Update Jan. 2: Initial Item Pool Reduced from 64 to 24 Because CEQ Must Have Fewer Negative Effects than MEQ’s 30 Positive Effects
CEQ is the repressed counterpart and complement of the positive MEQ. We were un-strategic in the MEQ/SOCQ lineage when we reduced 43 positive therefore Mystical effects to just 30, what were we thinking?! We should have done like in the APZ lineage: at every step, in each version of the linege, we must increase the counts of positive (therefore Mystical) psychedelic effects (at every level), and reduce the counts of negative (therefore non-Mystical) psychedelics effects (as counted at every level).
In each version of the lineage, we must come up with counts of negative psychedelics effects or effects categories that are lower than the counts of positive psychedelics effects or effects categories.
I must go back to
Professor Dittrich on October 26, 1985 finds that the 158-item APZ contains positive effects in Oceanic & Visionary categories and negative effects in the Angst/ Dread category.
APZ has 158 items. Source: Studerus 2010 p. 2 left.
But there’s a problem revealed in 1985, than we need to engineer a solution for: unfortunately, we’ve determined that in the 1975 APZ set of 158 effects questions, there are too few positive effects (O & V), and too many negative effects (A).
So remedy and cure that ailment in the APZ instrument by padding out the O and V categories and reducing the A items, forming the 1994 new technology: OAV questionnaire: psychedelics have now been re-engineered with more positive effects and fewer negative effects! 🎉
Over in Griffiths’ MEQ lineage (MEQ43, SOCQ, MEQ30), they went in the wrong direction: they reduced the number of positive/mystical effects from 43 to 30.
We’ll remedy our MEQ/SOCQ lineage by patching up a negative/non-mystical effects CEQ that’s marketed as casting a broad net (look at the broadest version of the APZ lineage: point to “5DASC”, which has 1 negative dimension and 4 positive dimensions), but that actually – in the end – casts a narrowing net on the negative/non-mystical experiences (only pay attention to the ICC and ANX mid-level categories, conflate 11-Factors’ mid-level categories with the entirety of 5D).
Start with the already attenuated subset of only 13 of the 21 of Dread effects (by playing into Studerus’ focus magic trick of pointing to the mid-level factor buckets and ignoring their high-level full-sized Unpleasant bucket).
We’ll aim to make the final number of negative/non-mystical effects 29 max – we have to make there be fewer negative/non-mystical effects questions than the 30 MEQ30 positive/mystical effects questions.
We’ll pretend to start with a fully wide Initial Item Pool (accidentally omitting 8 Dread questions though), and then for our final set of negative/non-mystical, CEQ questions, we’ll aim for 24, to be fewer than the 30 positive/mystical effects inventoried in our MEQ30.
We need to construct a set of negative/non-mystical effects that fits our psychedelic psychotherapy marketing plan.
Create a new Grief category. Make it bigger than other categories.
Make other conventional ordinary-state categories that fit and filter to our paradigm, such as Isolation.
Accept the Isolation question of the ICC category, to reify our Isolation category, as a token Dread item, and delete all other ICC questions that we made a temporary show of adding to give the impression of casting a wide, comprehensive net for our Initial Item Pool of the entire “5DASC” giant set of all effects.
For coverage of allegedly “5DASC”, Griffiths focuses on the mid-level 11-Factors categories instead of high-level indicates wilful incomprehension that’s advantageous to narrow the Dread effects.
Now that we’ve picked a subset of the subset of the full complete wide 5D, next we need to get rid of all Dread items.
Especially we can get rid of all ICC (Impaired Control) questions – they don’t fit our needs, we need categories like Fear, Grift- I mean Grief, and Isolation – not “Control” challenges.
We’ve got to get a set of 29 or fewer effects, and which effects should we, which undesirable, negative/non-mystical effects do we want to delete to achieve our goal of producing a set of psychotherapy categories?
We can lose all the Control / ICC questions – just keep Isolation, because we need to pad out our fabricated Isolation category by listing a single effect, the same identical Isolation question from all 3 questionnaires (“5DASC” – by which we mean only ICC+ANX – and SOCQ and HRS).
CEQ Misspells “5D-ASC”
Griffiths keeps making a typo, misspelling 5D-ASC: this indicates incomprehension.
count of “5DASC”: 30 count of “5-DASC”: 6 count of “5D-ASC”: 2
2 times out of 38 (5%), the Griffiths CEQ article correctly spells “5D-ASC”.
36 times out of 38 (95%), the Griffiths CEQ article misspells “5D-ASC” as “5DASC” or, sometimes, “5-DASC”.
Griffiths is constantly using scope-shifting tricks. Don’t say “OAV” even though that’s what Studerus says, change that to “5DASC” to give the impression of full, broader coverage than 5D-ASC – while actually only picking a tiny subset of 5D-ASC for the Initial Item Pool (not the 21 Dread items, but only the mid-level 11-Factors categories ICC and ANX but don’t point that out, and then only end up with 3 out of the 94 (3%) of the 5D-ASC items in the final CEQ.
The Carbonaro article bizarrely refrains from admitting/specifying which 11-Factor categories they picked.
They don’t seem to want to be forthright and come clean.
Griffiths & Carbonaro are cagey. They are posturing. They are doing spin.
Why does Griffiths CEQ article keep picking a couple 11-Factors categories, yet describe/ frame/ position/ sell themselves in terms of “5DASC”?
Because they want to give the impression of casting a broader net than 5D-ASC, not admit that they are leveraging and abusing 11-Factors by pretending that 11-Factors’ ICC+ANX factors (only 13 items) is the same complete scope as 5D-ASC (94 items) or Dread (21 items) or 11-Factors’ high-level category “Unpleasant Experiences” (same 21 items as Dread).
From CEQ article page 4: “The 5DASC[sic] consists of 94 items”
Studerus tries to not draw attention to their Unpleasant high-level category. They want people to notice only their subset, their 11 mid-level factors/categories (ignoring the 8 direct members of Unpleasant high-level category).
Griffiths is eager to oblige: look only at the mid-level factors’ items, ignore the non-factor-members, ignore the high-level categories (“Unpleasant Experiences” & “Pleasant Experiences”).
That gets rid of 8/21 = 38% of negative psychedelic effects right off the bat! It’s like a Magic party!
🎩🪄 🎉
Then to get rid of the rest of the negative psychedelic effects, aim for fewer negative/ non-mystical effects items than MEQ30’s positive/ mystical effects questions.
In the final culling to remove negative psychedelic effects to be fewer than the 30 MEQ positive/mystical psychedelic effects, only keep the challenging effects items that fit into our ordinary-state psychotherapy categories – especially our new Grief pet category we’re promoting.
