Search This Blog

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Kids’ Video Games Meet Unmet Psychological Needs


Many parents are concerned with their child’s seemingly obsessive video game play. Fortnite, the most recent gaming phenomenon, has taken the world by storm and has parents asking whether the shooter game is okay for kids.
The short answer is yes, Fortnite is generally fine. Furthermore, parents can breathe easier knowing that research suggests gaming (on its own) does not cause disorders like addiction.
However, there’s more to the story. A comprehensive answer to the question of whether video games are harmful must take into account other factors. Fortnite is just the latest example of a pastime some kids spend more time on than is good for them. But parents need to understand why kids play as well as when to worry and when to relax.

Addiction, Really?

The word “addiction” gets tossed around quite a bit these days. It’s not uncommon to hear people say that they are addicted to chocolate or shoe shopping, but if it isn’t causing serious harm and impairment to daily function, it isn’t an addiction. It’s an overindulgence.

This isn’t just semantics. An addiction involves a lack of control despite adverse consequences. Parents may worry their kids are addicted, but if the child can pull themselves away from a game to join the family for a conversation over dinner, and shows interest in other activities, like sports or socializing with friends, then they are not addicted.
Generally, parents panic when their kid’s video game playing comes at the expense of doing other things like studying or helping around the house. But let’s be honest, kids have been avoiding these activities for ages. Equally true is the fact parents have been complaining about their unhelpful children well before the first video game was plugged into its socket.
In fact, moderate video gameplay has been shown to be beneficial. A study conducted at Oxford by Dr. Andrew Przybylski revealed playing about one hour per day enhanced psychological well-being, while when taken to an extreme, playing over three hours per day, was correlated with less well-being.
The real question should be what is it about the special draw of gaming that makes it the preferred pastime of so many millions of kids? What makes it so difficult for even non-addicted kids to step away from video games sometimes?
The answer has to do with the way games address basic psychological needs.

What Kids Are Looking For (And Not Getting)

Fortnite, like any well-designed video game, satisfies what we are all looking for. According to Drs. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, people need three things to flourish. We look for competence — the need for mastery, progression, achievement, and growth. We need autonomy — the need for volition and freedom of control over our choice. And finally, we strive for relatedness — the need to feel like we matter to others and that others matter to us. Unfortunately, when considering the state of modern childhood, many kids aren’t getting enough of these three essential elements.
School, where kids spend most of their waking hours, is in many ways the antithesis of a place where kids feel competence, autonomy, and relatedness. There, kids are told what to do, where to be, what to think, what to wear, and what to eat. Alarms and bells orchestrate their movements with farm-chattel precision while teachers opine on topics students could care less about. If they’re bored and want to go, they’re punished. If they want to learn something else, they’re told to be quiet. If they’d like to go deeper on a topic, they’re prodded to stay on track. Of course, this isn’t every student’s experience and different countries, schools, and teachers use different approaches to educate kids. But while some argue discipline and control provide structure, it’s clear why teachers and students might struggle with motivation in the classroom.
Gamers feel competence when they practice strengths to achieve their aims. In a game, players have the autonomy to call the shots, do what they want, and experiment with creative strategies to solve problems. Games are also social outlets where players can feel relatedness. In Fortnite, for example, players often meet in the virtual environment to chat and socialize because doing so in the real world is often inconvenient or off limits. Whereas previous generations were allowed to simply play after school and form close social bonds, many kids today are raised by fearful and overworked parents who insist their kids either attend a regimented afterschool program or stay behind lock and key at home.
We shouldn’t be surprised when the confinement kids find themselves in today often yields behaviors we don’t understand and don’t like. Games satisfy psychological needs other areas of life are not satiating.
Of course, none of this is to say video games are a good substitution — quite the opposite. While a well-designed game attempts to satisfy these needs, it can’t come close to the deep satisfaction real life and real human connection can provide.
No game can give a child the feeling of competence that comes from accomplishing a difficult task or learning a new skill on their own accord. Fortnite can’t compete with the exhilaration that comes from the autonomy of exploring reality, where a child is free to ask questions and unlock mysteries in the real world. No social media site can give a kid the sense of relatedness, safety, and warmth that comes from an adult who loves that child unconditionally just the way they are, no matter what, and takes the time to tell them so.
Some kids suffer from gaming disorders, but such dependencies are often coupled with pre-existing conditions including problems with impulse control. This, of course, does not abdicate companies from their moral responsibility to help problem gamers. It’s time they implement policies to identify and help those with disorders.
For most children, however, parents understanding the deeper truth behind what kids are getting out of games empowers them to take steps to give kids more of what they need. It also helps parents get into a state of mind to talk rationally about overuse instead of succumbing to the hysterics and moral panic that our parents used to try and force us to stop listening to rock ’n’ roll, watching MTV, playing pinball, or reading comic books. Video games are this generation’s outlet and some kids use them as a tool to escape the same way some of us use our own flavor of dissociative devices to tune out reality for a while.
Instead of repeating the mistakes of previous generations with heavy-handed tactics, let’s understand the psychological source of the problem. Ultimately, parents’ goal should be to help kids learn strategies for coping with overuse on their own so that they do what’s good for them even when we’re not around. By teaching self-regulating habits, promoting intentional gaming, and helping kids find suitable alternatives, parents can help kids find what they are really looking for.

