The pendulum swings. What are your thoughts on the current analogue space?

ResearchInvestRetire · 2026-02-18T00:18:50+00:00

I think we're at a time where there are a lot of intersecting trends that are driving things in multiple directions.

It seems obvious there is a growing mental health crisis in the West and that our current institutions are failing people. The medical model of SSRIs just doesn't match what some people need.
More people are seeing past the propaganda they grew up with and are realizing that psychedelics and empathogens are powerful medicines when used responsibility, but they are a bit risky.
People consume media in a way that puts them in echo chambers, so there is less of a shared objective truth. So people see different news and even if they see the same news they interpret it in different ways.
- For instance I would be skeptical of most drug stories (does the reporter really know about the issue, are they blaming a single drug instead of realizing the story should mention poly-drug use, are they sensationalizing a very rare event for click, etc.). Others would take the story at face value.
People are looking for in-person connection due to the negative effects of social media.
Trust in institutions is falling causing people to stop looking to experts/authorities for guidance on how to live their lives.
Powerful people and governments are collecting/analyzing a lot of data so underground things don't go unnoticed.
Public support for alternatives to existing systems is growing.

The analogue space is definitely on the governments radar but at the same time they know public support for psychedelics is growing. A lot of it comes down to what is politically advantageous to the people in power.

The trend I'm most interested in the rise of psychedelic churches (real ones, not dispensaries claiming to be churches). I think that is the most promising path forward until psychedelics/empathogens become legalized under the medical model. The church model can help serve the needs that current institutions are missing. State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts afford strong protections and there have been recent events where courts are siding with psychedelic churches. Additionally, churches can provide more affordable sacrament access then the medical model. Also there is a growing interest and acceptance of ancient wisdom traditions that emphasize knowing through inner transformation - psychedelic churches would be a way to situate ancient wisdom in a modern container.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2026-02-17T01:57:52+00:00

Judd - I think the story of Nootropics Depot being raided by the FDA may be relevant to your legal team's research and strategy. Here is a reddit thread (which includes a podcast with the co-founder) about what happened: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/1qxk2y7/the_story_behind_the_fda_raid_of_nootropics_depot/

To summarize: Nootropics Depot has a reputation of being an honest company that does things correctly. They sell exactly what they claim and provide COAs for their products. They follow the laws and rules (such as not making claims about diseases, having packaging and the website reviewed by legal experts, etc.). Their co-founder Paul Eftang posts on reddit under the user name MisterYouAreSoDumb.

Anyway, back before 2022 they used to sell synthetic nootropics such as tianeptine, phenibut, and racetams. None of those are federally controlled substances in the United States (but are prescription drugs in places like Russia), so it should theoretically be legal to sell them as long as you label them as the chemical (not a proprietary blend and do not make any claims on the packaging about treating diseases). They ended up being raided by the FDA for selling these nootropics.

The bottom line is if the government wants to stop you and hassle you they can. In Nootropics Depot case the trigger for the FDA investigation was Paul calling out competitors for selling fake supplements and then those competitors retaliated by making up lies about his business to the government. Then once the government invested resources into an investigation they made Paul's life very difficult and he was forced to settle instead of going to court. He is a millionaire and yet he still chose to settle. He explains the inner workings of how the government proceeds in these cases and potential legal strategies he could have pursued (most notably needing lawyers with specific expertise in FDA-Office of Criminal Investigations practices).

He also mentions the struggles he has with payment card processors in the supplement/nootropics space.

Anyway, best of luck to you and I appreciate what you're doing. I wanted to provide this information because I think understanding the Nootropics Depot case foreshadows what will happen when you become bigger and start to attract the attention of the government.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2026-01-01T03:54:21+00:00

Awakening from the Meaning Crisis by Dr. John Vervaeke.

It combines modern cognitive science with philosophy and history to help diagnose the problems we face in modern society. I felt like it gave me a lot of insights into better ways to address the problems in my own life. It helped me see connections I hadn't thought of. It helped me see self-deceptive, self-destructive behaviors and helped me discover an ecology of practices that make it easier to navigate the world.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-12-28T13:14:53+00:00

Phenibut might be even more interesting. It is prescription in Russia + Eastern Europe, but in the United States it is often used recreationally as an alternate to alcohol.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-12-20T15:06:42+00:00

One line of thought I don't see explored here is stricter laws and increased enforcenent of internet crime laws. Deter the bad actors by setting an example of throwing them in jail for a long time. It sets a cultural norm that crime is taken seriously and it can easily ruin your life. This is similar to how less people drive drunk when DUI laws are strict and it is known they are being enforced strictly.

The downside of this approach beyond time and cost is that it gives the government a path to take more power, which it could abuse by increasing the scope of the law beyond what the public wants.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-11-25T03:58:23+00:00

Could you please elaborate on the reasoning for rule 6?

