Acceptable Research?

[MagicShroom]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How acceptable is Psychedelic research? I know that there is work being done on the theraputic effects of Ketamine.

What would be the protocol (for legal or illegal psychedelics) for use in research? What are the ramifications?

 

[deleted176373]

How acceptable is Psychedelic research? I know that there is work being done on the theraputic effects of Ketamine.

What would be the protocol (for legal or illegal psychedelics) for use in research? What are the ramifications?

Do a little research and find out... Sounds like the answer for a homework assignment. If you are interested in the history of it, Stanislav Grof wrote a good book on the subject matter and that's not a bad jumping off point to work forward from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnO0jn5CPMU

 

[irish80122]

Do a little research and find out... Sounds like the answer for a homework assignment. If you are interested in the history of it, Stanislav Grof wrote a good book on the subject matter and that's not a bad jumping off point to work forward from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnO0jn5CPMU

I don't know about a homework assignment, but looking at the OP's user name, I wonder if he is hoping to be a participant in the research. There probably is no way to identify who you are, but be careful. If people figured out your identity, a name like that could be very harmful.

 

[thepug]

How acceptable is Psychedelic research? I know that there is work being done on the theraputic effects of Ketamine.

What would be the protocol (for legal or illegal psychedelics) for use in research? What are the ramifications?

Go away.

They tried ketamine (lower case please) before, as did they heroin...and uhhh...now we can synthesize more effective, controllable substances.

Shew..shew. Oh and magic mushrooms are bad for you, just stick to the pot.

 

[MagicShroom]

Go away.

They tried ketamine (lower case please) before, as did they heroin...and uhhh...now we can synthesize more effective, controllable substances.

Shew..shew. Oh and magic mushrooms are bad for you, just stick to the pot.

You're very uneducated on the matter, no offense. Psylocibin mushrooms may cause schizophrenia in high dosages in people who have a family history of schizophrenia. By the way, I am a legitimate psych student. I'm interested in researching these things because I've found them to be EXTREMELY therapeutic. Especially Psylocibin. It changed my life for the better.

And, Markp, thank you for the link 🙂 I'm also unconerned about getting in trouble. It's only against the law to be in possession, not to have used the substance in the past. And I do know a bit about the Ketamine experiments, which was another factor in my sparked interest. I want to be a psychology because I'm interested in these things and feel they could be of a lot of use to many people suffing from addictions and disorders.

I'm particularly interested in the role they play in shamanic tribes 🙂

 

[aventurine]

How acceptable is Psychedelic research? I know that there is work being done on the theraputic effects of Ketamine.

What would be the protocol (for legal or illegal psychedelics) for use in research? What are the ramifications?

Research in this area is very limited and tightly controlled.

For more info, check out MAPS (if you haven't already):

http://www.maps.org

 

[erg923]

You're very uneducated on the matter, no offense. Psylocibin mushrooms may cause schizophrenia in high dosages in people who have a family history of schizophrenia. By the way, I am a legitimate psych student. I'm interested in researching these things because I've found them to be EXTREMELY therapeutic. Especially Psylocibin. It changed my life for the better.

And, Markp, thank you for the link 🙂 I'm also unconerned about getting in trouble. It's only against the law to be in possession, not to have used the substance in the past. And I do know a bit about the Ketamine experiments, which was another factor in my sparked interest. I want to be a psychology because I'm interested in these things and feel they could be of a lot of use to many people suffing from addictions and disorders.

I'm particularly interested in the role they play in shamanic tribes 🙂

How does one write a grant for, or get funded for such research?

 

[deleted176373]

How does one write a grant for, or get funded for such research?

That's what the CIA is for. 😉

 

[MagicShroom]

That's what the CIA is for. 😉

Yeah, that was what my original post was asking. So you have to write to the CIA or what? Can you lose your job over something like that?

 

[Passionista]

Look into the Johns Hopkins Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit. They have a couple of ongoing studies looking at Psilocybin. One is looking at Psilocybin and spiritual practices and the other is looking at the effects of Psilocybin and cancer.

And the funding comes from several different councils and institutes, such as the Heffter Research Institute (whose main research right now is on Psilocybin).

 

[MagicShroom]

Look into the Johns Hopkins Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit. They have a couple of ongoing studies looking at Psilocybin. One is looking at Psilocybin and spiritual practices and the other is looking at the effects of Psilocybin and cancer.