Be Vulnerable and Give-Up Some Control

As studies show, there’s nothing wrong with a moderate amount of gameplay. Looking out for symptoms of excessive use, while opening a dialogue about how much is too much, can empower kids to take control of their habits for themselves.
One suggestion is to make time to watch them play and try playing yourself. Become their biggest fan and let them be the expert at something. Letting them coach you through a game will give them the feeling of competency they crave while strengthening your relatedness.
Be vulnerable. Show them you struggle with tech overuse at times as well. Try letting them set their own limits for how much game time is healthy and help them find ways to stick to the time limits they set for themselves instead of imposing yet more rules.
If kids see parents are on their team and not just an obstacle to their needs being met, the all-too-common adversarial relationship begins to change. When kids see parents are not trying to stop them from having fun, but are rather helping them keep things in perspective and in the right proportion, they become allies instead of enemies.

Fatigue number-one sexual problem in the U.S. today?


Twenty-five years ago, I wrote an article for a professional journal warning of sleep deprivation’s impact on sexual functioning. At the time, if 100 sex therapists were asked to identify the most common causes of diminished sex drive and sexual capacity, the majority would answer performance anxiety and/or communication issues. It’s true that, regardless of other etiology, performance anxiety and communication difficulties are almost always present as either a cause and/or consequence of sexual difficulty. However, neither of these factors is the most common cause of sexual distress in the United States: It’s fatigue.
Fatigue is an epidemic in our society and can be caused by a number of medical, psychosocial, and environmental conditions. While moderate daily exercise (especially in the morning) is one of the most frequent recommendations for those with low energy and/or sleep problems, excessive exercise can produce fatigue. While not relevant for the majority of people, the most athletic among us should take a moment to check: Is that resting pulse a little too amazing? Are your athletic regimen and social life producing a level of fatigue incompatible with good sexual experiences?
For almost 100 million Americans, fatigue is the result of sleep debt. Those who work more than 40 hours a week (which is a growing group) are less likely to get enough sleep per night than those who work fewer hours. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that over 30 percent of American adults (approximately 41 million people) sleep six or fewer hours per day, and night shift workers — particularly those in the warehouse, transportation, and health care industries — are at the most risk of not getting enough sleep. One-quarter of the nation’s workforce labors through the evening. Others who are not getting enough sleep are people who work more than one job, widows, divorcees, recently separated partners, and of course new moms — especially single mothers. For almost all of us, modern life’s electronics — from simple light bulbs to today’s ubiquitous mobile phones — all encourage delayed bedtimes. Societal pressure to postpone or even skip sleep has increased and accelerated dramatically over the last 20 years since my earlier article was published.
Sleep needs vary by age group and are also variable between individuals. Besides sleep’s impact on sex, insufficient sleep has also long been linked to significant health risks, including but not limited to obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression, a weaker immune system, cognitive issues, and daytime fatigue. Alteration of hormonal milieu is often suggested as a mediating culprit. Recommendations on how to monitor (including continuous announcements of new gadgets) and improve your sleep are omnipresent.
