I think everyone but the most feverish oldschool supporters of psychedelics will find these results unsurprising. While it's undeniable that mushrooms and such pop up here and there in traditional usage/depictions there isn't nearly enough evidence to extrapolate anything more than that, and the myths that claim otherwise have always been laughable. More research is always welcome in this space of course - obvious results are often the most important.
I do disagree with Dyck's take at the end, though; the people spreading the myths about historical psychedelic usage (Leary, etc.) tend to do so out of unbridled enthusiasm more than financial goals. And I think the focus on personal, medicinal usage over the more traditional spiritual usage makes sense considering... they experienced them personally, and that's how they understood the value. Not that that excuses the spread of misinformation, but I think it's unfair to characterize it as nefarious when it was really more misguided.
The research is interesting but this article has an odd slant to it, like it's arguing against something but it's unclear what. They seem to conflate the older ~1950s-1980s psychedelic culture - stoned ape theory, mushroom iconography - with the more modern approach, of clinical research and microdosing and so on. I get the impression the author doesn't think highly of psychedelics, and is more interested in finding evidence to support that inclination than actually delving into the complicated dynamics of it all.
I do disagree with Dyck's take at the end, though; the people spreading the myths about historical psychedelic usage (Leary, etc.) tend to do so out of unbridled enthusiasm more than financial goals. And I think the focus on personal, medicinal usage over the more traditional spiritual usage makes sense considering... they experienced them personally, and that's how they understood the value. Not that that excuses the spread of misinformation, but I think it's unfair to characterize it as nefarious when it was really more misguided.
The research is interesting but this article has an odd slant to it, like it's arguing against something but it's unclear what. They seem to conflate the older ~1950s-1980s psychedelic culture - stoned ape theory, mushroom iconography - with the more modern approach, of clinical research and microdosing and so on. I get the impression the author doesn't think highly of psychedelics, and is more interested in finding evidence to support that inclination than actually delving into the complicated dynamics of it all.