How Control-Loss Got Omitted from the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)

Michael Hoffman, December 21, 2022 1:20 am UTC+0

Site Map

Contents:

In case of spiritual emergency while getting the treasure of Transcendent Knowledge

See:
Good Bad Trip Guidelines to Gain Transcendent Knowledge and the Ability to Harness High Dose with Viable Control Stability
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/21/good-bad-trip-guidelines-to-gain-transcendent-knowledge-and-the-ability-to-harness-high-dose-with-viable-stable-control/

See See Also.

Article Citation

Article that develops and presents the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ):

The Challenging Experience Questionnaire: Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms https://www.academia.edu/33760114/The_Challenging_Experience_Questionnaire_Characterization_of_challenging_experiences_with_psilocybin_mushrooms
Journal of Psychopharmacology
2016

Authors:
Frederick Barrett
Matthew Bradstreet
Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos
Matthew Johnson
Roland Griffiths

The CEQ is 1 page, 26 questions.
4-6 questions are duplicates. None are about control-loss.

Search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=challenging+experience+questionnaire

Redundant Questions Cast Doubt on CEQ’s Design

The Telltale Duplicate Redundant Questions Reveal and Expose that this Process Produced Bunk Results

There are 26 questions in CEQ. But 4-6 of them are totally dups, showing that the CEQ is built with poor judgment:

I’ll arrange and group them same as Table 3 page 9:

Fear

Grief

Physical distress

Insanity

Isolation

Death

Paranoia

5DASC’s superior ‘control’ questions

WHY DON’T THOSE 7 CATEGORIES HAVE 5DASC’S “IMPAIRED COGNITION/CONTROL” SUBSCALE?

5DASC Items > “Impaired cognition/control” subscale

What exactly did the CEQ committee do with / discard these awesome questions?

Do they think “marionette” is not a challenging experience?!
Do they FOOLISHLY think Ozzy’s song “Little Dolls” or Rush’s song “Twilight Zone” is just silly & amusing?

5. I felt like a marionette.

16. I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.

Why did the CEQ committee discard the above question?! Because they manifestly have NO FCKING IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING OR TALKING ABOUT.

33. I felt as though I were paralyzed.

Why did the CEQ committee discard the above question?! Because they manifestly have NO FCKING IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING OR TALKING ABOUT.

‘paralyzed’: 1 hit only. 😵

44. I felt isolated from everything and everyone. [i just kept this q to track mapping]

53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.

Why did the CEQ committee discard the above question?!
Because they manifestly have NO FCKING IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING OR TALKING ABOUT.

What became of 5DASC’s Anxiety subscale question “I felt threatened”?

5DASC Items > “Anxiety” subscale

29. I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.

38. I felt threatened.

Why did the CEQ committee discard the above question?! Because they manifestly have NO FCKING IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING OR TALKING ABOUT. They did add back in the Paranoia question, bringing 24 questions to 26, adding a 7th category.

63. I had the feeling something horrible would happen.

Map that to CEQ q’s.

CEQ dup questions con’t

Duplicates: Isolation

______ 1. Isolation and loneliness
______ 10. Feeling of isolation from people and things
______ 24. I felt isolated from everything and everyone

Those might be a descendent of SOCQ’s:
“Question 76 Sense of being separated from the normal world, as though you were enclosed in a thick, silent glass chamber”

Duplicates: Sad

______ 2. Sadness
______ 6. Feelings of grief
______ 9. I felt like crying

Duplicates: Heartbeat

______ 3. Feeling my heart beating
______ 17. I felt my heart beating irregularly or skipping beats

Duplicates: Fear

______ 4. I had the feeling something horrible would happen
______ 7. Experience of fear
______ 26. I felt frightened

Duplicates: Shaking

______ 5. Feeling my body shake/tremble
______ 15. I felt shaky inside

______ 8. Fear that I might lose my mind or go insane

Duplicates: Despair

______ 11. Feelings of despair
______ 23. Despair

______ 12. I had the feeling that people were plotting against me
______ 22. Experience of antagonism toward people around me

______ 13. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever

______ 14. Anxiousness

Duplicates: Death

______ 16. I had the profound experience of my own death
______ 20. I felt as if I was dead or dying

______ 18. Pressure or weight in my chest or abdomen

______ 19. I experienced a decreased sense of sanity

______ 21. Panic

______ 25. Emotional and/or physical suffering

Hypothesis: CEQ Omits Control-Loss Specifics to Hide the Risks

Something is seriously suspicious and amiss: why are there at 4-6 questions out of 26, that are redundant exact duplicates, impossible for anyone to differentiate from each other?

Where other questionnaires have specific questions about control, CEQ instead has confusingly redundant duplicate questions about 4-6 “safely vague to specify” effects (fear, isolation, death, shakiness).

I noticed, strikingly, that you removed too-scary, too-specific words (“threat of catastrophic control loss”) from the CEQ, and in place of that, you wrote safely vague questions duplicated multiple times to pad out and cover up the gap of omission that you introduced.

Then after whitewashing specific “threat of control loss” as vague “panic“, the authors justify their existence, their CEQ, by criticizing previous questionnaires as “lacking specificity” (p. 3 top):

“These scales all suffer from at least one of the shortcomings of the 5DASC and HRS, namely: lack of specificity (i.e. lack of separable or independent scales that measure fine-grained facets of a challenging experience), lack of content coverage (missing a proposed dimension of challenging experience), or lack of sensitivity (i.e. not sensitive to the degree of challenge in an experience)”

Hypothesis to Test: CEQ Covertly Omits Control-Loss Questions to Sanitize PR.

See:
No Mention of Loss of Control in Scientific Literature Review from Oregon Psilocybin Board, section:
“Conflict of Interest: Griffiths Allows Questions About Depression, but Silently Censors Questions About Control Loss” https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/18/no-mention-of-loss-of-control-in-scientific-literature-review-from-oregon-psilocybin-board/

If so, they strategically INCREASE THE RISK and REDUCE SAFETY (despite their intensive calls for increased safety) in order to “sell” the safety and exaggerate the safety, downplay and soft-pedal the danger – which wouldn’t as great of a danger if they would specify it specifically, that their vague word “panic” that they allow into the CEQ is actually, specifically about experiencing the threat of catastrophic control loss.

The CEA authors can’t handle, can’t deal with this degree of alarming specificity, so they whitewash the problem, and dial-back the alarm, through leveraging vague abstractness.

