Why Were Early Psychedelicists So Weird?

Speculative post (~30% confidence): why did early psychedelic researchers so reliably turn brilliant-but-weird? Vivid biographies -- Leary (Harvard -> prison-break -> quantum-overmind books), Alpert (Stanford PhD -> Baba Ram Dass), Lilly (neuroprosthetics -> warring-aliens), Mullis (Nobel PCR -> astrology, alien fluorescent-raccoon), and even the 'normal' founders Osmond (orthomolecular pseudoscience, parapsychology) and Smythies (brane-theory consciousness). Considers selection (weird people drawn to it) and the experience itself, but is most intrigued by a pharmacological hypothesis: a 2011 study found a single psilocybin dose can PERMANENTLY raise Openness to Experience (~half an SD, stable at 16 months) -- otherwise near-impossible for adult personality -- so heavy chronic use might 'make you weird' directly. Frames the early researchers as a natural experiment screening off the usual selection confound; hesitant thereafter to call psychedelics side-effect-free.

Quality 72 · Strong. Strong, upper (72). A genuinely intriguing, well-researched speculation with vivid case material and a sharp central hypothesis (psychedelics pharmacologically raising Openness, anchored to a striking permanent-personality-change finding) plus a clever natural-experiment framing. Held below Excellent by its avowed ~30%-confidence, speculative status.

Claude’s paradigm shift 55 · Moderate. Notable-edge (55). The 'psychedelics directly increase Openness/weirdness' hypothesis, and reading the early researchers as a confound-screening natural experiment, are fresh and non-obvious.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 -- minor/within-blog. A psychedelics/psychiatry speculation; within-discourse.