And the funding comes from several different councils and institutes, such as the Heffter Research Institute (whose main research right now is on Psilocybin).

Oh wow, that's really cool 😀

I tried looking things up on Google, but maybe Google doesn't like that kind of stuff because I never get good search results. Just Wikipedia 🙁

 

[roubs]

Oh wow, that's really cool 😀

I tried looking things up on Google, but maybe Google doesn't like that kind of stuff because I never get good search results. Just Wikipedia 🙁

scholar.google.com ?

 

[yeti2213]

check out a ted talk by one of the lead PI's from JHU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKm_mnbN9JY

OP, its non-my-business but I will throw my two cents in anyway 🙂 I would advice keeping one's personal experiences and feelings out of the public realm around these issues. I suspect people with interest in research around these areas needs to be extra cautious in keeping a strong professional persona. Not just for their own career but also for the legitimacy of the research and how it is viewed among other scientists and the general public.

 

[erg923]

check out a ted talk by one of the lead PI's from JHU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKm_mnbN9JY

OP, its non-my-business but I will throw my two cents in anyway 🙂 I would advice keeping one's personal experiences and feelings out of the public realm around these issues. I suspect people with interest in research around these areas needs to be extra cautious in keeping a strong professional persona. Not just for their own career but also for the legitimacy of the research and how it is viewed among other scientists and the general public.

Take note the mistakes of Tim Leary...😀

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

isn't it sad that posts like this one get so many replies. See ya page 12

 

[MagicShroom]

Thank you for all the advice every one 🙂 I'll keep that in mind.

And thanks, yeti2213, for the TED video. I love TED 😀

isn't it sad that posts like this one get so many replies. See ya page 12

Why do you think this post is sad? I think my question was legitimate.

 

[thepug]

Thank you for all the advice every one 🙂 I'll keep that in mind.

And thanks, yeti2213, for the TED video. I love TED 😀


Why do you think this post is sad? I think my question was legitimate.

Honestly, given your megalomanic ideas about getting funding from the CIA and working at Johns Hopkins...I think you have been on a few too many trips. I mean **** dude do you even have advanced degrees in psychiatric medicine or chemistry, let alone something to do with research methodology? You think they just hand this crap over to people? Your CV would need to be 10 pages long. Oh but wait, your a member of Psi Chi right? Well never mind then you should be good.


Do I even need to say you will never get funded for this? It's funny you mentioned me being uneducated on the matter given your breadth of research skills. I imagine there is a lot of research out there, of which I assume you pass over, about how using this harmful and dangerous substance can completely destroy you.

Oh, and just because a top uni is doing this eclectic research does not mean is legitimate. Anyone remember those Duke studies in the 60s looking at psychic phenomenon?

I think some guy at Purdue does some work with LSD, but C'ome the hell on. You know what, let academia decide. Try emailing some POI about how you are interested in their work. I'm sure they have a junk filter in their email for all you dime a dozen psych student junkies.

Sorry to be a dick, but your kind of a *****.

 

[MagicShroom]

Honestly, given your megalomanic ideas about getting funding from the CIA and working at Johns Hopkins...I think you have been on a few too many trips. I mean **** dude do you even have advanced degrees in psychiatric medicine or chemistry, let alone something to do with research methodology? You think they just hand this crap over to people? Your CV would need to be 10 pages long. Oh but wait, your a member of Psi Chi right? Well never mind then you should be good.

"That is what the CIA is for." –Markp. I responded to this comment, asking if that's who you have to write to. So responding to another person's comment makes me a megalomaniac? That's odd logic.
I never once said anything about working at John Hopkins. Where did you get this information? I think you're just pulling things out of your ass now.
"too many trips…" What evidence3 do you have to say I've had too many trips? I don't recall ever recounting any I've had nor the number, thus I conclude that your statement is biased. Provide empirical evidence please.
And your assumption that I'm asking because I'm immediately going to jump into the field is ungrounded. Why are you reacting so violently to a simple question of "what would happen? Is this okay to do?" At least I'm RESEARCHING first, which you clearly think I have no skills in the area. I asked a question and received responses.
And please, define "crap", as I'm seeing your response as being the very idea.

Do I even need to say you will never get funded for this? It's funny you mentioned me being uneducated on the matter given your breadth of research skills. I imagine there is a lot of research out there, of which I assume you pass over, about how using this harmful and dangerous substance can completely destroy you.