Why did they discard the OAV’s “dread of ego dissolution” (DED) sub-scale?

Why did they discard the wording from the 5DASC’s Impaired cognition/control subscale?

Is the CEQ a PR cover-up whitewashing of the dangers, trying to appear and posture as though they’re managing safety, when safety is actually compromised by also trying to manage PR and softpedal how great the danger is – and how little they understand the danger?

The danger is smaller if you face the music and identify specifically and deal with the specific danger, instead of vague hazing it over to obscure it in abstractness like allowing the word ‘panic‘, censoring-out & whitewashing the detail of what the panic is specifically about: ego death/ ego agency loss/ loss of control of cognition.

😱🐉 🤴☸️🌳 💥 🐍🧊🪨

panic seeing no-free-will {dragon monster gate-guard};
end of {king steering in tree};
become {snake frozen in rock}

If people learn the Egodeath theory (ie shifting from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking), then safety is increased, based on indicators from religious myth such as branching-message mushroom trees.

Strategy for Analyzing How the CEQ Lost Control Questions

Motivation for this posting: This is my 2nd article focusing on Roland Griffiths’ 2016 CEQ article. I now have a structured systematic strategy to trace and then explain:

  • How it is that the good, clear control-loss related questions in the earlier questionnaires got omitted from the CEQ.
  • How it is that the good, clear control-loss related phrases in the CEQ article got omitted from the CEQ.
  • Why are there so many duplicate (indistinguishable) questions in CEQ (instead of control-related questions)? There are, out of 26 questions, 4-6 dup questions, eg: fear 2x, isolation 2x, death 2x, shake/shaky 2x.
Strategy Steps
  1. First, in Appendix 2’s subheadings (CEQ, SOCQ, HRS, 5DASC), list all the questions (verbatim w/ number & any question-category that’s indicated) and bold the control-loss words.
    Status: Done.
  2. Then, for each section of article body, extract phrases, with special attention of which q’air it came from and how Griffiths managed to omit that phrase from his CEQ questions.
    Status: Started. Now at page 8 of 23, but am effectively further due to momentum and summarizing the conclusions already.
  3. Finally: Develop my assessment, in my section “Summary and Conclusions”: How do the earlier q’airs have their control-related questions, and the body of the article contains control-related phrases, and yet how then did the CEQ end up lacking any control-related phrases?
    Status: Practically done, need to reflect and polish the writeup.

Discussion of Control Loss Questions Hidden in Article about Bad Trip Survey?

Items means questions.

Conclusion: No, there’s nothing like that in the article, it’s not very long or very different, doesn’t list details of hundreds of questions (eg about control loss) as expected.

“A description of measures analyzed in the current report … A more detailed description of the complete methods, measures, and initial findings of the online survey can be found in the original report (Carbonaro et al., 2016).” – page 3.

“The Bad Trip Survey (Carbonaro et al., 2016) was completed by 2085 participants.”

Method > Measures section (p. 4):

“A more detailed description of the full complement of measures administered in the online survey can be found in the original report (Carbonaro et al., 2016). We identified 64 items from the HRS, 5-DASC, and SOCQ (listed in Supplementary Material, Appendix 2) that [each] unambiguously assessed a [single] challenging aspect of experience with classic hallucinogens, and treated these 64 items, as worded and responded to in their original form in the HRS, 5-DASC, and SOCQ, as an initial item pool for the construction of the initial form of the CEQ.”

Bad Trip Survey

Discusses and defines the Bad Trip Survey:

“Carbonaro TM, Bradstreet MP, Barrett FS, et al. (2016) Survey study of challenging experiences after ingesting psilocybin mushrooms: Acute and enduring positive and negative consequences. J Psychopharmacol. Epub ahead of print 30 August 2016. DOI: 0269881116662634.”

Search web for that article:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Survey+study+of+challenging+experiences+after+ingesting+psilocybin+mushrooms%22

Link to read the article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551678/ – PDF available.

Search for “Bad Trip Survey”:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bad+trip+survey%22

A mushroom company purchased the domain name, which was http://www.shroomsurvey.com

Here is MAPS’ November 13, 2012 webpage (as distinct from other such sites’ pages) asking people to fill in the Bad Trip Survey: https://maps.org/news/media/johns-hopkins-bad-trip-survey-after-psilocybin-mushrooms-2/

The article “The Anatomy of a Bad Psychedelic Trip” by Joshua Thompson mentions the Bad survey:
“the more I tried to fight the ideas in my head, the more the fear encompassed me.
After dozens of intense but blissful psychedelic experiences, this was my first bad trip.”
– https://medium.com/@joshuat/the-anatomy-of-a-bad-psychedelic-trip-8ab00fc389b

Rely on {right leg} not {left leg}; rely on eternalism-thinking, not naive possibilism-thinking.

Highlighting Conventions

italics = interesting context
bold black = vaguely relevant to control-threat experiences
bold red = specifically relevant to control-threat experiences

Outline of Article Sections

Outline nesting in lists is broken. I mark major headings in bold here.

  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Phenomenology of challenging psychedelic experiences
  • Current assessments of challenging experiences
  • Why an assessment of dimensions of challenging experience is needed
  • Aim of the current studies
  • Study 1
  • Method
  • Participants
  • Measures
  • HRS
    • 5DASC
  • SOCQ
  • Questions regarding the overall impact of the challenging experience
  • Previous struggle with a psychiatric disorder
  • Demographic questions
  • Analysis
  • Matched exploratory and confirmatory analysis strata
  • Initial scale construction
  • Model replication
  • Factorial invariance
  • Table 1: Comparison of demographic variables
  • CEQ and overall impact of the challenging experience
  • Results
  • Initial scale construction
  • Addition of a paranoia factor
  • Model replication
  • Table 2. Exploratory factor structure, correlations, and reliabilities in Study 1
  • Factorial invariance of the CEQ
  • Overall impact of the challenging experiences
  • Table 3. Confirmatory factor structure of the Challenging Experience Questionnaire in Study 1
  • Table 4. Factor correlations, reliabilities, and means for the entire sample, by gender, and by previous struggle with a psychiatric disorder in Study 1
  • Study 2
  • Method
  • Participants
  • Measures
  • CEQ
  • Table 5. Model fit indices for tests of factorial invariance
  • Table 6. Regression of ratings of overall impact of the experience on Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) factor scores for Study 1
  • Table 7. Factor correlations, factor reliabilities, and factor scores for Study 2
  • Analysis
  • Results
  • General discussion
  • Internal and external validity of the CEQ
  • Table 8. Regression of ratings of overall impact of the experience on Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) factor scores for Study 2
  • Challenging experiences and the overall impact of experiences with psilocybin
  • Potential risk factors for challenging experiences
  • Towards a model of challenging experiences
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Declaration of conflicting interests
  • Funding
  • References

/ end of: Outline of Article Sections

Outline of Questionnaire Appendixes

Items means questions.