The relationship between sleep and sexualityhas an important place in the history of sexual science. Measuring erections during sleep was once considered one of the most important diagnostic tests in evaluating whether patients with erectile disorders were suffering from organic illness. Early clinical trials of well-known sex drugs for men (Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, etc.) all incorporated such “sleep studies.” Obstructive sleep apnea(OBSA), which causes disrupted breathing in the middle of the night and is suffered by millions, was long known to cause fatigue. Sleep apnea has come to be recognized as an important risk factor for sexual dysfunction for both men and women. Postmenopausal women with OSBA are especially at risk for adverse sexual side effects, and men with OBSA frequently suffer from erectile dysfunction. Sex researchers studying the impact of sleep on sexuality in women concluded in a recent pilot study that women who get one more hour of sleep increase their sex drive by around 14 percent. Those women also reported fewer problems with genital arousal and a more satisfying sexual response than women who had fewer hours of sleep.
Might getting better quality sleep, and making sure the quantity is right for you, be a meaningful way to improve your quality of life generally and sex life specifically? The answer is yes! There are a multitude of physical and psychological factors that require a sex therapist’s skill and intervention; yet for many readers of this blog, what appears to be a complicated situation may have a simple solution. Sometimes you can improve your sex life by simply reducing fatigue. As a bonus, even when sexual difficulties are primarily caused by other factors, you have already begun to improve your situation before you even show up at the doctor’s office.
So, if sleep is great for sex, and also helps us stay fit and maintain a healthy body, and increases resilience to stress and/or disease (even reducing our chance of catching a cold), how do you improve the likelihood of getting what you need? For those with severe insomnia, a medical evaluation is advisable, and Schutte-Rodin et al. (2008) offers a comprehensive summary of evaluation and management options. For others, the following “Top 10” list of the most frequently recommended tips compiled from Internet sites will suffice for a start:
1. Light — Spend time outside getting daylight, and reduce exposure to light at night, especially blocking nighttime blue/green electronic display light.
2. Physical activity — Engage in easy to moderate exercise daily.
3. Temperature regulation — Keep it cold: The ideal temperature for falling asleep is around 65°F (18°C) for most people.
4. Meditation or yoga on a regular basis — You can also try bedtime breathing and/or relaxation techniques.
5. Circadian rhythm — Structure life to the extent comfortable, by going to sleep and awakening at the same time each day.
6. Hot/warm shower and/or bath prior to bedtime
7. Reserving your bed for sleeping and sex — Leave your bed and read elsewhere if not asleep within an hour. Then return to bed and try to sleep again.
8. Stop working at least one hour before bedtime.
9. Reducing excess liquids at bedtime — Modulate use of alcohol, and avoid caffeine and/or other stimulants post-mid-afternoon.
10. Orgasm — An orgasm may induce sleep. (This tends to work more for men than women.)

References
Liu Y, Wheaton AG, Chapman DP, Cunningham TJ, Lu H, Croft JB. Prevalence of Healthy Sleep Duration among Adults-United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:137–141.