Oh, turns out all the Control-challenges psychedelics effects got deleted 🤷♂️, well, good riddance, we didn’t need those excess negative effects for our psychedelic psychotherapy marketing plan anyway.
😱🐉🚪💎🏆 ➡️ 🗑
54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.
We kept a single, token ICC (Impaired Control) item: “I felt isolated”, since it fits our marketing plan’s Isolation category.
Phase 1: Dittrich’s 1994/2006 List of 21 Angst/Dread Dimension Effects
Update Dec. 30, 2022: This section should list all 21 Unpleasant aka Dread questions.
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on. 41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird. 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. 54. I was afraid to lose my self-control. 12. I felt tormented. 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.
+ 4 more questions
Phase 2: Studerus’ 2010 List of 13 Impaired Control and Cognition (ICC) & Anxiety (ANX) Effects
Update Dec. 30, 2022: This section should list all 21 Unpleasant aka Dread questions.
Update: Studerus didn’t delete any of the 21 questions from the Unpleasant aka Dread category. They merely dropped questions from their ANX & ICC subcategories of Unpleasant effects – but kept them in the Unpleasant high-level category.
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on. 41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird. 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. 54. I was afraid to lose my self-control. 12. I felt tormented. 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.
There, we’ve done our part to get rid of (move attention off of) 4 out of 21 = 19% of negative psychedelic effects, in the course of innocently breaking up the 2 positive dimensions into 9 factors instead, and breaking up the 1 negative dimension into just 2 factors – thus reducing from 1/3 = 33% negative categories, to only 2/9 = 18% negative categories of psychedelic effects.
Phase 3: Griffiths’ 2016 List of 3 Effects from Studerus’ ICC+ANX Categories
Result: Removed 18 of 21 the Dread/ Unpleasant effects questions; 86%
Update Dec. 30, 2022: This section should list all 21 Unpleasant aka Dread questions.
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on. 41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird. 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. 54. I was afraid to lose my self-control. 12. I felt tormented. 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. 👍
That’s more like it! We kept only 3/21 = 14% of the original negative psychedelic effects. We can sell this move as only getting rid of 3/13 = 23% of the original effects – compared to the (pre-shrunk) 11-factor scheme.
Now there’s room to add our preferred negative effects: Grief/ Sad/ Depressed, to sell our couch psychotherapy paradigm repair services, instead of the actual, problematic-for-us negative psychedelic effects — marionettes & suchlike that we can’t deal with.
Attach the standard blob of psychometrics math to our radical aggressive removal of all the major negative effects, and no one will be able to object to our unscientific, seat-of-the-pants, biased, gut judgment.
Draw attention to our many pages of listing our Initial Item Pool, before we deleted from 64 negative psychedelic effects down to just 24 (and then reluctantly re-added 2 back in, seeing as we can’t get away with removing the Paranoia effect).
The important thing is not actually to deliver a superset of Dread effects like our page 1 marketing spin says, but rather, to deliver a smaller set of negative/non-mystical psychedelic effects than the 30 positive/mystical psychedelic effects in our streamlined MEQ30. eg fake everyone out by starting with 64 items including “all” the Dread effects (actually 13 of 21 of them), then plunge that number down to 24, which is well less than MEQ’s 30 desirable effects.
Why Griffiths Needed the Final CEQ to Have Greater than 21 and Fewer than 30 Negative/ Non-mystical Psychedelic Effects
Update Jan. 2, 2022
Don’t do like Cybermonk and add 7 Control effects to the final CEQ, or else CEQ would have more effects than MEQ (10% more: 26+7 = 33 instead of MEQ’s 30 desirable effects).
We want broader coverage of negative effects than Dread’s 21 — but not as many as the positive 30 effects that we placed in MEQ30.
That’s why we need to aim for a number greater than 21 but less than 30.
Let’s aim for 24 – then bump up to 26. 26 is exactly between our lower excess bound (21) and our higher excess bound (30).
(21 + 30 ) / 2 = 26 negative psychedelic effects is the perfect count that we need in the final CEQ.
The Progressive Story of Inflating the Positive Effects and Removing Negative Effects
Dittrich 1975
Includes 158 non-categorized psychedelic effects in the APZ questionnaire.
Source: Studerus 2010 p 2 left.
Dittrich 1985
Identifies 3 dimensions, OAV, + General, in those APZ questions.
Dittrich 1994
Judges there are too many Angst (Dread) questions and too few Oceanic & Visionary psychedelic effects.
So he publishes his new OAV questionnaire, which adds more Ocean & Visionary effects. See Studerus’ 2010 discussion of this.
Dittrich 2006
1/3 of the Dimensions are negative.
Fix this, reduce the percentage of negative psychedelic effects, by watering down, by adding two irrelevant dimensions that no one wants or asked for: Auditory, and Reduction of Vigilance.
Now, only 1/5 of the dimensions are negative: 1 out of 5 instead of 1 out of 3.
Studerus 2010
1/3 of the OAV dimensions are negative. Ocean/ Angst/ Visionary.
We need a greater number of smaller factor categories instead, in the positive categories, to overwhelm the negative category count.
So, replace the 3 OAV dimensions by 11 factors, unfairly dividing Angst into just 2 factors, but dividing Ocean into 4 and Visionary into 5 factor categories.
Now we’ve magically reduced negative psychedelic effects from 1/3 = 33% to 2/11 = 18%. 🎉.
Also, along the way, we removed 4 out of the 21 Angst/Dread psychedelic effects, though we forgot to list 61 & 62 in our list of 7 effects that we removed from the OAV categories.
Out of the 7 questions we removed, 4 of them were in the Angst/Dread dimension, and only 3 of them were from the other two OAV dimensions.
Griffiths 2016
“We took ALL 13 of the 5D-ASC questions which were in the ICC + ANX categories (never mind that the Dread dimension had 21, not 13) for our Initial Item Pool of negative psychedelic effects.”
“For our final pool, we kept some of all those 13 items.”
True: They kept some; specifically they kept 3 out of those 13 … out of Dittrich’s original 21 negative psychedelic effects questions in the Angst/Dread dimension.
Griffiths knows he has a problem going against this scheming to reduce the negative psychedelic effects and puff up and inflate the number of positive effects – and his mission is to add conventional couch-psychotherapy paradigm ailments: Grief/ Sadness/ Depression.
Because Griffiths wants to sell negative-ailment services, but doesn’t want to bloat the negative effects categories, he feels pressured to continue the Dittrich/ Studerus project of pressing on the scales to shift the ratio for more positive vs. negative psychedelic effects.