The 3 previous questionnaires are SOCQ, HRS, and 5DASC. Unclear why DED wasn’t used. This new (crappy) questionnaire (with a giant gap about control) is CEQ.

  • Appendix 1: The Challenging Experience Questionnaire [CEQItems]
  • Challenging Experience Questionnaire – Scoring Guide
  • CEQ – Standalone version
  • CEQ – Scored from responses to the SOCQ, 5D-ASC, and HRS
  • Appendix 2: Initial Item Pool for CEQ Development
  • SOCQ Items
  • HRS Items
  • 5DASC Items
  • Impaired cognition/control subscale
  • Anxiety subscale
  • Items [from HRS] that were re-worded for use in the stand-alone version of the CEQ

/ end of: Outline of Questionnaire Appendixes

Control-Loss Phrases in Article Sections

Abstract

I see a problem right in the Abstract. It’s written clearly, but there are no words about the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control – even though the article body & previous questionnaires contain phrases and questions that specify control-loss effects.

The authors are tone-deaf to what’s centrally important, so they omit control-specific phrases from the Abstract.

The closest the Abstract comes to specifying control-loss aspects is too vague and general:

“Acute adverse psychological reactions … (“bad trips” or “challenging experiences”)”

“adverse acute symptoms … affective (panic, …), cognitive (confusion, feelings of losing sanity)”

“Seven … factors (grief, fear, death, insanity, …, and paranoia) provide a phenomenological profile of challenging aspects … Factor scores were associated with difficulty, meaningfulness, spiritual significance … The Challenging Experience Questionnaire provides a basis for future investigation of predictors and outcomes of challenging experiences”

Introduction

“The first era … investigating … psychotomimetic properties”

“tools to understand psychosis. … studies have also examined
mystical-type or spiritual experiences, changes in
self-referential processing or “ego dissolution”… personality change … experimental reports and … clinical reports indicate that challenging psychological experiences during the acute effects of psychedelics are not uncommon.”

Phenomenology of challenging psychedelic experiences

page 2:

“fear … dissociation, depersonalization“

“frightening … overwhelming anxiety or panic … fear to the point of paranoid delusions”

My summary / commentary:
30% of high-dose users had anxiety/ fear/ paranoia.
7.1% of moderate-dose users had anxiety/ fear/ paranoia.
That’s a 4.3x increase when moving from moderate to high dose. As Psilocybin is legalized, dosage will increase from moderate to high-dose.

“fear or panic, paranoia, … cognitive effects (e.g. confusion, loss of ego, loss of sanity, … dissociation, depersonalization),”

Current assessments of challenging experiences

Narrow the focus: List only the specifically control-related words, and only a few of the surrounding related words.

“sub-scales of the HRS (i.e. … cognition, … perception, … and volition),

“The OAV sub-scale “dread of ego dissolution” (DED) covers a wide range of negative experiences, and is generally considered an overall “bad trip” scale (Studerus et al., 2010). This meta-scale of possible negative effects covers many (e.g. panic, loss of ego/control, feelings of insanity) but not all (e.g. sadness/grief/ depression) possible categories of challenging experiences. The DED scale also averages responses from a number of proposed categories of experience (panic, loss of ego, insanity) rather than giving an individual score for each. Studerus and colleagues (2010) revealed a rescoring of the 5DASC that includes a separate scale for impaired control and cognition, and for anxiety. While these represent psychometrically justifiable subscales, these two sub-scales do not address shortcomings of the DED scale (e.g. they do not address the wide range of potential dimensions of challenging experience that are suggested by previous literature).”

Translation: discard entirely these control-loss questions, and focus on other challenging effects instead – such as padding the questions with 4-6 exact-duplicate questions about fear, isolation, death, and shakiness.

“These scales all suffer from at least one of the shortcomings of the 5DASC and HRS, namely: lack of specificity (i.e. lack of separable or independent scales that measure fine-grained facets of a challenging experience), lack of content coverage (missing a proposed dimension of challenging experience), or lack of sensitivity (i.e. not sensitive to the degree of challenge in an experience)”

See my critique of that hypocrisy elsewhere in this posting. The CEQ is a good example of lack of specificity, lack of coverage, and lack of sensitivity.

Why an assessment of dimensions of challenging experience is needed

Narrow the focus: List only the specifically control-related words, and only a few of the surrounding related words.

“panic, distress, fear, acute”

Aim of the current studies

n/a

Study 1

“spiritual significance, and difficulty”

Method

empty heading

Participants

n/a

Measures

n/a

HRS

“subscales assessing general dimensions of subjective experience (… affect, perception, cognition, and volition).”

5DASC

sub-scales … include the impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX) scales”

SOCQ

“The SOCQ contains 43 items from the Mystical Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ43), which was developed to assess several domains of mystical experience.”

“ego loss, loss of perception of time“

The CEQ article omits time effects – but time effects affect control, per eternalism being a model of time more than directly of control, in Philosophy and in Physics.

“No items from the MEQ43 were included in the present analysis.”

Questions regarding the overall impact of the challenging experience

n/a

Previous struggle with a psychiatric disorder

n/a

Demographic questions

n/a

Analysis

empty heading

Matched exploratory and confirmatory analysis strata

n/a

Initial scale construction

n/a

Model replication

n/a

Factorial invariance

n/a

Table 1: Comparison of demographic variables

n/a

CEQ and overall impact of the challenging experience

n/a

Results

empty heading

Initial scale construction

Here’s where everything went wrong and produced a garbage CEQ: during the process of removing 38 questions from the initial pool of 64, leaving 26 questions, 6 of which are frankly, obviously redundant duplicates.

Something is obviously broken, obvious to every person who takes the CEQ.

“the five-factor solution did not yield a very clear qualitative interpretation.”

As if the resulting CEQ is clear about “panic” being specifically the experience of the threat of loss of control.