The case for robot umpires


The sports world has been dealing with the human error of referees and umpires for decades—it’s pretty much tradition at this point. But with technology that can assess the game more accurately, some athletes are ready to push the people calling balls and strikes off the field in favor of technology.
The news: On Tuesday, Chicago Cubs second baseman Ben Zobrist, one of the most vocal supporters of turning over baseball rulings to software, used an argument with the umpire as a chance to advocate for a change in the league.
“That’s why we want an electronic strike zone.”
Zobrist, shortly before getting his first career ejection
The comment reinvigorated a long-standing debate over automation in sports.
You’re out! As you watch baseball on television, a graphic is often overlaid on the action that shows in real time whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. But human umps are still making the calls on the field based on nothing but their own eyes. Increasingly, viewers and players would rather have the technology take over.
The opponents: As Jason Gay wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Humanity—and all the imperfections that go with it—is an integral part of sports, even when it means officials making costly mistakes. Instant replay has its upsides, but has also turned into a soul-crushing time suck.”
A collaborative solution: Professional tennis could be an example for baseball to follow. Rather than firing all the umpires, it has decided to embrace human-software collaboration, giving the final word to the “Hawk-Eye” program on disputed in-or-out rulings. The program is quick and accurate, and it even evokes an immediate response from the crowd. If baseball can find a system like this, it may be able to find a way for the traditionalists and tech fanatics to live in harmony on the diamond.

What’s That Puppy in the Window?


What breed an animal shelter thinks a dog may be is only right about two-thirds of the time, according to a new genetic study.
Researchers from Arizona State University collected DNA samples from 919 dogs in shelters in Arizona and California for analysis. As they report in PLOS One, they found that the most common breeds among shelter dogs there to be American Staffordshire Terrier, Chihuahua, and Poodle. They tested the animals using a commercially available test from Mars Veterinary.
About 5 percent of the dogs were identified as purebred — most commonly American Staffordshire Terrier, Labrador Retriever, or Yorkshire Terrier — while the others were mixed.
These genetic breed labels didn’t always match with what breed shelter workers thought the dogs might be. The breed the works thought might be in the dogs matched with the most prevalent breed from the genetic analysis about 57 percent of the time and matched with the primary or secondary breed from the genetic analysis about 67 percent of the time.
What breeds dogs are labeled as affects how long they stay in the shelter, the researchers add, as people use breed information to gauge temperament.
But, senior author Clive Wynne adds in a statement that “[t]he genetics of behavior is so complex that a dog who is a cross of two breeds might not behave much like the typical members of either of its parents’ families.”

This Drug Is Safe and Effective. Compared With What?


We spend many billions of dollars each year on the discovery and development of new drugs, but almost none of it addresses two crucial questions: How do these new therapies compare with already known ones? What are the relative benefits and harms in a particular situation, for a person like you?
Such questions can best be answered by comparative effectiveness research.
To get approval from the Food and Drug Administration, drugs must be proved both effective and safe. The costs of doing this are significant, and they are most often borne by the pharmaceutical industry.
But the F.D.A.’s bar, while meaningful, often isn’t very useful for what physicians and patients really care about every day: how effective and safe drugs are compared with one another.

Real-World Questions

Consider antibiotics. In my work as a pediatrician, questions about their use come up a lot. Which drug is the best first-line therapy for which common illnesses? We don’t know. How long should we treat for different infections? We don’t know. What are the relative trade-offs between benefits and side effects in different patients in different circumstances? We don’t know.
The questions we need answered are legion. All the guidelines and practices we have are best guesses.
Comparative effectiveness research can take on many forms and involve more than drugs.

A Blood Pressure Study

We know that high blood pressure is both terribly prevalent and a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We also know that there are a lot of drugs out there, all F.D.A.-approved, that can help reduce this risk by better controlling blood pressure. But which is best?
This question isn’t new. In 2002, the results of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial — a comparative effectiveness trial — were published in JAMA.
Participants had to be at least 55, have hypertension and have at least one other risk factor for coronary heart disease. They were randomly assigned to take one of four drugs, each with an entirely different mechanism, representing a different class of drugs.
Chlorthalidone is a diuretic, or a drug that increases urine output. Amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker, causes blood vessels to relax and widen, and lowers the heart rate. Doxazosin does the same by blocking the effects of adrenaline on muscles throughout the body. Lisinopril blocks the enzyme angiotensin, which tightens blood vessels, leading to lower blood pressure. All the patients were tracked for four to eight years.