If I can't get funded how are all these professional psychologists getting their research done? You mentioned John Hopkins yourself, so therefore you must be aware that there is a legitimate interest in the area. Good job at contradicting yourself.
And yes, I do find you uneducated on this topic, considering you claim the substance can completely destroy you despite ample evidence that it does not. Have you ever heard of Bluelight and Erowid?
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_effects.shtml
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-61676.html
http://www.magic-mushrooms.net/dangers.html
I have yet to come across anything claiming that psilocybin will "destroy" you. Please provide empirical evidence for your claims.
I know of PLEANTY of research, but I know nothing of what these people go through to do the research. Please read my original question before condemning me. I know what I asked and you clearly do not.

Oh, and just because a top uni is doing this eclectic research does not mean is legitimate. Anyone remember those Duke studies in the 60s looking at psychic phenomenon?

What evidence do you have on PSILOCYBIN RESEARCH specifically to say that it isn't legitimate? Please provide links.

I think some guy at Purdue does some work with LSD, but C'ome the hell on. You know what, let academia decide. Try emailing some POI about how you are interested in their work. I'm sure they have a junk filter in their email for all you dime a dozen psych student junkies.

Sorry to be a dick, but your kind of a *****.

I said, "You are uneducated on this matter." And from everything you have stated above, I stand by my statement.
Now tell me, to what evidence do you conclude that I am a "*****"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****_%28psychology%29
I believe, you, sir, are the *****.

PWNED

 

[MagicShroom]

I'd like to further my case by showing that I do understand that there is plenty of research on psychedelics:
http://psychedelicresearch.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/psychedelic-research-on-t_n_549337.html
(as this article confirms, doing the research is not easy. Hence why I joined this forum to ask what would happen if one were to try).

I do not care for the statement that I cannot do my research, and that I just ignore things that say what I'm interested in is bad. I feel that is the exact opposite of how I feel. If I found something was bad for me, why would I ignore it and do harm to myself? Nobody on this forum knows me personally, and I feel that any assumptions you make about me are just that - assumptions.

Before you judge, just realize that any negative comments you make are just making you another statistic that proves that people grow a set because the internet is anonymous and they aren't talking to a "real" person, so they can just say whatever they want.

Think before you speak, and please refer to my original question before you decide to write a response.

My question is simple: what do these researchers have to go through to be involved in this line of research?

I'm not concerned that people are already researching the topic; people research similar things over and over again in research; that's how we confirm things. It's how we learn.

Regardless of your personal feelings, that isn't the subject on hand, so keep your emotions out o it. Thank you. I'd like to do my research and I'd rather not deal with the distractions of trolls.

 

[thepug]

PWNED

As for your PWNing (douche)

Neurometabolic Effects of Psilocybin, 3, 4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDE) and d-Methamphetamine in Healthy Volunteers-A replication study

Effects of the hallucinogen psilocybin on habituation and prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in humans.

Effects of LSD-25, psilocybin and psilocin on temporal lobe EEG patterns & learned behavior in the cat.

So lets see...

(1) It cuts off access to the pre-frontal cortex (similar to schizophrenia)

(2) Temporarily diminishes habituated responses

(3) Causes permanent retrograde amnesia for recently learned behavior

So, if your interested in learning more about schizophrenia and how to prevent it, sure it's a viable line of research which appears to be being conducted in various universities, but don't try to jump on that statement because god knows you only got interested in this from a therapy perspective.

As for using it for therapy...that's ludicrous.

Benjamin C.. Persistent psychiatric symptoms after eating psilocybin mushrooms. Br Med J 1979; i: 1319-1320.


Epic Fail.

 

[thepug]

Before you judge, just realize that any negative comments you make are just making you another statistic that proves that people grow a set because the internet is anonymous and they aren't talking to a "real" person, so they can just say whatever they want.

I'm not a confrontational person, but I would call any undergrad that said this to me a dip****.

My question is simple: what do these researchers have to go through to be involved in this line of research?

You would need to work on a multidisciplinary team and you yourself would need to hold a Ph.D. or MD in an associated field to be an author on the study. I encourage you to try it out, but don't go saying your interested in this on interview day for a clinical psych program.

The reason your post pisses me off is because it's presence on a clinical psych forum, posted by an undergrad, implies you want to use it as a part of therapy.