“The six-factor solution yielded factors with a cohesive qualitative interpretation:
physiological distress (factor 1),
grief (factor 2), [relev: egoic childish thinking lost forever]
fear (factor 3),
insanity (factor 4),
isolation (factor 5), and
death (factor 6).
The six-factor solution was used as the basis of further item removal. Items with no loading above 0.4 on any factor were discarded. A total of 19 items were removed in this step. Items were removed from a scale if they demonstrated low item-total correlation (below 0.4) and if their removal increased scale reliability and average item-total correlation for the scale. An additional 12 items were removed in this step, yielding a final[sic!] set of 24 items.”

Next section, Paranoia adds 2 items, totaling 26 for CEQ.

A shtt-ton of mathy-posturing bafflegab, fails to explain the authors’ excuse for deleting all control-loss related words which the earlier questionnaires have and which the article has, but which are omitted from the CEQ.

Addition of a paranoia factor

“Clinical literature and anecdotal reports indicate that paranoia is a subjective experience frequently represented in challenging experiences with classic
hallucinogens.”

“While a clear paranoia factor did not emerge from
the exploratory factor analyses, the initial item pool for construction
of the CEQ did contain two items directly related to paranoia
(SOCQ item 40 “Feeling that people were plotting against you” and
SOCQ item 72 “Experience of antagonism toward people around you”).

“Interestingly, there are no items in either the HRS or the 5DASC that directly assess paranoia.”

Confirmed:

Apx 2 > HRS Items includes: “anxious, frightened, ego death, panic, feel dead, chaos, change in sense of sanity, In control”

Apx 2 > 5DASC Items includes: “marionette, can’t decision, paralyzed, no will, afraid, felt threatened, feel horrible will happen”

Apx 2 > SOCQ has:
“40. Feeling that people were plotting against you” (I’d say ‘events’ or ‘thoughts’, not nece’ly “people”)

“the identified 24-item, six-factor CEQ model was amended by adding the two paranoia items, both loading onto a seventh factor.”

Totaling 26 items (questions) for CEQ. But why are 4-6 of them identical/ duplicated redundant?

This article’s process is bunk! For all the tortured math analysis, the output ditches control-loss and delivers 4-6 duplicate identical pairs of questions.

Something stinks: the authors have mechanisms, poorly applied, with poor judgment giving a gigantic vague gap where there used to be control-related, clear wording.

Model replication

n/a

Table 2. Exploratory factor structure, correlations, and reliabilities in Study 1

n/a

Factorial invariance of the CEQ

n/a

Overall impact of the challenging experiences

resume here – narrow the focus; list only the specifically control-related words, and only a few of the surrounding related words

Table 3. Confirmatory factor structure of the Challenging Experience Questionnaire in Study 1

This is a good table to map previous questionnaires to CEQ – regarding the tiny, dup-ridden set of 26 CEQ questions, a set that is terribly inadequate according to the values espoused in this article.

Study 2
Table 4. Factor correlations, reliabilities, and means for the entire sample, by gender, and by previous struggle with a psychiatric disorder in Study 1
Method
Participants
Measures
CEQ
Table 5. Model fit indices for tests of factorial invariance
Table 6. Regression of ratings of overall impact of the experience on Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) factor scores for Study 1
Table 7. Factor correlations, factor reliabilities, and factor scores for Study 2
Analysis
Results
General discussion
Internal and external validity of the CEQ
Table 8. Regression of ratings of overall impact of the experience on Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) factor scores for Study 2
Challenging experiences and the overall impact of experiences with psilocybin
Potential risk factors for challenging experiences
Towards a model of challenging experiences
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
References

/ end of: Control-Loss Phrases in Article Sections

Control-Loss Questions in the Questionnaires

Items means questions.

Appendix 1: The Challenging Experience Questionnaire [CEQ Items]

These questions are weak ! re: threat of loss of control

4. I had the feeling something horrible would happen

6. Feelings of grief [for dead control agent]

7. Experience of fear

8. Fear that I might lose my mind or go insane

12. I had the feeling that people were plotting against me

13. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever

14. Anxiousness

16. I had the profound experience of my own death

19. I experienced a decreased sense of sanity

20. I felt as if I was dead or dying [= 16]

21. Panic

26. I felt frightened [= 7]

CEQ – Scored from responses to the SOCQ, 5D-ASC, and HRS
Challenging Experience Questionnaire – Scoring Guide
CEQ – Standalone version [re: scoring]
Appendix 2: Initial Item Pool for CEQ Development – top priority
SOCQ Items

Question 21 Experience of confusion, disorientation and/or chaos

Question 28 Sense of being trapped and helpless

Question 37 Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities

Question 40 Feeling that people were plotting against you

Question 44 Thoughts and ideas flashing by very rapidly

Question 52 Experience of fear

Question 57 Feeling of being rejected or unwanted [repudiate/jettison naive possibilism-thinking]

Question 66 Frustrating attempt to control the experience

Question 70 Profound experience of your own death[relev: we are firstly control agents]

Question 84 Feeling of disintegration, falling apart

Question 85 Fear that you might lose your mind or go insane

Question 89 Experiences of intense pressures on various parts of your body [block universe]

Question 91 Feelings of grief [relev: control agent gone]

HRS Items

Question 11 Feel body shake/tremble

Question 21 Feel removed, detached, separated from body

Question 25 Anxious

Question 26 Frightened

Question 27 Panic

Question 70 Feel as if dead or dying[relev: we are firstly control agents]

Question 75 Sense of chaos

Question 88 Change in sense of sanity

Question 94 In control[vague wording; research]

Question 74 Contradictory feelings at same time (happy and sad; hopeful and hopeless) [impossible to pass gate using possibilism, to get treasure]

5DASC Items
Impaired cognition/control subscale

5. I felt like a marionette.

16. I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.

33. I felt as though I were paralyzed.

53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.

Anxiety subscale

19. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever.

29. I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.

30. I experienced everything terrifyingly distorted.

38. I felt threatened.

63. I had the feeling something horrible would happen.

[Table:] Items [from HRS] that were re-worded for use in the stand-alone version of the CEQ

/ end of: Control-Loss Questions in the Questionnaires

Summary and Conclusions: How Did Control-Loss Questions Get Dropped?

All driving energy in CEQ is BROAD, that’s the key word, DED is too specific eg marionette, details like “I felt like I had no control over my will” is too specific, too narrow, we need … it doesn’t make sense but that’s the story gist they are driving.

They are TRYING to argue that questions like “marionette” and “no control over will” are too specific and not broad enough – you have to conflate categories and questions to make this argument.