Sex-based differences in bladder cancer risk


New research helps explain why men are three to five times more likely to develop bladder cancer than women.

(For the purposes of this study, “male” was defined as having XY chromosomes and testes, and “female” was defined as having XX chromosomes and ovaries.)
Using mouse models and human patient data, researchers at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital found that inherent genomic differences contribute to the contrast in bladder cancer rate between the sexes.
Xue Sean Li, HMS associate professor of surgery at Boston Children’s, and Satoshi Kaneko, HMS research associate in surgery at Boston Children’s, were the senior and first authors, respectively, on the recent study, published in Science Advances.
Genomic versus hormonal sex 
Li and Kaneko started by uncoupling the genomic and hormonal components of sex in a mouse model of bladder cancer.
Typically, a mammal’s genomic sex is determined by whether an individual is born with XY or XX chromosomes. The hormonal component of sex relates to whether an individual develops testes or ovaries, the reproductive organs that produce sex-specific hormones.
In nature, mammals are usually born with either XX chromosomes and ovaries or XY chromosomes and testes.
Li’s team used genetic engineering to decouple these pairings into four types of mice: XX chromosome with ovaries, XX chromosome with testes, XY chromosome with ovaries and XY chromosome with testes. This allowed the researchers to evaluate the independent roles that the genome and sex hormones play on bladder cancer risk.
Over a period of 280 days, they found that mice with XY chromosomes—even those with ovaries instead of testes—were much more likely to develop and die from bladder cancer than their XX counterparts.
Strikingly, mice born with testes, regardless of being XX or XY individuals, were even more likely to die.
A new gene implication for bladder cancer?
To better understand the genetic mechanisms behind these stark observations, Li and Kaneko decided to sequence urothelial cells, which line the urinary tract and are the most common source of bladder cancer, from the four groups of mice.
They landed an interesting genetic hit.
Expression of an X-chromosome-linked gene called KDM6A stuck out from the pack as a key differentiator between XY and XX urothelial cells, regardless of whether the mice had ovaries or testes. They found much more KDM6A expression in individuals with XX chromosomes.
In humans, KDM6 Ais a known factor in some breast cancers but seems to suppress tumor growth in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Li and Kaneko then tested bladder cancer cells to see if expression of KDM6A—either constantly or transiently on or off—would influence the ability of the cancer cells to proliferate over time.
They found that constant expression of KDM6A significantly repressed cell growth. Moreover, they found that knocking out the gene in urothelial cells increased bladder cancer risk in mice.
Together, these findings suggest that KDM6A functions as a tumor suppressor in bladder cancer, the authors said.
With these mouse model findings in hand, Li and Kaneko then wondered if there was any evidence of KDM6A influencing the outcomes of human patients with bladder cancer.
Finding a hit in clinical data
By searching genomic and clinical data from The Cancer Genome Atlas, they found that KDM6A expression was much higher in women than in men. Moreover, women with lower levels of KDM6A—or with genetic mutations that disrupted the normal expression of KDM6A—had much poorer survival outcomes than women with normal levels of KDM6A expression.
“We have found that the X chromosome offers protection from bladder cancer and that X-linked KDM6A confers additional benefit by acting as a tumor suppressor,” said Li, who is a principal investigator in the urology department at Boston Children’s.
Taken altogether, Li and Kaneko’s findings provide new insight into sex-based disparities in cancer risk and mortality. They further suggest that X-chromosome-linked KDM6A is potential new biomarker that can predict prognosis for patients with bladder cancer and could even set the stage for future therapies.
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (1R21CA198544).