So Griffiths is under heavy pressure to delete and omit and drop other negative effects while adding his pet effects he’s pushing (Grief/ Sad/ Depress).
So he reduces 64 to 24 negative effects to form his final CEQ questionnaire, but relents and due to gut emotional judgment (not math), he restores paranoia questions (but not Volition-Control challenging effects questions).
Selling Covering a Superset, But Delivering Merely a Shift of Which Subset Is Covered
Griffiths’ CEQ article advertises addingDepression to the catalog of negative psychedelics effects – but his final CEQ also removesVolition-Control negative effects, contradicting his claim that a superset is needed and CEQ delivers a superset.
The final CEQ actually delivers merely a partial overlap (while claiming to deliver a superset), leaving Volition-Control as completely un-covered as Depression effects had been.
Not Believable that Griffiths Started from Dittrich’s Full Angst/ Dread Dimension’s 21 Questions
Griffiths (p. 4 right) says we started from all 13 of the ICC ANX questions – he always mentions “5D-ASC” (not “OAV” like Studerus), but specifies 11-Factors’ mid-level ICC & ANX categories, “all 13” – so he cannot mean OAV’s or 5D-ASC’s Angst/Dread category of 21 items, or 11-Factors’ “Unpleasant Experiences” high-level category containing those same 21 items.
If your goal is to minimize the negative questions from Dittrich (so that you can add your own, preferred ailments for which to sell your psychotherapy services – Dread/ Grief/ Sad), naturally you should start with Studerus’ already 24% reduced set of 13, not the original full set of 21 negative effects questions (Dittrich’s Dread dimension).
There is no way Griffiths had Figure S1 from Studerus or had Dittrich’s questionnaire spec, or he certainly would have selected Dread question 54, for the initial item pool, “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
— Cybermonk, December 27, 2022
References
Dittrich 1975 APZ
Dittrich A (1975) Zusammenstellung eines fragebogens (APZ) zur erfassung abnormer psychischer zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states] Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
Dittrich 1985: OAV dimensions found in APZ[158]
Dittrich A, Vonarx S, Staub S 1985 International study on altered states of consciousness (ISASC): Summary of the results Ger J Psychol 9: 319–339.
Dittrich 1994 (Oct. 1993) in book 50 Years of LSD – Readable at Google Books
Sweet, I snagged every page and made a nice printout of the front matter & article.
Dittrich A 1994 Psychological aspects of altered states of consciousness of the LSD type: Measurement of their basic dimensions and prediction of individual differences In: Pletscher A, Ladewig D, eds. 50 Years of LSD: Current Status and Perspectives of Hallucinogens: A Symposium of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, Lugano-Agno (Switzerland) October 21 and 22, 1993 New York NY: Parthenon. pp 101–118.
Swiss Academy of the Medical Sciences. Proceedings of a Symposium of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, Lugano-Agno (Switzerland), October 21-22, 1993. Pharmacological and clinical research on LSD, for pharmacologists or psychiatrists. 17 contributors, 5 U.S.
Dittrich 1994 OAV with inflated O & V, shrunken A, in book Worlds of Consciousness, Volume 3 (German)
Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D. Aussergewöhnliche Bewusstseinszustände – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment]. 1994 In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, editors. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB; 1994. pp. 45–58.
Annual journal book that in 1994 defines OAV: Worlds of Consciousness Bodmer, I., Dittrich, A. & Lamparter, D. in Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3 (eds. Hofmann, A. & Leuner, H.) 45–58 (Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie., 1994).
Dittrich 1998 article about OAV questionnaire [66 items] with improved (tilted positive) OAV items compared to APZ [158 items]
Dittrich A (1998) The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9754838/ – paywall for PDF fulltext
Abstract:
“The APZ questionnaire was developed in order to explore hypotheses on ASCs.
“First — in a series of 11 experiments using different induction methods on N = 393 healthy subjects — the hypothesis was tested that ASCs have major dimensions in common irrespective of the mode of their induction.
“In the International Study on Altered States of Consciousness (ISASC) the external validity of the experimental results was assessed.
“The ISASC was carried out on a total of N = 1133 subjects in six countries.
“The main results of the experimental studies were corroborated in the field studies.
“The results can be summarized as follows:
“the common denominator of ASCs is described by three oblique dimensions, designated as “Oceanic Boundlessness (OSE)”, “Dread of Ego Dissolution (AIA) [DED, AED]” and “Visionary Restructuralization (VUS)”.
“The reliability and validity of the scales are satisfactory.
“Tested versions of the APZ scales are available in English (UK, USA), German, Italian and Portuguese.
“Psychometrically as yet untested versions exist in Dutch, Finnish, French, Greek, Spanish and Russian.
“The APZ questionnaire has become the international standard for the assessment of ASCs, thus helping to integrate research.
“A psychometrically improved version exists in German (OAV questionnaire).
“The BETA questionnaire, which measures the dimensions “Vigilance Reduction (VIR)” and “Auditive Alteration (AVE)” is also available in German. “
This 1998 mention of dimensions 4 & 5 corroborates Studerus’ claim that 5D-ASC data was gathered starting in 2000, not in 2006 when the 5D (German) article was published.
“These dimensions are most likely etiology-dependent.”
Dittrich 2006 5D-ASC (German) Adding 2 Positive Dimensions to Reduce Negative from 1/3 to 1/5
6. Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2006) 5D-ABZ: German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewo¨hnlicher Bewusstseinszusta¨nde. Eine kurze Einfu¨hrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
todo – link (good luck finding)
Dittrich 2010 5D-ASC (English)
Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2010) 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
I’m so innocent/ naive in the first 2/3 of this recording – maybe at the end I start to get a clue:
Griffiths is trying to take down O A V, and is not interested in making sure he starts with all 17 of its Dread questions.
He wants to be ignorant of them and start from the smaller subset of 13 that’s retained in 11-Factor.
Among the 4 pre-removed questions removed by 11-Factor is #54, “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
Timestamps & Content
0:00
10:00
20:00
Cough it up!
Where’s the damn questionnaire specification listing all of the dimensions, including General (G-ASC), and which specific questions are in each dimension, of Dittrich’s OAV (1994) or German 5D-ASC (2006) or English translation of 5D-ASC (2010)?
30:00
40:00
50:00
Production Notes
Typing 👎 ⌨️ 🙉
Lotsa typing in the middle; must skip past. I should make a trimmed, Core version of this episode.
Distortion
Probably distortion when I exclaim at 29:30 –
Cough it up! Where’s the damn questionnaire specification listing all of the dimensions, including General (G-ASC), and which specific questions are in each dimension, of Dittrich’s OAV (1994) or German 5D-ASC (2006) or English translation of 5D-ASC (2010)?