Yes the category of control might be too narrow, but even so, why omit questions that are in this category?

CEQ picks 1 out of the 6 ICC (Impaired control/cognition) questions (“I felt isolated”) and 2 of the 7 ANX questions.

CEQ doesn’t have a category named “control problems”.

Which CEQ Category Would Contain the Initial Pool questions about Negative Control Experences

The set of 7 negative effects categories in CEQ is poor. No Control category. How can you manage and predict for safety, control-related negative experiences, if you don’t follow the lead of ICC and define a “Control” category. CEQ fails here: You need to ask people about control questions, you need a “control” category and dyou need to add

This category test whether CEQ’s 7 breadth-optimized categories are capable of containing the Egodeath theory negative effects questions that are listed in “Initial Item Pool”. REALLY NEED A CONTROL CATEGORY LIKE ICC.

REALLY, NEED THE GOOD REMOVED CONTROL QUESTIONS.

REALLY, NEED TO ADD THEM IN A “CONTROL” CATEGORY.

  1. Copy CEQ’s 7 categs here.
  2. Add the questions which I’m mad at CEQ for not including, into CEQ’s categs. Fav categories: Fear, Insanity, Death, Paranoia.
Fear
Grief
Physical distress
Insanity
Isolation
Death
Paranoia
Missing category: Control

HRS Question 75 Sense of chaos

SOCQ Question 28 Sense of being trapped and helpless

SOCQ Question 37 Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities

5. I felt like a marionette.

SOCQ Question 66 Frustrating attempt to control the experience

16. I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.

33. I felt as though I were paralyzed.

53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.

38. I felt threatened.

What Category and Questions CEQ Deletes

5DASC Items

Impaired cognition/control subscale

5. I felt like a marionette.

16. I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.

24. I had difficulty in distinguishing important from unimportant things.

33. I felt as though I were paralyzed.

44. I felt isolated from everything and everyone.

45. I was not able to complete a thought, my thought repeatedly became disconnected.

53. I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.

Anxiety subscale

19. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever.

29. I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.

30. I experienced everything terrifyingly distorted.

32. I experienced my surroundings as strange and weird.

38. I felt threatened.

63. I had the feeling something horrible would happen.

SCOQ cut in 2nd draft:

Trapped and helpless

Frustrating attempt to control the experience

How the CEQ Categories Cover Negative Control effects

Useless POS, USELESS, where am I supposed to put control loss questions like marionette, no control over will, helpless – which category in this “all-inclusively broad set of categories”.

OK Roland, if your set of categories is worth a shiite, then tell me, it covers all negative effects – where would you put the ICC question 5, marionette? SOCQ 28: helpless? 5DASC 53: I no longer had a will of my own? Let’s try below.

Fear

Grief

Physical distress

Insanity

Isolation

Death

Paranoia

Critique the categories provided by CEQ, and distinctly from the categories, critique the questions. CEQ provides 27 questions that are evenly spread in 7 categories.

Why doesn’t the CEQ set of categs have one for control problems?

Why doesn’t the CEQ set of questions have more of the ICC (control related) questions? Why does CEQ omit “marionette” question, which is from that category? And other questions from that category

Why doesn’t CEQ have a Control category? ICC from 5DASC is a control category.

Why doesn’t CEQ have many more of the control questions from the ICC category of 5DASC?

“We’re so broad.” Yeah but you removed the Control category like ICC, and you omitted 10 of 13 questions from (ICC & ANX), which are control-related negative effects.

Critique the categories provided by DED which is a categ that’s not as broad as CEQ.

Critique the categories provided by 5DASC which are ICC & ANX: not as broad as CEQ.

It was deliberate, to design a broad-ranging set of 7 broad negative categories, and none of them are called “control” like ICC from 5DASC (impaired control and cognition), and we omit 10 of 13 of that fixed subset.

The difference between the CEQ’S pulling questions from 5DASC vs from SOCQ & from HRS: For SOCQ and HRS, they picked from those broad sets of questions. But for 5DASC, 5DASC already defines small sets of negative effect questions, ICC & ANX, so we’ll start (in initial pool).

Start by listing

Create initial pool of 64 q’s taken from:

  • We pick sOme from SOCQ
  • We pick sOme from HRS
  • We include the ICC & ANX categs and their questions.

Then we define our own, broad, all-negative set of categories of effects, broader even than the DED subset defined within OAV.

We provide 7 broad categories, and we incorporate questions from your SOCQ some negative effects that aren’t in the DED and aren’t in 5DASC’s ICC & ANX categories/sets of questions. Our set of 7 fx categs is so bvrod, bgr broad, broader than DED from OAV or ICC+ANX from 5DASC. We don’t have a categ named like ICC, with “control”. We have broader categs instead.

The CEQ authors are advocating a set of categories is broader than DED. Seems like their stated strategy for designing there broader negaive set of qustion categories is highe level of abstraction in order to be broader – though they never explain really WHY their set of categs gets rid of the category ICC … they argue that 7 is the right number, and they make a show of balance of their 7 categs – which lack a categ like ICC, “Impaired control and cognition” (kinda arb naming) – and they omit 10 out of 13 the control questions.

They CEQ authors seem to vanish upward in Platonic abstraction: 7 categoriess that form broader coverage by being broader each, more abstract.

ICC is too narrow of a category, its too specific – that must be what they are essentially arguing / selling. DED is missing too many neg effects coverage & categories, and ICC suffers some same

“While ICC (impaired control and cognition) + ANX (anxiety) (from 5DASC) represent psychometrically justifiable subscales (sets of questions & categories), these two sub-scales (sets of questions & categories) do not address shortcomings of the DED scale (e.g. they do not address the wide range
of potential dimensions of challenging experience that are suggested
by previous literature).”

First, you have to understand the article from the POV of the authors’ mission statement: provide a broader set of categories of questions about negative experiences, that’s a useful psychometric tool tht can be used systemically because it’s broad in coverage of negative effects and has a set of 7 vareid question categories.

The CEQ is designed to be broader in negative coverage than the negative questions & categories in:

  • the DED (a subset of OAV)
  • the ICC (subset of questions) from 5DASC.