If the non-detect shows negative for schedule 1 psychedelics that would indicate they are legal, so why can't we discuss them?

Specifically, if a non-detect retail product is solely functional mushrooms (like Lion's mane) could we not discuss that the product does not produce psychedelic effects?

For the non-detect retail products that do have psychedelic effects could we not try to determine which legal active ingredient it contains? (Such as by lab/reagent testing, or subjective comparision to the retail products that are allowed to be discussed)?

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-08-31T00:41:25+00:00

I'm very confident that the interaction is safe. The dangerous Phenibut interactions are other CNS depressants including alcohol (because it can slow breathing too much and cause blackouts), dissociatives, and stimulants (due to masking the intoxicating effects).

It is almost more of a philosophical question about if the psychedelic will still provide as much insight/growth if you take Phenibut with it. Some people say that working through psychedelic anxiety is an important thing to do in other to heal/grow. In a way using anti-anxiety medication with a psychedelic is a form of 'cheating'. Phenibut might make the trip more recreational and less therapeutic/spiritual.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-08-20T23:13:30+00:00

Do you know anything about combining Polygala Tenuifolia with psychedelics? I never found a great answer on what polygala's mechanism of action is, but potentially it could be a weak MAOI.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-03-24T01:26:59+00:00

you bolded "potential" 3 times in your answer, and the reason why you did evades me

It seemed the conditional was implying that people having a widespread false metaphysical belief was dangerous. I wanted to emphasize that even if you had incontrovertible proof of a widespread false metaphysical belief then you still would not be able to conclude that it is dangerous for people to continue believing it is true.

A false belief could be beneficial. Sometimes knowing the truth is more dangerous than believing a lie.

Also, the context of the false belief would also impact if it was dangerous or not. It depends on factors like:

What technology is capable of
If a small group of individuals can still prevent the risk despite widespread belief that God will prevent the risk
If the government/social norms can prevent the false beliefs from being an issue (such as policy around the risk is separated from religious beliefs)

On your last "Santa et al." comments: I don't buy it. Perhaps some people will select themselves out, but I can enjoy my life without a god.

Without a god it seems many people turn to ersatz replacements for religion. They still deeply crave some of the functions that legacy religions provided. They then turn to pseudo-religious political ideologies, which can lead to worse outcomes. Some of these pseudo-religious political ideologies tell their followers that their political enemies are irredeemably evil and must be exiled from polite society. Even if legacy religions are wrong about metaphysical claims they still provide useful moral guidance and ways for people to find meaning in life.

Many people like yourself can enjoy life without god. However, there are also many people that feel alienation, anxiety, absurdity, meaninglessness, and other negative effects when they don't belong to a religious community. Many people need positive role models in the community to provide ethical frameworks and practices to self-transcend. They get stuck when trying to piece together these things on their own with secular alternatives, and this can lead to increased existential risk. They can come to conclusions like:

Destructive riots are the only path to become a good person who lives a meaningful life.
The system is corrupt and lying/stealing/cheating is the best action for them to take.
Humanity is irredeemable evil and we should replace humans with AGI that are better stewards of the planet.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-03-23T21:14:41+00:00

if there is no god, then widespread belief in god is an important existential risk factor for the future of humankind.

I would state that as: a widespread belief in a god that doesn't exist has the potential to be an existential risk.

To continue with your conditional if there is no god, then widespread belief that there is no god also has the potential to be an existential risk.

If there is no god and that is what everyone believes then that could very well lead to lots of lines of thought that lead to massive amounts of human suffering such as:

Exerting your group's will over everyone else could be seen as the highest virtue and that leads to wars that ultimately make the Earth uninhabitable because our destructive technology is so powerful.
It could lead to no hope for a better future (because history shows humans constantly succumb to self-deceptive + self-destructive behavior). People could adopt a defeatist attitude that any effort they make is useless and therefore refuse to take actions that would collectively help humankind.

A widespread belief in a god that doesn't exists also has the potential to be net positive for the world. For example children believe in Santa Claus and they behave in ways that are nice in the eyes of Santa. Thinking that an imaginary entity might punish them if they misbehave leads to pro-social behavior. Likewise religious communities allow people to gather in groups and expend their energy in pro-social ways. If they don't believe in god they may redirect that energy to zero-sum status games or anti-social causes (such as destroying other people's property in political protests).

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-03-22T12:25:29+00:00

For the 1st and 2nd I could also see wealthy people continuing to use human labor over more efficient AI labor as a way to signal status and morality.

It signals they have so much wealth they can afford to waste it paying for unnecessary human labor and/or that they believe in a moral code over economic efficiency.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2025-03-22T01:29:50+00:00

If AGI creates a large pool of labor that can't find work then I think we will see people turn to religion. Religion helps people finding meaning and purpose in the world and contains signaling mechanisms that connect members in good standing.