‘Microdosing’ touted, starting to be tested — and some truth being found


Dennis van der Meijden isn’t aiming to see the face of God, feel one with the cosmos, grasp the hidden reality of time and space, or embark on a sacred journey. What the Dutch graphic designer, producer, and rapper (under the professional name Terilekst) wants — and gets — from his twice-weekly “microdoses” of psilocybin is more modest.
“It sharpens all the senses, as if the frequencies of all of your atoms and energy field are raised a little bit and are being slightly more conscious,” said van der Meijden, 39, who told STAT he first microdosed psilocybin — the active ingredient in “magic mushrooms” — three years ago. It makes him energetic enough to skip coffee, “as if I’m kicked in some sort of orbit for that day.” If he becomes distracted, “I’m very much aware of that, as if seeing myself from a bird’s eye view, so I can correct myself very fast.” But van der Meijden says he’s careful not to exceed about 0.4 grams, because 0.5 made him “a bit too joyful and a bit too philosophical,” which wasn’t always appropriate.
Microdosing involves taking roughly one-tenth the “trip” dose of a psychedelic drug, an amount too little to trigger hallucinations but enough, its proponents say, to sharpen the mind. Psilocybin microdosers (including hundreds on Reddit) report that the mushrooms can increase creativity, calm anxiety, decrease the need for caffeine, and reduce depression. There is enough evidence that trip doses might have the latter effect that, on Wednesday, London-based Compass Pathways received Food and Drug Administration approval for a Phase 2B clinical trial of psilocybin (in larger-than-microdoses) for treatment-resistant depression. But research into microdosing is minimal.
In the nearly 10 years since psychologist and psychedelics researcher James Fadiman introduced the notion of microdosing and devised a widely followed protocol for it, and three years after microdosing psychedelics became the latest Silicon Valley “productivity hack,” all the evidence about its effects has been anecdotal. Psilocybin is illegal almost everywhere, so it’s been nearly impossible to study scientifically. That is changing, however, as the Netherlands and other countries effectively decriminalize it and scientists in places where it remains illegal obtain government permission to study it.
The scientific interest is driven, in part, by numerous reports over the years that psilocybin might have antidepressant or anti-anxiety effects that might guide the development of better psychiatric drugs. But it also reflects an itch to see whether there is any basis for the anecdotal accounts. Now, in the first study of its kind, scientists in the Netherlands found that psilocybin microdoses have no noticeable effect on the problem-solving, rational-thinking, and abstract-reasoning ability called fluid intelligence. But they do seem to improve two forms of thinking that underlie creativity.
“Performance was significantly higher” on tests of convergent and divergent thinking, said psychologist Bernhard Hommel of Leiden University in the Netherlands, who led the study. Convergent thinking is the ability to focus on abstract concepts to identify a single solution to a well-defined problem. Divergent thinking requires meandering mental forays and mental flexibility. Psychologists consider both to be ingredients of creativity.
Whatever the dose, psilocybin (O-phosphoryl-4-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine) binds to receptors for the neurotransmitter serotonin. The cortex is packed with these 5-HT2A receptors, especially in areas that control reflection, imagination, and introspection, but “whether there is a minimum dose [of psilocybin that’s required to activate them] is an empirical question that we try to tackle,” Hommel said.
To do so, he and his colleagues zeroed in on the effects that many users report: creativity, problem-solving, and the “cognitive flexibility” deemed crucial to both. Leiden’s Luisa Prochazkova took the lead in inviting members of the Psychedelic Society of the Netherlands to participate in the study; she got 38 takers.
Before their microdose, the volunteers took three standard psychological tests, two related to creative problem-solving and one an assessment of fluid intelligence. The scientists ran chemical analyses of the mushroom samples to determine how much psilocybin they contained. Since a trip dose is about 3 grams of dried ’shrooms, a microdose is around 0.33 grams. Participants averaged 0.37 grams of the dried preparation, which can be taken with food or packed into gelcaps for easy swallowing.
About 90 minutes after the microdose, the participants took the three tests again.
