Altered States of Consciousness are Prevalent and Insufficiently Supported Clinically: A Population Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Adoption of potentially consciousness-altering practices may be leading to a rise in emergent phenomena (EP): sudden unusual mental or somatic experiences often interpreted as spiritual, mystical, energetic, or magical in nature. It is unclear how frequently these altered states of consciousness occur and what the clinical implications may be. Anecdotal accounts and prior literature suggest that EP may be common, under-reported, and followed by either positive or negative changes to well-being. We sought to supplement prior evidence on the prevalence and effects of EP among general populations with large-scale quantitative measurements. Method We measured the prevalence of EP, while not on mind-altering substances, through completion of online surveys by representative samples from three international communities (n = 3135). The communities sampled were UK Qualtrics online panelists, US-based MTurk workers, and the readers of a popular rationalist blog. Samples were broadly representative of underlying populations. Results Forty-five percent of participants reported experiencing non-pharmacologically induced EP at least once in their lives, including derealization (17%), unitive experiences (15%), ecstatic thrills (15%), vivid perceptions (11%), changes in perceived size (10%), bodily heat or electricity (9%), out-of-body experiences (8%), and perception of non-physical lights (5%). Respondents reported a mix of positive and negative well-being outcomes following EP, with 13% claiming moderate or greater suffering and 1.1% claiming life-threatening suffering. Of those who experienced suffering, 63% did not seek help. Conclusions EP are widespread among the studied populations with potential for both positive and negative outcomes, the latter of which do not appear to be adequately addressed through recourse to clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".