For the first time ever, perhaps, I simply recorded the session, then exported as mp3 with no production hassle at all. Looks like the voice, and voice and guitar miking, came out good, all around.
Miking for guitar: wo SM57 close mics on two 8″ cabs.
Need URL for Dittrich 1994 OAV or 2006/2010 5D-ASC Questionnaire Spec
Found Major Basic Counting Errors and Academic Research Errors in both Griffiths’ CEQ Article and Studerus’ 11-Factor Article: How Question 54 Got Foolishly Dropped
Key Question: How Many Effects/Questions Are in Dittrich’s 1994 or 2006 “Dread of Ego Dissolution” Dimension?
Griffiths Doesn’t Start from the Full Set of Dittrich’s 17 “Dread” Questions, but Is Working only with Studerus’ Culled Subset of 13 ICC+ANX Questions
Hypothesis: Griffiths Failed to Go to the Source, Dittrich’s Articles, but Relied on Studerus 2010 Article, Which in Figure 1 Entirely Removed Question 54 and 6 others from Dittrich’s OAV Dimensions (Figure S1 Tree Hierarchy)
More Errors: Studerus 2010 p. 8 End Omits 2 Questions (61 & 62)
More Errors: Studerus 2010 p. 8 Gets Count of Tree’s Factor Member Items Wrong (It’s 49, not 47)
New Database Article about the Altered States Database (ASDB), a WordPress-Powered Database Site
Studerus’ Email Address
Need URL for Dittrich 1994 OAV or 2006/2010 5D-ASC Questionnaire Spec
We don’t have Science, but we have black magic, until someone can give me two URLs: I need to click the URLs and see the list in English of the 4 dimensions or 6 dimensions and which questions are in each dimension.
Includes G-ASC General dimension.
Includes question 54, “I was afraid to lose my self-control”.
Best bet: What is the URL for:
Dittrich A, Lamparter D and Maurer M 2010 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment Of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction. Zürich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
Take heart: I’m starting to suspect that Griffiths couldn’t get ahold of the real Dittrich questionnaire specs either, but worked off the more obtainable corrupted, shrunken, stunted, final result from Studerus.
Studerus’ ICC+ANX factor categories are smaller by 4 effects questions than Dittrich’s Dread dimension.
The 11-Factor Studerus questionnaire might be smaller by 7 effects questions than the Dittrich OAV questionnaire.
Found Major Basic Counting Errors and Academic Research Errors in both Griffiths’ CEQ Article and Studerus’ 11-Factor Article: How Question 54 Got Foolishly Dropped
omg 8:30 pm Dec 27 2022 I just found ANOTHER clue and a mistake: it’s 17, not 13! Griffiths 2016 page 4 right column.
Make that, a whole nest of interconnected mistakes in Studerus, and then in Griffiths.
Figure S1 – tree hierarchy: Studerus’ 8 (not 6) Anxiety effects questions initially copied from Dittrich’s “Angst of/ Dread of Ego Dissolution” (AED/DED) dimension, and 9 (not 7) “Impaired control and cognition” effects questions initially copied from Dittrich’s “Dread” dimension. Ignore the “1” item in between, from Dittrich’s G-ASC General dimension. Counting & addition skills contributed by Cybermonk, Christmas 2022
Marked in orange above – just like the Default Mode Network part of the brain – here are the four “Angst of/ Dread of Ego Dissolution” questions that were dropped by Studerus in the final version of their 11-Factor revision of Dittrich’s OAV/ 5D-ASC questionnaire:
#54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.
#12. I felt tormented.
#62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on.
#41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird.
For example, those questions are missing from Studerus page 9 Figure 1 (final factors’/ categories’ questions), which Griffiths likely worked off of as a starting point to try to represent Dittrich’s “Angst/Dread” dimension questions – after Studerus had already removed 24% of the Dread questions.
I have now managed to deduce and explain how, incredibly, the key question got dropped, question 54, “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
I found who removed it, when, and why, and how Griffiths failed to see this question when picking questions from 3 questionnaires to form his Initial Item Pool.
That’s distinct from explaining Griffiths’ insanely aggressive reduction from 66 to 24 items when defining the final CEQ. “Since I’m adding a bunch of negative questions, which Studerus won’t like, I better remove 10 of Studerus’ 13 questions.”
The “13” effect questions are those that remain from the 17 questions in Dittrich’s Dread dimension, but Griffiths is only aware of the 13 subset, not the 17 full set, because Griffiths isn’t working from Dittrich’s source specs, but from the downstream final result after Studerus has already whittled-down the Dread questions.
The 13 items of the 5DASC[sic; 5D-ASC] that constitute the [final version of the] ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.
Griffiths 2016 page 4 right column.
“The 13 [not 17???] items [questions] of the 5DASC [5D-ASC] that constitute the [final] ICC and ANX sub-scales [sub-categories of psychedelics effects questions] were retained for the initial item pool [of 64 challenging-effects questions from 3 questionnaires (5D, SOCQ, HRS)] for the CEQ.” – Griffiths 2016 CEQ article.
Key Question: How Many Effects/Questions Are in Dittrich’s 1994 or 2006 “Dread of Ego Dissolution” Dimension?
You can handle a simple count question, right, Griffiths? right, Johns Hopkins?
But you counted wrong, from the wrong, downstream, corrupted, modified subset of the Dread dimension’s questions!
Griffiths says Dread — known as the “bad-trip” sub-scale – has 13 questions.
But actually, per Studerus end of page 8 + Figure S1, it’s evident that (after correcting Studerus’ own mistakes in basic counting) Dread — before Studerus reduced it, has 17 effects/ questions, not just 13.
And one of the questions that got dropped along the way (to improve the psychometrics math to give a better fit by removing cross-category and ambiguous effects questions), is #54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
🤦♂️ 🙈
🏥 🍽 🐉
See Figure S1, count the questions in Anxiety (8) and in Impaired Control (9), which correspond to Dittrich’s “Dread/Anxiety of Ego Dissolution” dimension, the ‘A’ in “OAV”. 8+9= 17 effects question items, not 13. The four dropped Dread dimension items that Griffiths failed to consider adding to his Initial Item Pool are:
Anxiety:
54. I was afraid to lose my self-control.
12. I felt tormented.
Impaired Control and Cognition:
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on.
41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird.
They Can’t Even Count! 😅
How many questions are in Dread dimension? 13 – or, 17?! It’s 17, not 13.
