The last section of this article struck me as being full of non sequiturs. It's not clear where the "write code" portion of the title comes from at all. The word "code" doesn't appear until the final word in the article. I remain confused what the connection is with the picture and brief discussion of Joe Rogan. What does he have to do with "write code"?
Very confusing article... Maybe the author was partaking in psychedelics while writing it?
The article talks about the resurgence of interest in psychedelics in silicon valley, references how the history of silicon valley culter has its roots in the 60s culture that embraced psychedelics, and talks about how the current approach empasizes microdosing to increasr productivity. "Write code" is glib, but referrences a narrative that the article pretty clearly established.
To me, that "clearly established" narrative is an exercise in "begging the question". Starting from the "common knowledge" assumption that there is a through line between "write code", silicon valley / "tech bro" hustle culture, Joe Rogan, and psychedelics, the article's narrative is clear. But if you don't already have all those lines drawn in your mind coming into the article, then in my view, the article does a very poor job of drawing them itself.
Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but part of it is that I think there is an interesting story here, and I was disappointed not to find it in this article. I can easily imagine an article, like the kind they publish in the New Yorker for instance, that really does tease out all these connections, along with teasing out the places where the "common knowledge" is a distortion of reality, providing real insight. But this just wasn't that article, for me.
This is a book review, not a general article. The book the review is about covers the history of drug use, not current trends, which is why that is majority of the article talks about that. The final section does provide a reasonable about of links and arguments for a book review. While it isn't a anthropological study on that topic, that hardly justifies saying the author was tripping.
Yes, fair enough. I thought the book review portion was illuminating (and it sounds like an interesting book), but then the final section isn't about the book at all and, in my view, makes an argument that isn't well supported. And I think it does all that in service to being able to include this "write code" bit of cleverness in the headline, which is the only reason we're discussing an otherwise run-of-the-mill book review. So I think it's fair to point out that the section that brought this to our attention is pretty weak...
The final section setups up a contrast between the and now that is meant to help motivate you to read the book.
I don't see the section as particularly weak, it does exactly what it supposed to and it's argument is sufficiently strong for that purpose.
I would note that while you complained about the argument being weak, you didn't actually make any effort to edispute any of it.
If you found the topic interesting and wanted a deeper study of the topic, then thats great go do some research, I doubt nobody else has researched or written about it. Complaining that a book review isn't a scholarly article or a full essay isn't actually gonna get you any deeper understanding of the topic.
If you look Geoff Shullenberger other writings on that site, they are just some hack that writes about whatever hot political bullshit take there is to have at that time.
We are just drowning in stupid news opinion that is begging for clicks and not irrelevance.
I learned absolutely nothing from this article. Just a total waste of time to read.
I didn't browse any other articles by this author, but yeah, that's what this article had the ring of to me. "If I write an article that states the assumptions a bunch of people already have, those people will click on it!"
Whereas "today 'popularizers _tend to_ promote psycheledics as a way of self-discovery..." (instead of some collectivist utopia as if this has always been the norm ). I don't buy it.
My father was in South America in the early 80's taking ayahuasca guided by Chamans way before it was mainstream. And it has always been a means of self-discovery for them (and much more). There is nothing modern and individualistic about this approach as depicted by the author.
Additionally, self-discovery is not inherently individualistic. The most powerful discovery I made during my first trip was that I would not be who I am (self-discovery) without the influence of the many, amazing people I've had the good fortune of knowing (anti-individualistic). This understanding came with overwhelming gratitude and a desire to become closer with more people in my community.
In general psychedelics strip away your ego such that your self appears illusory. I've never met anyone whose takeaway from psychedelics was individualistic.
I had a similar experience where I gained a strong sense of how ancient humans and modern humans are one and the same.
It was individualistic in that the sense came from my own embodied experience of being in the world, and I was thinking about myself, but it was an insight about contextualizing myself in a much larger thing.
It made me feel special, personally, for being a member of such an incredible group, but anti-individualistic because I extended this specialness to everyone.
The "drop out" part isn't meant to be permanent or literal. Even Tim Leary kept busy writing books, teaching, giving talks and generally making a living.
Nothing wrong with boosting creativity. The choice of directing that creativity to your employer's profits is only an issue if your company is boring or unethical or undeserving. Besides, I don't think micro-dosing aspires to the "turn on, tune in" part of the equation. I've never micro-dosed, but a coffee-like buzz has no connection with Leary's mantra.
I think you’ve mostly got it, but it doesn’t mean drop out of life it means drop out of the mainstream and be self reliant.
Leary explained it directly:
> "Turn on" meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers engaging them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. "Tune in" meant interact harmoniously with the world around you—externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. "Drop out" suggested an active, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. "Drop Out" meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily, my explanations of this sequence of personal development are often misinterpreted to mean "Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity".[4]
Leary also said "Drop Out" was a period where you abstain from mind altering drugs.
So the order was.
Turn On = expand your consciousness
Tun In = learn/integrate from your alternative views generated by your altered state.
Drop Out = return to unaltered state to rest
> The "drop out" part isn't meant to be permanent or literal.
In the 1960s and 1970s, after being a hippie, it was still possible to get back into mainstream society. Welfare payments were more generous,
rents were lower, and student loan debt was not a big thing.
It has some ideas worth discussion but it's wrapped in a thick layer of what seems to be purposeful misunderstand, and misstatements. It lacks crucial context.
