | do you have such a terribly strong feeling that you _have_ | to have a drink? " and I got scared. | | > I never drank ever again, since then. I suppose I really | wasn't in any danger, because I found it very easy to stop. | But that strong feeling that I didn't understand frightened | me. You see, I get such fun out of _thinking_ that I don 't | want to destroy this most pleasant machine that makes life | such a big kick. It's the same reason that, later on, I was | reluctant to try experiments with LSD in spite of my | curiosity about hallucinations. | | Also, according to this passage, Feynman's experiments with | LSD/hallucinations came _after_ (and despite) this | decision, and they are described extensively in the book. I | don 't remember a mention of Timothy Leary in the book (it | mentions John Lilly; maybe you've mixed up the two), and I | also don't remember the part about him giving a talk about | a problem he thought he had solved. | elevenoh wrote: | "I like to think. I don't want to break the machine" | | The 60s had some quite negative urban legends regarding | LSD's effect on the brain: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legends_about_drugs#Lys | e... | galaxyLogic wrote: | I think it is useful to come up with incorrect theories | and then and thus understand what is wrong with them. | Then one can come up with a better one perhaps. | | For Feynman it must have felt like a dangerous experiment | since it led him to come up with incorrect conclusions. | But I tend to think I learn most from my incorrect | thinking (assuming I realize it is incorrect) | pmoriarty wrote: | I love that book, and find Feynman eloquent, likeable, and | funny. He was also incredibly smart and highly | accomplished.. in his own field. | | But Feynman, like many other intelligent, famous people, | had a bad habit of opining on and dismissing out of hand | subjects he knew little about. He did this with philosophy | and with psychedelics. | | At least he tried LSD, but he was clearly not an authority | on LSD, and his experience with it was minimal. Not to | mention that back in the 60's little was known about how | best to use it (there was some research in to this, but | most people were not aware of the most effective methods.. | and even now, while we know better we might not have the | optimal method figured out). | | While Feynman might not have solved his scientific problem | on that particular session that doesn't mean that it's | useless in helping problem solving. In fact, there has been | research that indicated that it helped with both creativity | and problem solving: [1][2] and there's still ongoing | research in to this subject.[3][4] | | As we all know today, the benefits of psychedelics can | extend far beyond helping with creativity and problem | solving, however.. they can help with various personal and | mental issues, for example, increase empathy and openness, | help with end-of-life anxiety, help with relationships, | etc... apparently Feynman was either completely ignorant of | this potential or chose to ignore it while focusing only on | the narrow subject of scientific problem solving and his | fear.. which is understandable, but not really a fair | assessment of the potential of psychedelics. | | Which isn't to say that Feynman should have taken more LSD | (that's a personal choice for everyone, and I respect his | decision).. but just because Feynman didn't doesn't mean no | one should. | | [1] - https://www.amazon.com/LSD-Spirituality-Creative- | Process-Gro... | | [2] - https://maps.org/news/media/4814-jim-fadiman-on- | psychedelics... | | [3] - https://sciencetrends.com/does-microdosing-lsd- | stimulate-cre... | | [4] - https://maps.org/news/multimedia-library/3171-can- | psychedeli... | teknopaul wrote: | To say Feynmam knew "nothing about" a drug he actually | personally experienced is a hard sell. | | "Feynman was either completely ignorant of his potential | or chose to ignore it". [citation needed] | | IMHO he did rather well i his limited time on the planet. | pmoriarty wrote: | It's interesting that you quote me as saying that Feynman | knew "nothing about" LSD, when I actually said he knew | "little about" it. | | Not the same. | | Having one trip does not make you an expert. It makes you | a novice with still a lot to learn. Feynman, as smart as | he was, could not become an authority on LSD after a | single trip. | Alex3917 wrote: | Watch Hamilton Morris's interview with Pollan. I think people | are starting to get tired of his schtick, so he's no longer | getting the benefit of the doubt. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.is/2c2QS | svat wrote: | Summary: | | - In 1997, Michael Pollan wrote an essay, a section of which was | originally "about making opium tea from his home-grown poppies | and drinking the tea". There was some "fear that the Drug | Enforcement Administration would raid his house and seize his | property" if this were published, as Pollan thought it could be | viewed as "taunting the government." | | - The published version (available at | https://www.wesjones.com/pollan1.htm as pointed out by | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27804124), under the title | "Opium, Made Easy" in Harper's Magazine, left out that section. | | - Pollan's new (2021) book "This is Your Mind on Plants" restores | that material. (Which, incidentally, involved finding a zip | drive, and using LibreOffice to read the old Word document.) | | - Recently, in a Tim Ferris podcast, Pollan's version of the | events of 1997 (see https://tim.blog/2021/06/30/michael-pollan- | this-is-your-mind... starting with the phrase "in the '90s at the | height of the drug war") kind of suggests that the section was | left out because of the advice he got from the lawyers of | Harper's Magazine. | | - (Though he does mention their lawyer saying "you must publish | this article for the good of the Republic", and a contract the | publisher made saying "If you get arrested, we will not only | defend you, we will pay your wife a salary for the whole amount | of time it takes for you to defend yourself and if