CEQ authors say that the ICC set of questions is a valid psychometric category of questions. But, they are selling their own set of 7 categories – THERE’S NO ROOM AT THE EXPANDED INN FOR ICC QUESTIONS THO THEY ARE VALID. T

Where you xpct to find an explanation of why the hell the CEQ authors removed the ICC category and its questions, what you get insted is a statement that dwe we need broader system of negativ-effcts. If ICC is valid, as they say, why do they delete those DED-like,

C?LU C?L”UE CLUE: CEQ authors always talk about the PAIR of categories, and argue that the CEQ set of categories is spread mathematically better than the PAIR of categories ICC plus ANX (13 questions total).

The authors compare ICC + ANX < CEQ’S 7 CATEGORIES (FEAR ETC)

CEQ is a set of categories of questions they invented and are arguing for, filled with 26 selected questions from ICC (2 q’s) & ANX (1 q) omitting 10 (the good ones) of 13 of the ICC & ANX questions.

CEQ = this system/set of question categories:

  • Fear – 1 question from ANX
  • Grief
  • Physical distress
  • Insanity – 1 question from ICC
  • Isolation – 1 question from ICC
  • Death
  • Paranoia

ICC and ANX are from 5DASC.

The CEQ questions are picked from 3 sources:

  • SOCQ provides broader negative categories of questions eg depression, than 5DASC’s ICC & ANX categs.
  • HRS
  • 5DASC, its ICC & ANX categs of q’s

Why we picked questions from these 3 sources, why we need broader neg qs than 5DASC’S ICC & ANX categs provide, we’ll get those broader categs from SOCQ & HRS.

CEQ picks 3 out of 13 of the ICC questions from 5DASC, puts them into these categories.

CEQ pulls from 26 questions picked from 64 questions picked from S

The category ICC (set of questions) which is from 5DASC (set of questions), and is like the DED (set of questions) which is from the OAV set of questions.

CEQ is a Marketing cover-up excused to get ride of the DED questions category impaired control/cognition. the give lots of worthless math that’s irrelevant fluff because this is all just a ploy to sell a set of Marketing-picked categories as “better than” DED (dread of ego dissolution) set of bad trip questions, SPECIFICALLY THE BAD TRIP QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTROL PROBLEMS AND NON-CONTROL OF WILL AND MARIONETTE, AND the category of questions from the DED, “impaired control/cognition”

The OAV set of questions contains DED (dread of ego dissolution), [scope: bad trips; negative effects] which is a wide set of questions which is about bad trips/ negative effects. Exzcept DED is lacking, it’s too narrow, CEQ is better, broader, encompasses all negative effects: we add

CEQ is Better than the DED because More Broadly Negative and CEQ Removes Impaired-Control Questions

CEQ removes control-problem questions, subject to same criticism as DED. “eg” its not broad set of questions so we remove that set of questions.

They sell CEQ as having these benefits:

We are forced to remove the control issue questions, in order to have a broad set of questions covering negative effects.

You want a broad set of questions, therefore you must remove the control-issues questions. We give an even spread of our crafting of sets of questions. Our set of question categories disallows a categoy impaired cognition and control (ICC), because we need a broad set of question categories, that’s wht our ârticle contributes.

Category Redesign Exercise: the CEQ is better, for negative experiences, than the DED and its impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX) categories and their 13 questions.

sadness/grief/depression

and we remove the pair of question categories impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX), and we remove 10 of its 13 questions.

A subset of those questions is “impaired control/cognition” and also a subset of questions, “anxiety“.

“analysis identified 11 plausible sub-scales [subsets of questions] of the 5DASC, which include the impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX) scales [sets of questions]. The 13 items [questions] of the 5DASC that constitute the ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.”

Storytelling Narrative Argument of the Article

The narrative they’re selling is that the previous questionnaires were lacking, and now the CEQ fixes that problem by cleverly defining broad set of sugqestions like Wilber ignoring his engine problem but taking all breadth, his Breadth Integral Theory, All Quadrants, full psychospiritual development – but oops he’s missing the psychedelic engine that drives all real religious mystical stuff.

The deleted questions and THE CATEGORY WHICH THIS CATEGORY-SET DELETES IS LITERALLY THE DED DREDAD DREAD OF EGO DISSOLUTION’S are about control, being a marionette, impaired control and cognition and feeling threatened by this.

The OAV sub-scale [subset of questions] “dread of ego dissolution” (DED) covers a wide range of negative experiences … an overall “bad trip” scale [set of questions]. This meta-scale [meta-set of questions] of possible negative effects covers many (e.g. panic, loss of ego/control, feelings of insanity) but not all (e.g. sadness/ grief/ depression) possible categories of challenging experiences.”

So we’re going to remove the category of control-loss questions, impaired control/cognition, and remove the control-loss questions, in order to have a broader set of categories (in some unspecified way).


The DED scale also averages responses from a number of proposed
categories of experience (panic, loss of ego, insanity) rather than giving an individual score for each.

“Studerus and colleagues (2010) revealed a rescoring of the 5DASC that includes a separate scale [a distinct set of questions] for impaired control and cognition, and for anxiety.

While these represent psychometrically justifiable subscales, these two sub-scales do not address shortcomings of the DED scale (e.g. they do not address the wide range of potential dimensions of challenging experience that are suggested by previous literature).

Phase 1: Scientists: Optimize 64 initial pool of questions to highlight control problems.

Phase 2: Marketing: Reduce 64 to 26 questions by removing the “control” category and all of its questions, and replace those 6 questions by 6 duplicated “fear” questions to cover the gap where we removed the control-problem questions.

GRIFFITHS DELETES THE CATGEORY “IMPAIRED CONTROL/COGNITION” AND ITS “MARIONETTE” AND “NO CONTROL OF WILL” QUESTIONS. THE EXCUSE IS, THAT STUFF FROM THE DED QUESTIONS IS SUBJECT TO SAME CRITICISM AS DED IS SUBJECT TO EG “””

What specific control-problem questions are being hidden by dummy duplicate redundant vague, familiar, safe questions about “fear”?

Phase 1: Driven by scientists: Pick the initial pool of 64 good science-driven questions, like control issues, like the category “Impaired control/cognition” abnd its questions about marionettes with no control of the will .

Then in Phase 2, Marketing say get that category out of here, our set of abstract question categories is better because it’s broader than that set of questions called “impaired control/cognition” – our set of questions is better than any set that includes the control-problem questions about marionettes embedded in rock.

Inventory 4-D marionette will no-free-will reports, better ask about have you danced with the control source self-transgression of control, Isaac and Abraham scientific theory right here in the Egodeath theory. Scientists report block universe no-free-will survey replies, 30% of high dose report this, and they say there’s treasure in that gated guarded no-free-will garden washed clean consistent per providential 2-level control.