> "Turn on" meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers engaging them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. "Tune in" meant interact harmoniously with the world around you—externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. "Drop out" suggested an active, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. "Drop Out" meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily, my explanations of this sequence of personal development are often misinterpreted to mean "Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity"
~ T. Leary
That's Leary on his own use of the phrase, and I think this article is continuing this purposeful misinterpretation. Further, the article treats the phrase as if it is synthesis of everything the psychedelic movement stood to offer.
While I'm rather interested in exploring where the psychedelic movement moved from counter-culture to grind-culture, to do so with such hyperbolic statements as
> By contrast, the lifestyle influencers hawking psychedelics today lack the intellectual ambition and the incentive to offer their audiences anything other than another consumption niche.
leaves me feeling the author is more interesting in exploring their own opinions.
Nawh, it was Aldous Huxley. I could hear the wailing from here drowning out my downstairs neighbor's 2 inappropriate-breed-for-apartments yapping and howling dogs.
I don't want to talk to my ______. I want to own it. I want to modify it. I want it to do what I want _without_ talking to it, or having a conversation with it, or it attempting to 'interpret' anything. Just do what I told you to do. That's what tech is for. That's what mechanical items are for. That's what we build things to do.
::button press:: Shut up and do it. Most humans don't even want verbose error codes. Shut up, do the thing, and if absolutely necessary beep when something goes wrong.
>In Samoa, she had found a society whose looser sexual mores she came to view as a challenge to rigid Western norms
Did she? She claimed she found wild (and weird) sexual life of Samoans but her findings were never succesfully verified, or supported (including by Samoans themselves). By now it's quite clear that she was either a victim of a prank, or simply faked interviews. It's both sad and funny that it appeared so embarassing to rollback all the pseudoscientific bs which grew from what is essentially a description of fictional world that plenty of people who claim to be science-lovers, or even scientists continue to refer to the work as if it is something fundamental and correct
I can only encourage everyone to read it with enough attention.
Weeding out from this incredibly lengthy text all attempts of character killing of the first public debunker, lame claims such as "Dr.X thinks the report was generally correct" (with not a single point provided), unrelated statements such as that some of Mead's ideas maybe right because of completely different research by different people in different place), we are left with the fact that there's no, zero, none evidence to support factual correctness of Ms.Mead's Samoan research on sexual behavior. And to deal with it her supporters reiterate the same argument in different forms - that there's a mystical conspiracy of silence on the island, i.e. Mead was told truth, but somehow everyone else both before, and after was not. It's absolutely ridiculous as we are talking about modern times, and society numerous enough to have internal political divides, and by that time already well-connected with outside world including intermarrying, and people of varying origins living their whole lives there, not to forget it was never isolated within Oceania.
Oh, and there's also an argument that we shouldn't judge her because she "followed interpretative approach", and her report "is not falsifiable". This one can make sense, but it's just another way to say she was a fiction writer sold as a scientist.
Were there side-effects, legal constraints too risky, or was it not all that effective? It was my impression that Δ8-/9-THC slows down thought processes, gives a false sense of clarity rather than actual clarity, but enhances (painter) creativity over (hacker) logic and order.
My process relies on putting difficult problems out of immediate focus, and use kinetic and calming means like exercise, meditation, and hot saunas. If that doesn't work, throwing away code and trying again like rewriting a book chapter can be useful; Joe Armstrong [RIP] was a big believer in this.
For ideation, a variation of stimulus reduction approaching sensory deprivation without a dark, warm water tank works for me.
Basically, it comes down to this: if you haven’t taken the time to define your core values, other people’s values will be forced upon you, in everything that you do.
And I say forced because social program will not sustain your well being.. not yet in North America anyway.
It will never stop being incredibly funny that in the past 24 months an untold legion of people have emerged from heroic doses of shrooms/LSD clutching a note that just has “what if u could chat with a pdf???” scrawled on it
I think if I chatted with my database it'd have nothing nice to say. It'd just bitch about the deadlocks, keyspace starvation, that other one it has to share everything with and all those people asking stupid questions.
i'd be fine with chatting with my database as long as it's in a structured way. Like a language I could use to query for information and insights on the data.
I'm not sure if that's going to take off in the age of AI. How about SQLM? I'd suggest SQLLM, but is it really a large model if it fits in a single repository?
What if SQL isn't that hard if you put some effort into learning it, and then you can enjoy conversing with data in a language that isn't intractibly fraught with ambiguity?
More importantly, I'd be afraid of what the database at work would have to say. My guess is a lot of not really nice things since the schema designers were idiots (luckily I had no hand in it, but I just get to deal with the consequences).
You laugh, but people in incel circles are heralding the nascent arrival of better than real AI girlfriends. She night as well live in your toaster or fridge if you're trying to be energy efficient.
"We strongly recommend becoming best friends with your fridge to get the most out of all its features. Please follow this guide on how to cultivate a meaningful relationship with your new AI-powered(™) smart fridge."
It's a tech bro prosperity gospel. Same thing happens with stuff like stoicism, where the core tenets begin taking a back seat to worldly success (see most of Ryan Holiday's books).
Another instance of SV bros unknowingly LARPing spirituality is more obvious: the weird, intense religious-like fervor some people have about AI.
This stuff inhabits the void in people, and it becomes very obvious.
> Another instance of SV bros unknowingly LARPing spirituality is more obvious: the weird, intense religious-like fervor some people have about AI.
It is crazy to me how fast and how intensely cult-like AI became. It's even crazier when you consider the gap between their belief in AI (singularity, automate every job, next step for humanity, etc...) and their actual AI projects (make a fancy QR code generator or yet another SEO spam site...)
Very confusing article... Maybe the author was partaking in psychedelics while writing it?