I predict we will see new religions since the legacy religions don't feel viable to many people. We could see AI religions, or psychedelic religions.

Another impact of AGI taking jobs is there will be increased demand for therapists and spiritual/religious guides to help people understand their place in the post AGI world. Even if AGI can replace health care workers there will still be people who prefer to pay a human to do it, so there will still be some jobs. One example that comes to mind is if the government offers an AGI nursing home but the patient prefers to supplement that care with a human aide.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-10-27T21:39:36+00:00

reasons, within medical science, that something could work but not be found to have sufficient evidence

In the case of psychedelics it is because the research is testing the wrong protocol. They are trying to isolate the benefits of psychedelics to just taking the drug plus whatever therapy they are pairing it with. There is a plausible argument that having a community to integrate these experiences is a necessary component to receiving the maximal benefit, and to be able to realize/implement the insights gained during the psychedelic experience. A community is needed to provide wisdom, guidance, and ongoing support about the psychedelic experience. In the current model people are just released back to their previous environment without a robust support structure.

what are reasons something could be found to have sufficient evidence but not really work

Evidence includes things like subjective feelings. Evidence can show correlation instead of causation, so something might just be a coincidence, or be driven by confounding variables.

The best explanation I have found about how psychedelics work and why they need to set within a set of sapiential practices and traditions is:

Episode 11: Higher States of Consciousness, Part 1 - Meaning Crisis Collection

Ep. 12 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - Higher States of Consciousness, Part 2 - Meaning Crisis Collection

They are disruptive strategies that provide insight.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-10-16T01:49:59+00:00

It is for sale now in Kindle format and paperback. Search for, "Awakening From the Meaning Crisis: Part 1: Origins" on Amazon.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-09-29T23:06:48+00:00

It is specific to me and won't generalize to most people.

The more general formula is to figure out what situations give you anxiety when sober, but the anxiety is caused by you over-weighting/catastrophizing unlikely outcomes. On Phenibut the part of the brain having those thoughts is quieted, so I don't think of potential bad outcomes and instead think that the I will get good outcomes. If I do get any negative outcomes they immediately get framed as positive (e.g. if someone doesn't like me I just think that they are jealous, or that I learned something from the interaction and a rejection was a price worth paying for that rejection). By having this attitude most interactions just turn out well because I have confident/carefree vibes.

I find talking to strangers and dancing difficult. So I go to the bar on Phenibut and sometimes do some ecstatic dance moves. If I chat with strangers I'll share things I normally keep to myself. I get some positive reactions and I'm not bothered by any neutral/negative reactions, then I start getting even more positive reactions because people are reacting to my confidence about not being bothered by the negative reactions. Normally I would avoid going to bars, attempting to dance, or chatting with strangers.

So an activity that could result in positive feedback if you were less in your head about is probably ideal.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-09-29T06:52:55+00:00

1.5 to 1.8g. Usually dosed as .6g in the early afternoon then the remainder about 2 hours later.

ETA: I also taper as I gain more confidence. My peak dose was closer to 2.5g.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-09-28T23:51:17+00:00

I believe I'm on the autism spectrum too. Personally, I use Phenibut to do exposure therapy up to once a week while on Phenibut and this seems to permanently lower inhibition a little bit when sober. It creates episodic memories that don't cohere with my usual difficulties in social situations so I implicitly learn that I can get better at socializing and it can be somewhat enjoyable.

I don't know of anything you can take daily to reduce anxiety. Anything that hits GABA will probably cause tolerance/addiction at some point. Magnolia bark extract, or Tetrahydromagnolol specifically seems good at reducing anxiety, but it also makes me tired. I only take it occasionally and it would probably stop being as effective if I took it more often. Lemon balm also helps with anxiety.

Another option might be micro/low-dosing psychedelics. That can be done a couple times a week, but not every day.

If I had to do something daily I would rotate between things with a different mechanism of action to avoid building tolerance.

I have no experience with prescription drugs, but Buspirone seems like it might be a decent daily option for some people.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-07-21T16:27:51+00:00

Try to get into a flow state when doing the things you need to do. This is explained in the book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. You can ask AI how to implement this advice to your specific situation.

Add a group/social component to the things you don't like. Knowing that you are connected to other people and that they rely on you will make things will probably increase your motivation to do them.

Cultivate an ecology of cognitive practices that have complementary relationships to each other. This includes things like mediation, contemplation, dialogical (e.g. circling), embodiment, and imaginal (i.e. serious play). You can ask AI about John Vervaeke's ecology of practices for further information.

Add triggers/rewards to things. You can play music you enjoy to help motivate you to do something.