Griffiths Doesn’t Start from the Full Set of Dittrich’s 17 “Dread” Questions, but Is Working only with Studerus’ Culled Subset of 13 ICC+ANX Questions
Dittrichs’ actual Dread dimension contains 17 questions, which got arbitrarily reduced to 13 during Studerus’ forming the ICC+ANX subcategories that strive to REPLACE the Dread category.
Studerus removes questions during the course of subdividing categories! Not merely from the factor categories, but from the entire questionnaire!
Griffiths didn’t start from Dittrich’s full set of 17 Dread questions, or from Studerus’ Figure S1 which shows all 17 — he started from the bastardized, corrupted, trimmed-down by 24% subset (Studerus’ Figure 1, p. 9) of only 13 questions that Studerus retained from Dittrich’s Dread dimension.
So, Griffiths looks at the questions in the final “factor” categories after Studerus is done removing all 17 General G-ASC questions and removing 7 of the Dimension questions, including removing 4 of the ICC+ANX questions (now forming a subset of the Dread dimension’s questions) and picks from only that set of 42 questions that end up remaining in the shrunken Studerus factor categories, NOT starting from the full set of Dittrich’s 17 Dread questions or 49 total questions, when picking questions for Griffiths’ Initial Item Pool.
There should have been at least 67, not 66 questions, in Griffiths’ Initial Item Pool: add back in the key Question 54 which Studerus removed.
Question for Studerus: What happens to the 7 – which you wrongly count as 5 – factor-member items which you remove? Do they leave the questionnaire or do they get moved to the General dimension?
🦗 🦗
You removed the 7 questions from the 11-Factor version of Dittrich’s questionnaire entirely, didn’t you?
End of Studerus 2010 page 8: “the dropped items (# 12, 39, 41, 48, and 54)” – you mean, “the dropped items (# 12, 39, 41, 48, 54, 61, and 62)”.
Studerus, where did you put these 7 (not 5) effects questions that you dropped – are you entirely removing Dittrich’s standard questions from your version of his questionnaire? Did you MOVE them to G-ASC General dimension, or did you put them in Wouter Hanegraaff’s Rejected wastebasket?
🐉 –> 🗑
So, since Griffiths only drew questions from the Dread dimension – or worse, only from the shrunken-by-4 ICC + ANX factors that Dread was broken into, Griffiths only pulled from Studerus’ final 13 ICC+ANX factor questions, NOT from Dittrich’s 17 Dread questions.
Notice the slop in Griffiths’ wording, next to his typo “5DASC”: “The 13 items of the 5DASC that constitute the ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.” should read: “The 17 items of the 5D-ASC questionnaire’s Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED) dimension, from which Studerus’ 13 items in Studerus’ final version of the ICC and ANX sub-scales were drawn, were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.” or, should have written: “The 13 out of 17 items of the 5D-ASC that constitute Studerus’ final ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.” Griffiths 2016 page 4 right column.
But Griffiths failed to Go To The Sources, so he missed considering 4 of Dittrich’s Dread questions, when picking questions from 3 questionnaires for the Initial Item Pool – that’s how Griffiths failed to include Dittrichs’ item “54: I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
Studerus doesn’t MOVE the 7 questions from factor categories into the G-ASC General category – Studerus REMOVES ENTIRELY the 7 “dropped items”.
Either way, Griffiths wouldn’t see them, since Griffiths only drew questions from the ICC & ANX Studerus factor categories – not directly from Dittrich’s upstream complete Dread dimension, nor from Studerus’ General G-ASC questions.
Regardless of whether Studerus removed the 7 questions or moved them to General, either way, Griffiths wouldn’t see them.
Griffiths needed to start from Studerus’ Figure S1 tree hierarchy, which was still faithful to Dittrich’s Dread category, or start from Dittrich’s mythological 1994 OAV or 2006/2010 5D-ASC articles which don’t actually exist, and are the authoritative sources.
I don’t think Griffiths has Dittrich’s OAV but he’s using a corrupted subset provided by Studerus, which is easier to get than Dittrich’s nonexistent, mythological articles.
ICC = impaired control and cognition, a “factor” broken out from Dittrich’s “Anxiety/Dread of ego dissolution” dimension by Studerus 2010.
ANX = anxiety, a “factor” (category of effects questions) broken out from Dittrich’s “Anxiety/Dread of ego dissolution” dimension by Studerus 2010.
Studerus 2010 in one figure, only, the Figure S1 tree hierarchy, shows not 13 questions but 17, including THE question, #54.
There, only, Studerus lists not 6 questions in the Anxiety factor (category), but 8 (?!) questions, including THE question, 54, “I was afraid to lose my self-control”.
Where did this question 54 come from or go to? Does the question exist, or not?
Evidently Griffiths didn’t have that question when picking the Initial Pool of 64 questions from 3 questionnaires.
2nd best: give me URLs for German language original Dittrich articles 1994 and 2006.
The 2006 article’s English translation is Dittrich 2010, subtitled like “Short Intro to 5D-ASC”. I couldn’t find it.
It’s 2022, and these “scientific” articles are impossible to find on the World-Wide Web.
Hypothesis: Griffiths Failed to Go to the Source, Dittrich’s Articles, but Relied on Studerus 2010 Article, Which in Figure 1 Entirely Removed Question 54 and 6 others from Dittrich’s OAV Dimensions (Figure S1 Tree Hierarchy)
I’ve found/ identified/ collected about 10 errors now in Griffiths 2016 & Studerus 2010, which support this hypothesis.
If Griffiths had made his initial item pool of “66” questions by pulling from Dittrich’s ACTUAL OAV 1994 questions or from Dittrich’s three OAV dimensions of 5D-ASC 2006 (German)/ 2010 (English), then given the decent judgment that Griffiths shows during making the initial item pool, Griffiths would certainly have included OAV question 54, “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
I propose that Griffiths did not work off Dittrich’s 1994 or 2006/2010 document, questionnaire spec’n, and didn’t work off of Figure S1 which Studerus said was preliminary, but rather, Griffiths drew from only the final OAV questions that Studerus included in page 9 Figure 1.
Griffiths, given that you brag about your whole objecting being to define a questionnaire that focuses only on, and focuses on all of, the challenging psychedelics effects, don’t you think you should have picked your Initial Item Pool questions from all 17 of Dittrich’s Dread dimension items, rather than merely starting from “all 13” of Studerus’ ICC+ANX items that remained after Studerous had already discarded 4 out of Dittrich’s 17 effects items (24%)?