 

[MagicShroom]

As for your PWNing (douche)

Calling me a douche is very mature. Grow up. "pwned" is internet lingo. Lighten up.

Neurometabolic Effects of Psilocybin, 3, 4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDE) and d-Methamphetamine in Healthy Volunteers-A replication study

Effects of the hallucinogen psilocybin on habituation and prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in humans.

Effects of LSD-25, psilocybin and psilocin on temporal lobe EEG patterns & learned behavior in the cat.

So lets see...

(1) It cuts off access to the pre-frontal cortex (similar to schizophrenia)

(2) Temporarily diminishes habituated responses

(3) Causes permanent retrograde amnesia for recently learned behavior

was this study ever replicated?
What does the effects it has on a cat have to do with humans?
Cats are very different from humans and react differently to certain substances. I've never seen a person trip on catnip, and there is ample evidence to support that they cannot.

So, if your interested in learning more about schizophrenia and how to prevent it, sure it's a viable line of research which appears to be being conducted in various universities, but don't try to jump on that statement because god knows you only got interested in this from a therapy perspective.

As for using it for therapy...that's ludicrous.

http://csp.org/psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf
http://csp.org/psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf
http://csp.org/psilocybin/HopkinsHallucinogenSafety2008.pdf
http://csp.org/psilocybin/SciAmHallucinogens201012.pdf
http://csp.org/psilocybin/SciAmHallucinogens201012.pdf
http://csp.org/psilocybin/

How can you say any of this is ludicrus and how can you assert that this is only an interest from a "therapy" perspective. Get off your high horse.
So you honestly think that Psilocybin causes everybody to be schizophrenic?
I'll let the research from Hopkins ALONE speak for itself

Benjamin C.. Persistent psychiatric symptoms after eating psilocybin mushrooms. Br Med J 1979; i: 1319-1320.

This guyate 25 mushrooms no wonder he was feeling that way. And this is a single case, it hardly counts for everybody. In smaller doses that TWENTYFIVE mushrooms, people don't have that problem. 25 is seriously way too much. Not to mention, what was the guy's family history of mental illness?

Epic Fail.

Ha ha ha sorry I made a joke, and sorry you took it so seriously. Get over yourself, troll.

 

[MagicShroom]

You would need to work on a multidisciplinary team and you yourself would need to hold a Ph.D. or MD in an associated field to be an author on the study. I encourage you to try it out, but don't go saying your interested in this on interview day for a clinical psych program.

The reason your post pisses me off is because it's presence on a clinical psych forum, posted by an undergrad, implies you want to use it as a part of therapy.

Well, sorry it pisses you off, but honestly I could not give a crap less about your emotions, troll.
And no, I do not want to use it as a part of therapy. Don't make assumptions dude.

But hey, thanks for finally making an attempt to answer my question.

 

[MagicShroom]

Well, I got what I wanted and **** I didn't from this forum.

If psychology is a science, shouldn't we encourage questions, even when we disagree with them?

This forum sucks ass, I'm going to terminate my account.

Thanks everybody who were kind enough to answer my questions, and to thepug:

GO F.UCK yourself. In the ASS. With scissors.

 

[thepug]

Obviously it doesn't make everyone schizophrenic. No one ever said that.

Were those studies replicated? Didn't care to check, because this research does not interest me. However, I imagine if they were, like many of those JH studies, the replication would probably not reach .05 sig.

As for that cat, it's called the principal of replacement.


25 in the case of that short report is not much of a stretch.

Do you think doing mushrooms say, once a month for 20 years would not have permanent negative effects?

 

[thepug]

Well, I got what I wanted and **** I didn't from this forum.

If psychology is a science, shouldn't we encourage questions, even when we disagree with them?

This forum sucks ass, I'm going to terminate my account.

Thanks everybody who were kind enough to answer my questions, and to thepug:

GO F.UCK yourself. In the ASS. With scissors.

Darn. Clearly you were interested in this from a neuroscience perspective...

 

[erg923]

Well, I got what I wanted and **** I didn't from this forum.

If psychology is a science, shouldn't we encourage questions, even when we disagree with them?

This forum sucks ass, I'm going to terminate my account.

Thanks everybody who were kind enough to answer my questions, and to thepug:

GO F.UCK yourself. In the ASS. With scissors.