Phase 2: Driven by PR Marketing: Pick acceptble question caegories that dont’ sound too far out. Keep it safe and broad. Reduce the initial pool of 64 good science-driven questions down to 26 Marketing questions.

No talk of marionette “no control of my will” please, keep it abstract and vague “fear”.

We have now helped the field by defining control-loss out from the category of “All Main Areas of Negative Effects Reported”: Sell how great our set of question-caetgoriews is, for nevative effects.

The Markeging dept wants to productize their usual way of breaking up the field: anxity psychotherapy, we’ll pass, on the {marionette frozen in rock} effect that 30% of high dose myth-like reports.

The CEQ is garbage, it deserves to be burned with extra hot fire. 1) Did you feel frightened? 2) Did you feel fear? Client: Are you trying to make me paranoid by this repeting of the same question 2 or even 3 times, the same question worded equivalent ways – what are you trying to pull, on me, with this bunk weird repeaing of sentences, this seems aggressive manipulation and the session hasn’t even started.

Conflict of interest. Control questions are too scary.

EDT Question 0. Did you experience threat of catastrophic loss of control?

Why didn’t Griffiths’ Marketing dept. include that question when the reduced the 64 dangerous questions (the initial pool) by the 26 safe questions (the CEQ picked questions IN CEQ’S CATEGORY SCHEME, that’s what they’re selling is the scope of this set of questions, the picking of these – these uthors did not write the questions, they picked 64 then they fabricated clever broad categories and literally tghey got rid of the question category dissmissively as “not broad” and “suffers same criticisms as DED set of ego death questions.

Tell Marketing to leave out the alarming experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control, in the Marketing PR stance.

Cover up the gaps by duplicating the vague question about “fear” 6 times.

It’ll be easier to position for us, to tell our safe clinic methods.

dHave PR Marketing drive which questions we pick. Pick 7 categories of questions, leave out the 5DASC questions category “Impaired control/cognition = Marionette, I had no control of my will”? We don’t need those awkward control seizure questions that we don’t understand except we are able to utter “ego death” and “default mode placticity”. Just keep things smooth, insert some more “fear” questions, nice and safe and familiar and vague. We’ll pass, on the “marionette without any cognitive control of the will” like questions 3, 5, 8 ->

The authors were too proud of their 7 abstract categories, they bragged about how wide-ranging their set of questions would thus be.

This CEQ wouldn’t have ended up the disaster that it did, had the authors stopped bragging about how they had a broader range of categories than 5DASC.

The CEQ authors wanted to “sell” their own categories by fabricating something vaguely dismissive about the 5DASC category of “Impaired control/cognition” – so (just so they could make a point about their broader range of questions) they discarded that good category and its good questions, and replaced it with nice safe “fear” category that contains 7 fear questions from the 3 questionnaires:

“Fear” question category:

  • Question 23. I felt fear.
  • Question 14. I felt something bad would happen.
  • Question 1. I felt frightened.
  • Question 19 1/2. I felt afraid.
  • Question 9. I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

The CEQ authors’ process of reducing the initial 64 questions down to 26 question is as bizarre and baffling as Wouter Hanegraaff’s cosmos model that doesn’t have any stars.

Possible reasons why authors would list good questions (the 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions) and then delete them / not include them in CEQ:

The authors got lost in abstraction and chose question categories based on inferior abstract categories (eg the CEQ’s bad, vague “Fear” category of questions) than they started with from the 5DASC list (the 5DASC’s good, specific “Impaired cognition/control” category of questions).

Maybe: The good questions from 5DASC’s “Impaired control/cognition” category are in the CEQ but impossible to recognize, due to a bad process of abstraction. Nope, I placed the 5DASC’s Initial Item Pool questions next to the CEQ questions categories (Table 3) – the questions didn’t get folded into others; they got removed.

Maybe: The authors recognized the relevance of questions like 5DASC’s “Impaired control/cognition” question category when assembling the 64-question Initial Question Pool, but then later, the authors were unable to recognize those same questions as being at all relevant, when picking the final 26 CEQ questions.

Why do the authors have the good sense to include the 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions, and yet fail to carry them over in any way to the CEQ?

I am unable to map the 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions to the CEQ’s questions – they just vanish, probably a poor job of abstracting, creating categories.

Why is there no “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions in CEQ (see Table 3 on p. 9 with 7 categories, such as “Fear”), even though the CEQ article lists the 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions in “Appendix 2: Initial Item Pool for CEQ Development”?

where did they go?! when and why were they deleted? Article says “we then deleted a bunch of questions from the initial pool of 64 to get our 26 CEQ questions.” But they don’t say why; they don’t justify.

What is the point of all the math masturbation when they never state why they deleted the (64 – 26 =) 38 questions? All I could find amounted to “these control-related questions are too narrow and don’t reflect the broad range of negative experiences.”

Ultimately, for whatever unstated reason, the authors just had bad judgment when reducing the 64-question pool down to 26. They had the wise good sense to include 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions in the initial pool, they they became foolish when reducing to 26 – and yet, 4-6 of those 26 are grossly dups.

Scale means set of questions.

Item means question.

“sub-scales of the 5DASC … include the impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX) scales. The 13 items of the 5DASC that constitute the ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.” p 4

HRS – “Twenty-seven items … that were judged by the authors … challenging … were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.” p 4

SOCQ – “Twenty-four of these distractor items were identified and retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.”

13 + 27 + 24 = 64 questions. Was that the size of the initial pool? Yes; p. 7:

“Descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the 64 potential CEQ items in the exploratory stratum”

If the CEQ authors thought the the 5DASC’s “Impaired cognition/control” set of questions irrelevant, why did they list them in “Appendix 2: Initial Item Pool for CEQ Development”??

Why don’t they list the OAD’s “dread of ego dissolution” (DED) questions?

This must contain very bad badness: p 2:

“a rescoring of the 5DASC that includes a separate scale for impaired control and cognition, and for anxiety. While these represent psychometrically justifiable subscales, these two sub-scales [these two sets of questions] do not address shortcomings of the DED scale (e.g. they do not address the wide range of potential dimensions of challenging experience that are suggested by previous literature).”

That’s the reason why we are deleting 10 of 13 of these questions and deleting the 5DASC’S category of questions, “Impaired control/cognition“. 😵

🚫🤔

The authors know a thing or two about impaired cognition.