If Griffiths had drawn from the lists of questions from Dittrich 1994 or 2006/2010, or had drawn from Studerus’ Figure S1 tree hierarchy, then Griffiths would have included in the initial item pool not “all 13 ” but rather ALL 17 questions that are actually – I glean – in the 1994 or 2006/2010 “Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED)” aka “Anxious Ego Dissolution (AED)” dimension.
Dittrich A, Lamparter D and Maurer M 2010 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment Of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction. Zürich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
The 13[sic; 17] items of the 5DASC that constitute the ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool for the CEQ.
Griffiths 2016 page 4 right column.
More Errors: Studerus 2010 p. 8 End Omits 2 Questions (61 & 62)
The list of 5 removed category questions at end of page 8 is wrong, it should list 7 removed items, including #61 in “Bliss” and #62 in ICC factors/ categories:
“Because the dropped items (# 12, 39, 41, 48, and 54) had been …” should read: “Because the dropped items (# 12, 39, 41, 48, 54, 61, and 62) had been …”
That’s regarding foolishly removing the all-important question 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control.”
More Errors: Studerus 2010 p. 8 Gets Count of Tree’s Factor Member Items Wrong (It’s 49, not 47)
“The model revision led to a final model that still contained the same number of factors, but a slightly lower number of items (42 instead of 47).” is wrong, should read: “The model revision led to a final model that still contained the same number of factors, but a slightly lower number of items (42 instead of 49).”
Paragraph Containing Those Errors
Studerus 2010 page 8 end:
“By applying the criteria defined in the method section, 11 item clusters formed from 47[sic; 49] of the 66 original items were detected and used for initial CFA model specification.
“The ICLUST tree diagram and the item clusters that were used for the initial CFA model are shown in Fig. S1 (for the ICLUST tree diagram based on the categorized variables see Fig. S2).
“As the model fit of the initial CFA model was not sufficient according to the CFI and TLI indexes (see Table 2), we tried to improve model fit by dropping items [eg. question 54] showing large modification indexes for cross-loadings and ambiguous item wordings.”
[Why did you remove specifically question 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control”? Did you think it cross-loaded and fit into multiple of your 11 “factor” categories? Did you think it was ambiguous?]
“The model revision led to a final model that still contained the same number of factors, but a slightly lower number of items (42 instead of 47[sic; 49]).
“Because the dropped items (# 12, 39, 41, 48, and 54[sic; 54, 61, and 62]) had been mostly assigned to different factors, the model revision did not lead to a major change in the interpretation of any factor.”
(all we did was merely improve the psychedelic effects by removing effect question 54: “I was afraid to lose my self-control” — NO BIG DEAL)
“Figure 1 [p. 9; not Figure S1 tree hierarchy] shows the factorial structure of the final model, including the [final] names that we gave to the 11 factors and the fully standardized loadings and error variances.
“The correlations between the latent factors as well as their associations with the original OAV scales are shown in Table 3.
“Although the CFI and TLI of this final CFA model were still slightly below the recommend cutoffs, the RMSEA and the SRMR indicated excellent model fit (see Table 2).”
All we had to do to accomplish this excellent model fit into our Procrustean bed was remove 7 questions, including #54: I was afraid to lose my self-control. 👍
🚫🐉
References
Griffiths 2016 CEQ article
Griffiths’ CEQ article; the article that develops and presents the CEQ:
Studerus 2010 article breaking 3 dimensions into 11 factors
Studerus 2010 article breaking 3 “dimensions” (ignoring General) into 11 “factors”: Oceanic into 4, Anxiety/Dread into 2, Visionary into 5.
Proposes 11 dimensions for the OAV or 5D-ASC (ignoring 2 later dimensions not relevant). Shows 17 q’s in Dread dimension, question 54 is in Studerus’ Anxiety sub-category of Dittrich’s Anxiety/Dread dimension.
Fig S1 shows q 54 I was afraid to lose my self-control. Fig 1 lacks q54, and shows only 13 q’s in Dread dimension.
Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, Franz X. Vollenweider 2010 Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/ SEE Figure S1 tree hierarchy diagram: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/bin/pone.0012412.s001.pdf This tree diagram Figure S1 is THE BEST VIEW OF THE OAV QUESTIONS WITHIN CATEGORIES I’ve found so far, and general G-ASC questions as well. In that diagram, you have to know that: “Unpleasant” = the Dread dimension of Dittrich’s OAV, and that “Pleasant” = the Ocean & Visionary dimensions of Dittrich’s OAV. Ocean was broken into 4 factors, and, Visionary broken into 5 factors, by Studerus.
Dittrich 1994 OAV specification in German
Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D 1994 Aussergewo¨hnliche Bewusstseinszusta¨nde – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment] In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, eds. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB. pp 45–58.
Worlds of Consciousness
Bodmer, I., Dittrich, A. & Lamparter, D. in Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3 (eds. Hofmann, A. & Leuner, H.) 45–58 (Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie., 1994).
Dittrich, A 1996 A¨tiologie-unabha¨ngige Strukturen vera¨ nderter Wachbewusstseinszusta ¨nde.Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen u¨ber Halluzinogene I. und II. Ordnung, sensorische Deprivation, hypnagoge Zusta¨nde, hypnotische Verfahren sowie Reizu¨berflutung [Etiology-independent structures of altered states of consciousness. Results of empirical studies on hallucinogens of the first and second order, sensory deprivation, hypnagogic states, hypnotic procedures, and sensory overload]. Berlin, Germany: VWB.
6. Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2006) 5D-ABZ: Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewo¨hnlicher Bewusstseinszusta¨nde. Eine kurze Einfu¨hrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
5D-ABZ: Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewhnlicher Bewusstseinszustnde. Eine kurze Einfhrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction], volume 3rd ed Author(s): V. DITTRICH, D Lamparter, M Maurer Publication date: 2006
Dittrich, A., Lamparter, D., and Maurer, M. (2006). 5D-ABZ: Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewöhnlicher Bewusstseinszustände. Eine kurze Einführung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction]. Zürich: PSIN PLUS Publications.
Dittrich, A., Lamparter, D. & Maurer, M. 5D-ABZ: Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewöhnlicher Bewusstseinszustände. Eine kurze Einführung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. (2006).
WANTED: Dittrich 2010 English article “5D-ASC … A Short Introduction”
Dittrich A, Lamparter D and Maurer M 2010 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment Of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction. Zürich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
This is the #1 article to find, this English translation by Dittrich of the 2006 original German article by Dittrich.
That PDF has no Dimensions/ Factors/ categories of questions, and can’t trust the question numbering or wording.