Relax pal. You wont get your mushroom grants if you cant tolerate bias (sometimes unfounded, I know) and skepticism towards your research. And with regards to your question, I think this forum is dominated by traditional academics and clinical psych students with little interest in this topic. Thus, it generated little response. I also think it could have something to do with the fact that my generation isnt really that enamored with the 60's psychedlic hippies generation. Personally, I find many of the hippie ideals laughably naive of basic human psychology/behavior, and partly responsible the tragic divorce rate and for raising a generation of self-centered, entitled, and soft children.

Also, I think many of us would argue that most of this research has actually already been done. And generally, any positive effects of illicit psychedelic substance have found to been massively outweighed by negative effects, or at least the potential for negative effects. Moreover, there is giant political/legal component to this research that your are not acknowledging. When ones research deals with illegal substances that have the potential to change laws and therapuetic paradigms, you better belive that there is is gonna be some concern and resistance. Research like this has....policy implications (gasp!). Lots of money, lot of government agencies, lot of politics. This is serious stuff, son. If you wanna research this, you better get used to it and start to handle it better.

As an aside, I think Leary was probably the worst possible thing that could have happened to this line of research. By sampling too much of his own product, abandoing science to live in his mansion and ride around on a dirty bus, and essentially falling in love with his own slogans, he wasted a wonderful opportunity to actually research the thing without much restriction. That time is gone though, and we now know much of what we need to know about psychedelics and their effects on the brain and CNS. I'm sure there are some others, but I am personally doubtful of the incremental value psychdelic substances may add to the psychotherapuetic process.

 

[aventurine]

Came across this piece in Salon this morning on current research at NYU and Johns Hopkins with psilocybin for existential anxiety among terminal cancer patients. A few issues with the article (including that the writer/editor can't seem to tell if he's writing about psilocybin or LSD, in the beginning!), but, still, it gives a sense of the sort of research being done, who is doing it and why.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/09/28/the_new_lsd_cure/index.html

 

[cara susanna]

ersonally, I find many of the hippie ideals laughably naive of basic human psychology/behavior, and partly responsible the tragic divorce rate and for raising a generation of self-centered, entitled, and soft children.

Your theories intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously though, can you please explain why you think they're partially responsible for the divorce rate? I'm curious.

 

[erg923]

Your theories intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously though, can you please explain why you think they're partially responsible for the divorce rate? I'm curious.

Well, when I say "they," I really mean the changing ideals about family and marriage that came about during that time. Some are directly related to hippie lifestyles and priorities (eg., self-centeredness, self-expression, and "finding" ones self), others are not. Obviously, there are other factors that contributed as well. Given that we topped the 50% divorce rate in 1976 and stayed there for a good 15 years, it is quite obvious that it was the hippie generation getting most of the divorces. Coincidence?

 

[The Everglow]

Hey magic, not sure if you're still around, but check out Lester Grinspoon and, as Markp mentioned, Stanislav Grof.

 

[thepug]

Well, when I say "they," I really mean the changing ideals about family and marriage that came about during that time. Some are directly related to hippie lifestyles and priorities (eg., self-centeredness, self-expression, and "finding" ones self), others are not. Obviously, there are other factors that contributed as well. Given that we topped the 50% divorce rate in 1976 and stayed there for a good 15 years, it is quite obvious that it was the hippie generation getting most of the divorces. Coincidence?

I think insecure attachment styles are what create divorce, mainly the avoidant type.

I have this wild theory that it was the advent of the refrigerator which destroyed the traditional family. It used to be you had to go home everyday and night to get a meal or you did not eat...kind of forced the family to spend time together.

 

[yeti2213]

I think insecure attachment styles are what create divorce, mainly the avoidant type.

maybe. I would favor economic arguments as more fundamental (based purely on anecdotal evidence). have not looked up the stats in the us and seen how closely female share of the economy tracks the divorce rate. I have the opportunity to observe and chat with a generation women (my and my younger sibling's peers), in a developing Asian country that have the education, the jobs and the income to take care of themselves. Something the generation of women before them lacked, except in rare cases. It really frees up the range of choices and demands they can make with in a family/marriage. Sure, that their peers don't look upon it as terrible negative does have a impact but its an impact would be meaningless without the economic freedom. Divorce rates in the urban, well off demographic are significantly higher than the national one. It seems no bad thing to me, a consequence of people adjusting to a new reality.