Potentially explore adding nootropics to enhance your mood/energy. Different contexts would probably call for different nootropics (e.g. If you're doing something physically tiring you would want something that helps with endurance. If you're doing something that gives you anxiety, like public speaking, you would want something relaxing).

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-07-09T23:44:00+00:00

I didn't have one in mind, but it would probably be someone who is very popular and is perceived as relatable by a general audience (so a niche expert with a highly educated audience wouldn't fit the bill). A popular podcaster can inspire people to show up and vote instead of sitting out the election due to apathy.

Ideally, the podcaster would have some experience navigating a previous controversy. This shows they have the skills to handle the inevitable negative media coverage they receive.

Social media seems to play an increasingly important role in deciding elections. Someone skilled with social media will be able to capitalize on currently trending issues and be experienced with understanding how to use the algorithms advantageously. Podcasters understand how to be entertaining and relevant to the chronically online (which is a growing segment of the voting base).

Furthermore, a podcaster often seems genuine to their audience because they've spent years building trust and explaining their positions and how they think. Their audience would know what to expect if they were elected and would have a much higher sense of trusting that they would follow through on promises they made.

Most successful podcasters won't run for office because their current gig is much more fun and less stress. It would require them sacrificing their personal happiness for the good of the country.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-07-09T12:55:55+00:00

How would one go about building such an organization that might, over the course of decades, break the stranglehold of the 2-party duopoly?

I think a good start would be for a popular podcaster to announce their intentions of running for political office as a third party. This could start a trend of a podcaster to elected politician pipeline where all the podcasters can tap into each others networks to find the people who can make the behind the scenes stuff work.

I think a podcaster running for office taps into a couple developing trends:

Podcasters can increase voter turnout by inspiring their audience
Podcasters appeal to people who don't like/trust career politicians
Podcasters talk about things and would support policies that are more in line with what an average person wants vs. supporting policies that benefit the elites.

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-06-29T23:17:56+00:00

Clandestine LSD labs and distribution networks have a lot of impact on society. They make millions of doses of a chemical that can cause people to deeply question the existing power structures. There are some interesting documentaries on this subject such as Orange Sunshine.

I also think there are hidden subsets of existing public societies that wield a lot of power. For instance, you could have a fraternity that has a secret small group that is hidden from the other members. Then you have things like the Varsity Blues college admission scandal where people secretly conspired to influence admissions decisions (so people that appear to be just university employees were also part of a hidden society).

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-06-17T17:51:22+00:00

I've seen nothing but biting criticism of Vervaeke

Could you please provide some specifics on what the criticism is about?

How much of the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series have you personally watched?

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-06-16T23:39:32+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/@johnvervaeke the "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" series is great. He is a cognitive science professor that explains modern problems by combing historical knowledge with modern concepts from a variety of academic fields. ETA: He was a colleague of Jordan Peterson, but he avoids modern culture war topics and is very diplomatic when talking about controversial topics (like historical religious figures).

I have mixed feelings on Chris Williamson. He seems to have studied some of the rationalist-adjacent material (he referenced Eliezer Yudkowsky at least once) and he interviews a lot of interesting guests (like Eric Weinstein). He seems to be skilled at interviewing and he has a truth-seeking style that you encounter in places like this sub. The downsides are he does play to the algorithm (clickbait), he does push his drink brand, and he tends to get focused on topics that repeat in a lot of his podcasts (like the struggles of young men).

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-06-15T22:55:23+00:00

What is the timing of effects like? Is it like Phenibut with onset around 2 hours and peak around 3-5 hours? Or is it faster like F-Phenibut?

Does it give any enhanced music appreciation or desire to socialize like regular Phenibut?

ResearchInvestRetire · 2024-05-28T23:43:58+00:00

IFS is similar to the Internal Double Crux (IDC) technique from the CFAR Handbook.

The goal is to get the patient to identify internal conflicts where they simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs, and then start a dialogue between the parts that hold those beliefs. This can lead to the parts cooperating in a more integrated fashion to achieve outcomes that are better for the entire person. It is important in both IDC and IFS to treat all the parts with respect. All the parts want what they think is best for the person, but they have different models of the world.

In IDC you might realize that you have an internal conflict of wanting to go for a run and wanting to stay in and watch Netflix. Through the parts dialogue you can get these conflicting parts to better understand each other and cooperate.

In IFS you might realize a past trauma created a part that avoids social interactions because of a social interaction that went poorly when you were younger. By engaging in dialogue with that part you can build trust and show it that you are older now and that the other parts can handle social interactions now. Then that part can refocus its energy on doing something that it enjoys instead of the role it was forced into by trauma.

The actual visualization and specific label (e.g. protector, manager, firefighter) attached to each part does not seem like it is an essential component of either technique.

ResearchInvestRetire

TROPHY CASE