Where I’m stuck and baffled is, I understand that the authors are too clueless to recognize the merit of the questions like “marionette, can’t decision, paralyzed, no longer had a will of my own, threatened” – but I can’t understand why the authors have the good judgment to include the questions in the initial pool, and yet don’t have the good judgment to retain the questions for the final CEQ.

I can’t understand why the authors have the good judgment to include the question-catoregy of “Impaired control/cognition” in the initial pool, and yet don’t have the good judgment to retain that question-category for the final CEQ.

Other big screwups by the authors re omitting SOCQ 21 “chaos” and especially 28 “trapped & helpless” – again, the good sense to list them in include them in the initial pool, and the bad sense to delete them – yet having plenty of room for 4-6 manifestly, confusingly redundant, duplicate questions.

An Impressively Complicated Apparatus to Promote Your 7 Question Categories In Place of Good Judgment

Way too apparatus-driven, the best questions got left out when reducing the initial pool of 64 down to 26.

And 4-6 questions are obviously dups, how do you explain that gross failure by the authors?

You could make a pretty good set of 26 questions that hit the breadth that the authors talk about, by applying better judgment on reducing (by picking, not by rewording) the set of 64 to 26 questions.

I don’t blame their bad math; I blame the authors’ bad judgment on which of the 64 questions to keep and which to remove.

The CEQ badly needs a reality check.

The CEQ is bunk. Science processes that produce bunk results are bunk processes, or used foolishly.

At best, the CEQ is vague where it counts — it introduced vagueness of categories for questions, where the original questions – and the 5DASC’s superior question categories – had relative clarity.

Duplicate Repeated Questions to Induce Paranoia and to Cover-up the Missing “Threat of Catastrophic Control-Loss” Questions to Optimize Our PR Image

When I read the 26 questions of the CEQ, it was clear that the author was trying to manipulate me, because they kept asking me the exact same question 2 or 3 times.

The CEQ authors communicate to me that they are driven by manipulating me to some dishonest end, by their game-playing hitting me repeatedly with obviously the same question.

The CEQ introduces confusion by 4-6 exact dup questions.

How did these dup questions get through, that no one on earth can explain the difference between them – literally on the order of “I felt fear” vs “I felt frightened”.

The mechanics applied in this article are like a software development team that has 3 QA Engineers, and they apply complicated processes, and totally miss glaring errors that any casual user can spot readily.

The CEQ authors should have been applying more common sense, and less time on heavy mechanics.

CEQ is designed by committee and over-application of team-suited math mechanisms and process, at the expense of common sense.

Too much math, too many authors, too much mechanics application, and too little common sense, and no common-sense editorial critique of the final result.

There was no end-result QA reality-check: does the resulting set of questions make sense?

Is the resulting questionnaire relevant? No, it has a GIANT GAP, or (at best) total lack of adequate specificity (clarity), compared to the original input questions.

Is the resulting questionnaire comprehensible? No, there are irrationally duplicate questions that are confusing and/or frank blatant dups.

Quality of questions in q’airs re: control-loss effects:

CEQ – Poor.
SOCQ – Fair.
HRS – Fair.
5DASC – Excellent. Question category “Impaired cognition/control”.

Relatively speaking:

  • The CEQ article has fair coverage of control-loss.
  • The previous questionnaires have fair coverage of control-loss.
  • The CEQ has poor (ie no) coverage of control-loss. Yet has 4-6 redundant, duplicate questions.

For all the hard work in this article, why is the CEQ so bad?

The CEQ has a giant gap in the side, a barn-door sized opening for the shadow dragon monster to fly right in.

If safety is so important that this article urges everyone to do everything possible for safety, then why does the outcome of the article – the CEQ – utterly fail to ask people about control-loss effects?

The CEQ has at 4-6 word-wasting (and confusing) duplicate questions, and inherited none of the good questions about control-loss from previous questionnaires. Why not?

What does the article say about the control-related questions from the previous questionnaires?

What does the article say about the 4-6 exactly duplicate, indistinguishable questions in the CEQ? Don’t 100% of people ask why there are dup questions?

Where did Griffiths’ group go wrong, to drop the ball on the most central, key, challenging effect? They wanted to sell and mathematically defend their own scoped set of question sets of questions, categories of questions, and, to do thta, they rejected the “Impaired control” category of questions.

The CEQ is garbage that deserves to be burned with extra hot fire. It replaces control-problem questions and the control-problem category of questions by worthless 6 safe, duplicate questions out of 26.

They’re using “we need broader negative questions included” is their PRETEXT TO DELETE CONTROL PROBLEM QUESTIONS AND THE CONTROL PROBLEM CATEGORY OF QUESTIONS (IIC) FROM THE DED which they disparage “EG” BECAUSE … BU WHY ELSE?

The DED isn’t good enough, it omits categories of negative effects: we must add those and remove the category of control-problem questions like:
marionette (that question didn’t make the Marketing cut from 64 to 26 questions) and
no control of the will (that question didn’t make the Marketing cut from 64 to 26 questions)
impaired control and cognition (ICC) set of questions from 5DASC set of questions from OAC set of questions.

The criticisms that people make of the DED set of questions, such as we’ll tell you one of those: the DED omits some negative effects categories, therefore we have to remove a category of questions, about control.

See Also

Cybermonk’s Picks for the Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/21/cybermonks-picks-for-the-challenging-experiences-questionnaire-ceq/

The Challenging Experience Questionnaire (CEQ): Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms – Omits Category “Threat of Loss of Control”!
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/the-challenging-experience-questionnaire-ceq-characterization-of-challenging-experiences-with-psilocybin-mushrooms-omits-category-threat-of-loss-of-control/

Human Hallucinogen Research: Guidelines for Safety (Griffiths)
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/19/human-hallucinogen-research-guidelines-for-safety-griffiths/

Strict Requirements for Teachers, Initiation Guides, and Students, Prior to Initiation
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/11/24/strict-requirements-for-teachers-initiation-guides-and-students-prior-to-initiation/

Standard Hazy Trip Advice on Surrender to the Shadow, Trust, Submit, and Let Go of Control
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/07/standard-hazy-trip-advice-on-surrender-to-shadow-trust-submit-and-let-go-of-control/
Summarized from Michelle Janikian’s book Your Psilocybin Mushroom Companion.


Unknown's avatar

Author: egodeaththeory

http://egodeath.com

Leave a comment