 

[Ollie123]

Not to side-track this too much since I'm sure this will be a controversial stance, but I do question why we always assume increases in the divorce rate is inherently bad. Maybe it became more socially acceptable to leave the partner and people are now happier than they would have been in the past when they may have just continued on in a bad relationship. I'm not saying the current divorce rate is optimal, but 0% isn't necessarily optimal either.

Don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter...just a thought I've had in the past when this has come up in conversation.

 

[roubs]

Not to side-track this too much since I'm sure this will be a controversial stance, but I do question why we always assume increases in the divorce rate is inherently bad.

👍 Call me a hippie, but I totally agree with this.

AFAIK, couple's therapists warn at the outset that the therapy process could lead one or both partners to decide to end the relationship. Does that mean we're aiding and abetting the downfall of society too?😛

 

[cara susanna]

I just wanted to chime in that the 50% divorce rate is a myth originating from a misunderstanding of the statistics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...unked_n_804934.html#s219156&title=Half_of_All

 

[erg923]

Not to side-track this too much since I'm sure this will be a controversial stance, but I do question why we always assume increases in the divorce rate is inherently bad. Maybe it became more socially acceptable to leave the partner and people are now happier than they would have been in the past when they may have just continued on in a bad relationship. I'm not saying the current divorce rate is optimal, but 0% isn't necessarily optimal either.

Don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter...just a thought I've had in the past when this has come up in conversation.

I understand, and certainly, sometimes, its best and/or necessary. But again, I was really just talking about the casualness with which marriage is now terminated...as well as entered into. I think this is problematic for many reasons. This is just my opnion, and no doubt my faith influences some of my views on the topic.

When my wife and I did our mandatory premarriage counseling, one of the issues that we brought up was how much we lamented our parent's view of marriage. Both divorced because they "grew-apart." We both found this to be an unacceptable excuse and a poor reason to break up a family. 1.) One responsibilty of being married (in our mind) is that you work proactively to keep that from happening. 2.) If it does, you take all reasonable steps to "grow back together" in order avoid putting your children through such a major life change and stressor. Its not all about you when you have children. For better or for worse...remember? If you cannot make these commitments, then I would argue that you should not get married.

 

[roubs]

I just wanted to chime in that the 50% divorce rate is a myth originating from a misunderstanding of the statistics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...unked_n_804934.html#s219156&title=Half_of_All

It's also not as simple as those links contend. I think the stat most people want to know is: What are the chances that a marriage today will end in divorce? That is inherently a projection, and the crude # does not take into account whether it is a first marriage, second marriage, the age/educational status of the couple and a bunch of other factors. Some of the sources at these links do contend that as far as a projection, 40-50% may be accurate overall but (of course) not specific to individual cases.

 

[stigmata]

With scissors??? really?😱

 

[thepug]

It's also not as simple as those links contend. I think the stat most people want to know is: What are the chances that a marriage today will end in divorce? That is inherently a projection, and the crude # does not take into account whether it is a first marriage, second marriage, the age/educational status of the couple and a bunch of other factors. Some of the sources at these links do contend that as far as a projection, 40-50% may be accurate overall but (of course) not specific to individual cases.

What does 50% even mean?

It either will or it won't. To draw inference from this "statistic" is kind of useless.

I'm with erg. Not that he said this, but you have to accept the finality of a marriage for it to work. You can't let that idea of any other option enter your head. You kind of have to Don Quixote the whole thing for it to work.

 

[Ollie123]

I don't disagree that sometimes people give up too easy and wasn't necessarily even suggesting that you believed since it wasn't really your point - its just something that always pops into my mind when divorce comes up in conversation.

I do agree with your point about kids, but I view those as separate issues. Married people don't necessarily have kids, and unmarried people certainly can and do. I also have to wonder if parents staying in a relationship that clearly isn't "working" is any less stressful for kids than a divorce. Anecdotally, I know a number of people whose parents got divorced when they were kids who said it was definitely rough early on, but felt it was probably less stressful in the long run than their parents staying together and constantly fighting. I'm unaware of any research on that though.

Obviously I'm not intending to come across as "Hurray for divorce" but I just find it interesting that it is generally viewed as "The worst possible outcome" in marriage (again - not necessarily by folks here) when i can think of many situations I would consider much much worse.

 

[cara susanna]

I dunno, I used to be against divorce and think that you should stick together no matter what, but then I experienced a huge marital conflict between my parents when I still lived at home. I sincerely wished that one of them would just leave the other because it was unbearable. IIRC research indicates that the divorce itself doesn't harm children, it's the conflict and tension leading up to it.

