Culture, context, and ethics in the therapeutic use of hallucinogens: Psychedelics as active super-placebos?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following decades of prohibition and widespread concern about their mind-altering properties, there is increasing public, scholarly, and clinical interest in the therapeutic potential of psychedelic substances. Serotonergic substances in particular (DMT, psilocybin, and LSD) are now being tested as treatments for such ailments as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorder. This thematic issue of Transcultural Psychiatry presents articles that investigate the cultural assumptions, political dimensions, and clinical and ethical implications that arise from this renewed interest. After reviewing ongoing debates on therapeutic mechanisms of action and the importance of context, we argue that psychedelics can be conceptualized as “active super-placebos”—that is, substances that enhance ritual, symbolic, and interpersonal therapeutic processes by increasing suggestibility and the influence of extra-pharmacological, “non-specific” factors. Rather than simply freeing up habitual constraints on perception, the articles in this issue support the claim that psychedelic encounters typically entail processes of sense-making, crystallization of meaning, and enculturation into contextually mediated assumptive worlds (or ideologies) and behaviours that necessarily install novel constraints with potentially maladaptive consequences. We highlight the importance of clinical and epistemic integrity in the framing of psychedelic therapies. The importance of structuring and providing oversight for the therapeutic context raises difficult questions about the search for appropriate forms of epistemic authority that are at once respectful of the plural cultural origins of psychedelic rituals and mindful of best practices and standards in clinical care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".