necessary, | serve your sentence. And if they take your house, we'll buy you a | comparable new one.") | | - In the posted submission here, John R. "Rick" MacArthur, the | president and publisher of Harper's Magazine, points out they did | their very best to get him to publish it, and it was Michael | Pollan who "insisted on withdrawing the passages about making and | drinking the tea". | | - It concludes with "Pollan took the easy way out. I don't blame | him for having been afraid. He just now shouldn't try to lay | responsibility for his decision on anyone but himself." | | That's the summary, but after having read both the posted article | and the transcript of the podcast, it's not clear to me what | disagreement there is, if any. Both versions seem to agree almost | entirely: both versions point out that the publisher heavily | pushed Pollan to publish the article in its entirety, even | offering him that amazing contract, and it was Pollan who | chickened out. | | The main disagreement seems to be about Pollan's speculation in | the podcast: | | > I mean, he's a crusading publisher, like a crusading | journalist. And I shouldn't speak for him, but my guess is he was | hoping something would happen. He was hoping I would get | arrested. This would put Harper's on the map. This would be a | giant case. He would take it to the Supreme Court, and he would. | He has bottomless pockets. I mean, and publishing for him is kind | of an avocation. And he was always looking for the big story that | Harper's would get involved with. I mean, we saw that just last | year with the Harper's letter around free speech versus the | efforts to curb free speech in the name of various woke values. | He's not afraid of controversy. | | Here the publisher himself mentions "It was a bitter blow to me, | because I have always put the freedom to publish in the forefront | of my work, and I lost some respect for Pollan after that", so | the entire thing seems a non-issue to me. All we've left of the | disagreement is | | * the (rich, fearless) publisher encouraging an author in every | way possible to publish something controversial, | | * the (not-so-rich, not-so-fearless) author thinking/speculating | something along the lines of "it's easy for you, but I'm not so | bold as to court controversy; it's [not] my cup of tea". | steve_adams_86 wrote: | Interesting. I listened to this on the Tim Ferris podcast and, | foolishly in retrospect, just took it at face value. I generally | enjoy Pollan and I suppose I assume he has integrity, or is | trustworthy in his writing and podcasting. | | Regardless, this seems to potentially fall into the category of | misremembering or simply having a different frame of reference at | the time. Diverging points of view are common enough, especially | within this time frame. | | I definitely came away from the podcast with no bad feelings | about anyone. While it would have been nice if Pollan didn't | incite this kind of response through his recollection, it seems | harmless enough. | | It is important though to be as objective as possible with things | like this since no one could possibly fact check it. | LargeWu wrote: | One of the reasons I stopped listening to Ferris's podcast is | that he's a totally uncritical interviewer. His guests are | allowed to blatantly self promote | lc9er wrote: | Ferris is kind of a grifter. If he were to probe deeply, then | others might do the same to him. | ramraj07 wrote: | Not to mention the blatantly self indulging attitude as well. | Of course, he's talking to people who are at the least | millionaires if not more, so that's expected, but some | episodes just reek of tone-deaf "I'm smart and rich and have | no idea how insensitive my hobbies and activities might sound | to a Normal person" sense. | | But he does talk to a lot of smart people, and there's often | much interesting to learn about, so I put up with their egos | and extract the information by listening. | ramraj07 wrote: | Not to invoke Godwin's rule, but this scenario seems a bit too | far off from acceptable for "that's now how I remember things | going down" to just let it slide, blaming someone else with a | clearly different storyline in a fundamental sense seems a lot | more deliberate on the persons part. Just because you didn't | care enough about he involved subjects to walk away from a | podcast doesn't mean the truth can just be twisted any way? | | Also is it possible to walk away from a podcast offended at | all? The explosion of this medium and the way everyone seems to | consume it suggests you can't afford to emotionally involve | with what you're listening to anymore. | glennpratt wrote: | I think I listened to the podcast in question biking last week. | | https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/michael-pollan | | For what it's worth, I came away with a completely positive view | of Harper's, though maybe I didn't pick up on every word of it. | gregsadetsky wrote: | I believe that this is Pollan's article from 1997, related to the | main post here: | | https://www.wesjones.com/pollan1.htm | | Very interesting, thanks! | galaxyLogic wrote: | I never knew about Michael Pollan and his works. But now I'm | tempted to buy the book. Controversy is good for readership | elevenoh wrote: | "[Pollen's] recent remarks on a radio podcast during which he | laughingly speculates about my motives were simply not true: 'My | guess is he was hoping something would happen. He was hoping I | would get arrested. This would put Harper's on the map. This | would be a giant case; he would take it in front of the Supreme | Court, and he would. You know he has bottomless pockets.'" | | It seems like this podcast comment might have sufficiently | motivated the editor (McArthur) to write this article. Not that | this is a bad thing. We all have a sense what it's like to want | to restore truth to an unjust public comment. | | Aside: We'll never quite know pollen's motive for censorshing his | book's personal psychedelic use content.. could be as simple as | arguably unfounded paranoia. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-11 23:00 UTC)