Re: Hemp

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*
Sun, 01 Feb 1998 09:43:23 -0800


All the pitfalls you mention do exist.

Nonetheless, all the studies you've mentioned sound to me as if they lack
enough of an individual motivator to really test the creativity hypothesis.
Set and setting, remember?

But if all a truly creative person lacks is just a _little_ tweak to their
serotonin and dopamine sites, and they apply their changed state to
projects which truly matter to them...
how to test that?

>I'm very wary about doing hedonic engineering (or deep
>metaprogramming) without *very* careful planning.

Eminently reasonable. And not contradicted by anything I've said. :) I did
_fail_ to say that. The people I know who get value are people who do
indeed plan before they act. :)

>When you modify your
>own motivational structure, you can easily get trapped in unexpected
>or unplanned behavior-attractors. These attractors will since they are
>attractors, appear natural or pleasant for you, but they might not be
>in accordance with your original goals.

Agreed. This is particularly at issue because cannabis appears to affect
what I call "flow of the first kind"--absorption. A consequence of this is
that one can become absorbed in _anything_, and if one has an agenda, it's
important to check for mismatch during the experience and redirect
attention appropriately.

It's also important to get perspective by comparing your results with your
intentions _after_ you're back at baseline.

Furthermore, flow of the first kind is _rudimentary_ flow. I have a lot
more to say about this, but it's not ready for publication yet. :)

>What I
>worry about is that so many simply accept that the subjective very
>positive results correspond with real positive results

That's a toughie, because of the set and setting issues. White lab coats
and arbitrary goals can squeeze all the results flat. The missing piece
here is, I suspect, a kind of discipline that some so-inclined people
manage to work out for themselves. Codifying this as part of a long-term
study might provide more evidence than was obtained feeding students
cookies in a lab and giving them a test.


PS: Did you look at de Bono's website? What do you make of it?

(NOTE: Robotlike replies to the above address will fail;
*noncommercial* communications are welcome; kindly
substitute a hyphen for the asterisk in the above address.
Sorry for any inconvenience.)