In the Picture Concept Task, they saw three rows of three pictures, and had to choose three — one from each row — that were related. That requires converging on the correct solution, like noticing that a bathtub, a sink, and a hose all have something to do with water. The brain must focus, weigh alternatives, and reject wrong ones.
In the Alternate Uses Task, the microdosers had five minutes to think of ways to use a pen (tracheotomy? finger splint?) or towel. That measures divergent thinking, to move thoughts away from writing, for example, in the case of the pen.
The microdosers also took a “progressive matrices” test: In blocks of two-by-two or three-by-three patterns, with the bottom right one missing, they had to choose which of six possibilities belonged in the blank square — a task that requires fluid intelligence.
The scientists found no post-microdose difference on the fluid intelligence test. But after microdosing, performance on the picture concept test was significantly higher (an average score of 7.6) than before (6.6). That suggested an improvement in the convergent thinking element of creativity.
The microdosers also came up with significantly more uses for pens and towels, 16.7 vs. 14.7. That suggests a microdose of psilocybin “allowed participants to create more out-of-the-box alternative solutions for a problem,” the scientists wrote. Taken together, the three findings suggest a specific effect of psilocybin microdoses on creativity but not on fluid intelligence.
For van der Meijden, a microdose of psilocybin makes his musical brainstorm sessions yield “more concepts, ideas, and solutions,” he said, partly because it lets him “better understand and visualize other people’s concepts.” In his design and illustration work, it produces a “more natural flow of line drawing” and lets him “see more possibilities in how things can be or look.” In his music, it lets him “analyze all the different instruments better” and know, for instance, whether to turn up or down the reverberation effect.
The Dutch study, which was published on a preprint site and has not undergone peer review at a journal, has several caveats. For one thing, having seen a test before might make people better at it. More problematic, the study didn’t have a control group of people who took something other than psilocybin. That leaves open the possibility that it wasn’t the compound that improved some forms of thinking, but the expectation that it would do so. Maybe people who microdose believe in its benefits enough to make those expectations reality.
On the other hand, the results fit with another new study of psilocybin. In this one, scientists led by computational neuroscientist Joana Cabral of the University of Oxford used fMRI scans to study the brain activity of nine people who volunteered to be injected with 2 milligram (trip-inducing) doses. The chemical changed the functional connectivity of various brain regions, so that activity in one became synced with that in another. In particular, the rational, logical, well-behaved frontoparietal regions became “strongly destabilized,” the scientists reported, melding with activity in emotional and other regions to produce “unconstrained consciousness,” “mind wandering,” and a sense that everything is connected to everything else. Seeing connections that elude other people is almost the definition of creativity.
The findings in the microdosing study also fit with many anecdotal reports. One college student who is a member of the Portland, Ore., microdosing community said that although he doesn’t microdose psilocybin with the express purpose of boosting creativity or focus, he has found that “things seem to have quieted down, in terms of racing thoughts.” He can still be distracted, said Alex, 38, who asked not to be further identified because the drug is illegal in the U.S. But “if I want to go about doing something, then I have an easier time with it because I’m not being bogged down by my thoughts,” he added.
Jakobien van der Weijden takes one psilocybin microdose every three days, with bimonthly breaks, “to work more focused, more efficiently and be more creative” at his marketing job in the Netherlands, he said. “On the downside, I would often feel that the inspiration was still there at night and I would keep working on projects until late. So it was somewhat more difficult to maintain a healthy biorhythm.”
As legal strictures loosen, there will likely be more rigorous studies of microdosing psilocybin. “Scientific studies could legitimize the claimed benefits,” said Will Burns, CEO of Wenham, Mass.-based Ideasicle, which develops branding and marketing ideas. He does not microdose, Burns said, but has called for research into its purported effects, including improving productivity and creativity. “Right now, we’re swimming in a world of anecdotes and almost no one has taken this seriously,” he said. “We need scientific studies.”