 

[ela]

maybe divorcees aren't open enough..could benefit from "cue original topic";

Anti Aging Effects of Psilocybin



Link to abstract.

 

[erg923]

I dunno, I used to be against divorce and think that you should stick together no matter what, but then I experienced a huge marital conflict between my parents when I still lived at home. I sincerely wished that one of them would just leave the other because it was unbearable. IIRC research indicates that the divorce itself doesn't harm children, it's the conflict and tension leading up to it.

Your responsibility as a parent is to protect your children from that kind of behavior/conflict, Cara.

And I dont know how they were defining "harm" in those studies, but suffice to say that seperating a child from one parent (assuming both are competent parents) against their wishes is in no way helpful to them either. Moreover, conflict, grudges and sidetaking can, and often do, go on for years after a divorce. I think children could go without that too...whether the research defines that as a significant issue or not.

Lastly, I dont even think the Pope had your prior prior view of marriage. And neither do I. I belive strongly in the sanctity of marriage and preserving the family (for both religious/moral and psychological reasons) but certainly, in the case of serial adultry or violence/abuse, common sense should prevail.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Your theories intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

This thread is a trainwreck, but I love this comment.

On the marriage/divorce end, apparently Mexico is thinking about legalizing temporary marriages: When your initial two (or however many) years is up, you can either renew your contract or walk away, without going through a formal divorce (children and property discussions would take place each two years as the contracts are renewed): http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html

 

[cara susanna]

Well, yeah, I didn't mean in ALL circumstances. Certainly not abuse.

IIRC "harm" was defined as behavioral problems.

 

[thepug]

I dunno, I used to be against divorce and think that you should stick together no matter what, but then I experienced a huge marital conflict between my parents when I still lived at home. I sincerely wished that one of them would just leave the other because it was unbearable. IIRC research indicates that the divorce itself doesn't harm children, it's the conflict and tension leading up to it.

Research and my own anecdotal experience has found that divorces really wreck kids when they are in the 10-13 range and even more when they are in the 20-25ish range.

So who is divorce not effecting? 7 year olds who barely see their dad anyway because he is working 60 hr weeks to build up some capital and 16 year olds who are happy to have the lack of supervision.

Divorce sucks and self-centered parents will think of anything to alleviate their own guilt. The purpose of marriage is for a stable family.

 

[thepug]

maybe divorcees aren't open enough..could benefit from "cue original topic";

Anti Aging Effects of Psilocybin



Link to abstract.

You sir or madam, are an idiot.

Psilocybin is a toxic substance. Your poisoning yourself.

This study is such a piece of crap. Have people take mushrooms once and they become more open, no ****. Why not instead have them go see Iguassu Falls or go to some Buddhist ceremonies. This study was incredibly unethical. Over 40% "freaked out" and had a bad trip. A magic mushroom trip is one of the most horrible experience you can ever have. What happened to the ethical principal of refinement? The study has 0 ecological validity. People are not going to get days of briefing and have controlled doses administered to them by a professional.

Oh and the effects of increased openness have only lasted for 1 year thus far. While seemingly compelling, look at the sample...highly-educated and spiritually active...what is that like 2% of the population?

It's like saying cocaine helps hypersomnia patients.

 

[cara susanna]

Research and my own anecdotal experience has found that divorces really wreck kids when they are in the 10-13 range and even more when they are in the 20-25ish range.

So who is divorce not effecting? 7 year olds who barely see their dad anyway because he is working 60 hr weeks to build up some capital and 16 year olds who are happy to have the lack of supervision.

Divorce sucks and self-centered parents will think of anything to alleviate their own guilt. The purpose of marriage is for a stable family.

I agree, I still think that divorce is just terrible. But I'm also saying that it's also really difficult living with parents who are engaging in constant arguing and conflict.

 

[thepug]

I agree, I still think that divorce is just terrible. But I'm also saying that it's also really difficult living with parents who are engaging in constant arguing and conflict.

Yes, this is true. The solution? I wish we knew.

I think as a society we just need to shame this kind of behavior. We need to sort of collectively agree that setting that kind of home environment is one of the worst things a human being can do. Our culture is weak. We should model that of the Japanese.

We did it with overt-racism and look how prevalent that used to be.