I need the Dittrich English 2010 translation or even the German original 2006 article with the categories, and specific questions in the specific categories, including General (G-ASC) category/dimension — not some derivative questions-only subset that’s dubious. How did Hasler & Cahn obtain the 2006 German original article by Dittrich? Why didn’t they use Dittrich’s own English translation in 2010?
Impossible to find on the web. I couldn’t even find a trace of this article’s existence, in article databases – other than references to it in other articles.
Do you have to buy Dittrich dinner to get a personal, secret copy of this nonexistent, rumored, mythical “science” article?
Dittrich, A. (1975). Zusammenstellung eines Fragebogens (APZ) zur Erfassung abnormer psychischer Zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states]. Z. Klin. Psychol. Psychiatr. Psychother. 23, 12–20.
Dittrich, A. (1985). Ätiologie-unabhängige Strukturen veränderter Wachbewusstseinszustände. Stuttgart: Enke.
Dittrich, A., Lamparter, D., and Maurer, M. (2006). 5D-ABZ: Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewöhnlicher Bewusstseinszustände. Eine kurze Einführung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction]. Zürich: PSIN PLUS Publications.
Dittrich, A., Lamparter, D., and Maurer, M. (2010). 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction 3rd Edn. note 3rd Edn Zürich: PSIN PLUS.
Original APZ Dittrich spec: Dittrich A (1975) Zusammenstellung eines fragebogens (APZ) zur erfassung abnormer psychischer zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states]. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
“The APZ questionnaire was developed in order to explore hypotheses on ASCs.
“First – in a series of 11 experiments using different induction methods on N = 393 healthy subjects – the hypothesis was tested that ASCs have major dimensions in common irrespective of the mode of their induction.
“In the International Study on Altered States of Consciousness (ISASC) the external validity of the experimental results was assessed.
“The ISASC was carried out on a total of N = 1133 subjects in six countries. The main results of the experimental studies were corroborated in the field studies. The results can be summarized as follows: the common denominator of ASCs is described by three oblique dimensions, designated as “Oceanic Boundlessness (OSE)”, “Dread of Ego Dissolution (AIA)” [DED, or Anxious Ego Dissolution (AED)] and “Visionary Restructuralization (VUS)”.
“The reliability and validity of the scales are satisfactory. Tested versions of the APZ scales are available in English (UK, USA), German, Italian and Portuguese. Psychometrically as yet untested versions exist in Dutch, Finnish, French, Creek, Spanish and Russian.
“The APZ questionnaire has become the international standard for the assessment of ASCs, thus helping to integrate research.
“A psychometrically improved version exists in German (OAV questionnaire). ”
“Psychometrically Improved” from 😱🐉 to 🦄🌈
Translation: “psychometrically improved” = we puffed up the Ocean & Visionary unicorns & rainbows categories to try to give the false impression that they contain as many questions as the too-dominant Dread dragon effects category.
DON’T CARE, LOSING FOCUS, LOST THE PLOT: “The BETA questionnaire, which measures the dimensions “Vigilance Reduction (VIR)” and “Auditive Alteration (AVE)” is also available in German. These dimensions are most likely etiology-dependent.”
Another entry for Dittrich’s 1998 article about 1994 OAV questionnaire: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-06236-004 Dittrich, A. (1998). The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry, 31(Suppl 2), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-979351 Again, has PDF, requires registering, maybe payment.
1. Dittrich A (1998) The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84. 10.1055/s- 2007-979351.
The original 1975 APZ: 2. Dittrich A (1975) Zusammenstellung eines Fragebogens (APZ) zur Erfassung abnormer psychischer Zusta¨nde [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states]. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
Identifies the 1975 initial inadequate O, A, V dimensions w/ too few questions: 3. Dittrich A (1985) A ¨ tiologie-unabha¨ngige Strukturen vera¨nderter Wachbewusstseinszusta ¨nde. Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen u¨ber Halluzinogene I. und II. Ordnung, sensorische Deprivation, hypnagoge Zusta¨nde, hypnotische Verfahren sowie Reizu¨berflutung [Etiology-independent structures of altered states of consciousness. Results of empirical studies on hallucinogens of the first and second order, sensory deprivation, hypnagogic states, hypnotic procedures, and sensory overload]. Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
New Database Article about the Altered States Database (ASDB), a WordPress-Powered Database Site
This article and db WordPress site could have leads. It names the 11 factor scheme. But there I found plain-text citations, only, for Dittrichs’ questionnaire specification publications.
“In this paper, we present the development of the Altered States Database (ASDB), an open-science project based on a systematic literature review.
“The ASDB contains psychometric questionnaire data on subjective experiences of altered states of consciousness (ASC) induced by pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods.
“The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
“Scientific journal articles were identified through PubMed and Web of Science.
“We included studies that examined ASC using the following validated questionnaires: Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (APZ, 5D-ASC, 11-ASC), Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory (PCI), Hallucinogen Rating Scale (HRS), or Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ30). [SOCQ contains MEQ43 which is older] “The systematic review resulted in the inclusion of a total of 165 journal articles, whereof questionnaire data was extracted and is now available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website (https://osf.io/8mbru) and on the ASDB website (http://alteredstatesdb.org), where questionnaire data can be easily retrieved and visualized. “This data allows the calculation of comparable psychometric values of ASC experiences and of dose-response relationships of substances inducing ASC.”
“11-ASC” must mean Studerus 2010.
It’s odd that they don’t even mention OAV, before 5D-ASC. APZ 1975, OAV 1994, 5D-ASC 2006 (English 2010), 11-ASC 2010.
“5D-ASC(3D-OAV+2D) … a total of 94 items” (questions) but no one wants the questions that are in the useless new dimensions “Auditory” and “Reduced Vigilance” – subtract those, to get 72? Unfortunately here they skip over the 1994 OAV.
The expander sections contain some info I wanted: German acronyms:
“Oceanic Boundlesness (OBN): Items (e.g. I had the feeling everything around me was somehow unreal; The boundary between myself and my surroundings seemed to blur; I felt totally free and released from all responsibilities. ) clustered in the OBN dimension measure the positive symptoms of dissolution of boundaries between self and surroundings. In general, they describe common states that can be compared to a mystical experience. GERMAN: Ozeanische Selbstentgrenzung (OSE).
“Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED): Items (e.g. I had difficulty in distinguishing important from unimportant things; My thinking was constantly being interrupted by insignificant thoughts; My own feelings seemed strange to me, as though they did not belong to me. ) clustered in the DED dimension measure the negative symptoms of dissolution of boundaries between self and surroundings. The common state depicted by this list of items can be interpreted as an experience of depersonalization. Alternative naming: Anxious Ego Dissolution (AED), [an ‘A’ acronym is nice instead of ‘D’ bc part of acronym OAV] GERMAN: Angstvolle Ichauflösung (AIA)
“Visual restructuralization (VRS): Items (e.g. I saw lights or flashes of light in total darkness or with closed eyes; I saw scenes rolling by like in a film in total darkness or with my eyes closed; Objects around me engaged me emotionally much more than usual.) clustered in the VRS dimension measure both changes in perception as well as in imagination. GERMAN: Visionäre Umstrukturierung (VUS)
12:15 noon Christmas 2022: The dragon’s left wing tip touches the branching part of the mushroom tree; the artist considers the left wing as a branching limb, same as the dragon’s left foot, which touches the branching part of the branching-message mushroom tree.
The dragon’s right leg, I previously noted, like in the salamander image, touches (affirms, asserts) the nonbranching part of the tree.
Earlier today, I recognized that the shield protects the left, vulnerable leg from the dragon serpent fire.
The right leg is immune and can endure the fire of the Psilocybin altered state, the control loss threat capability.
The cloak is white spots on red, which is Amanita-themed.
The tree could be considered a hybrid of Amanita on the left and psilocybin on the right.
The loop in this context, or spiral, refers to how the mind in paranoid style is attracted and drawn into the vortex, like a maelstrom, the attractive control vortex.
The sirens attract the steersman sailor pilots to their death on the rocks.
Standing on right leg = lifting left leg; this means relying on eternalism-thinking, the non-branching model of possibilities – instead of relying on the branching possibilities model with open future that the steersman agent creates (naive possibilism-thinking, which is perishable & vulnerable to being burned away by transformative psilocybin fire).
The dragon in its rock cave guardingtreasure at the fountainhead wellspring of control-thoughts exudes an attractive scent, and we smell this and are attracted to the treasure – with the dragon guarding the treasure from the impure and unworthy.
The funnel hat represents an advanced and high-dose knowledge/ facility/ capability of handling that.
I have explained and posted extensively around March 2022 about the left and right limbs, fire, that which endures psilocybin loose-cognition fire (eternalism-thinking), branching, touching, non-branching, the cut right trunk, etc., for the salamander dancing man image.
On Christmas & Christmas Eve of 2015, I posted my initial analysis of this salamander picture, regarding standing on the right leg: I conjectured that means relying on eternalism-thinking.
The Egodeath Yahoo Group (the Max Freakout archive) is awesome content as always.
Across posts, you can see my hypothesis progressively come into view and develop towards the theory of {relying on right leg} equals eternalism-thinking.
The big confirmation of that hypothesis is the fact that in Nov. 2020, that interpretation successfully acted as the key to coherently decode the Eadwine image.
Around April 2022, the {legs/ limbs and handedness} theory was further confirmed by my recognizing and decoding the first and last pictures in my 2006 main article regarding {handedness} and {branching} diagrammatic morphology motifs.
Thomas Hatsis caught Carl Ruck incorrectly saying that the dancing man tree has a red cap, showing the overemphasis of Carl Ruck on only looking for Amamita.
I wondered how could Samorini possibly put this green mushroom cap into his amanita column?
I asked: does Samorini only have the black and white, and he’s just guessing?
Apparently Carl Ruck was guessing based on Samorini’s black and white article photographs, and he guessed wrong, and Hatsis caught Ruck on that color error.
Ruck puts far too much weight on the colors red and white – we need to do better than that.
Handedness (favoring {right limb}) and {branching vs. non-branching} themes are profoundly sophisticated and elegant descriptions of long-term multi-session mushroom effects, a relevant type of evidence of mushroom imagery.
Thomas Hatsis’ pages show images of dancing man and dragon.
They’re not on the same article page from him.
I wouldn’t expect him to recognize the shared morphology of these images, as I have identified and fully explained.
I do not operate from a basis of being an entheogen scholar.
I operate from a basis of a theorist of mental model transformation, and then I enter into the field afterwards of entheogen scholarship to correct its blindnesses and errors.
Hatsis has the exact wrong inclination: he is inclined to give the text priority, and let the text dictate how he reads the image.
But the images are the primary thing, actually.
Ignore the text narrative storyline, and just look at the image, from a branching morphology point of view, and a handedness point of view.
If you think, with Jan Irvin and John Rush, that the St. Walburga tapestry refers in any way to Amanita, then you are – I’m sorry to have to deliver the bad diagnosis – a member of the Ardent Advocates.
RE Schultes
And the problem is much worse than just a single piece of art: by proxy, you are suffering from the delusion that all mushroom imagery in religious, mystical, and esoteric art is intended by the artist to force upon you a mushroom impression.
Panofsky’s sekrit 2nd letter to Wasson, published by Browns 2019
Panofsky’s sekrit 2nd letter to Wasson, published by Browns 2019
🍄🍄 You are suffering from the hallucinogen-induced delusion that sensible, moderate Dr. Brown warned against: 🍄 you’re suffering from seeing mushrooms everywhere. 🍄
🍄 Seek help: get professional 🍄 psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
To speed science forward at maximum velocity towards the heart of the Shadow and beyond through the black hole gate 🌌 I am mapping the core concepts categories of the Egodeath Theory to the main psychedelic effects questionnaires – all very Sciency. 😑
The focal items in the Egodeath theory are underlying mechanisms that produce resulting effects.
The Egodeath theory is a system of explanatory constructs to explain the resulting isolated effects. Or at least some of the effects.
The Egodeath theory’s Core Concepts catalog is a classification and inventory of concepts and explanatory constructs, not an inventory of raw individual psychedelic effects.
The altered states questionnaires list the effects; the Egodeath theory lists the causes or explanatory constructs to model and explain certain of those effects.
The Egodeath theory is not scoped to be a wide comprehensive inventory of all loose cognitive psilocybin effects.
The Egodeath theory Core Concepts are a selected subset of all loose cognitive psilocybin effects.
The scope of Josie Kins’ Cognitive Effects Database is a partial overlap with the Egodeath theory. https://effectindex.com
“Effect Index … is a resource dedicated to establishing the field offormalised subjective effect documentation. It is the home of the Subjective Effect Index (SEI), which contains 233 effect descriptions that exist to serve as a comprehensive map of all potential experiences that can occur under the influence of any class of psychoactive compound, particularly hallucinogens.”
I object: SEI jumbles two conflicting objectives. All psychoactives, vs. classic psychedelics.
The “effect” which is not usually spotted by a simple inventory of newbie effects is the transformation from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Conventional discussion talks in terms of predictions, immediate acute effects, then long-term outcome/ effects.
That’s not same as the mental model transformation during the altered state, from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Specialized Narrow Scope of the Egodeath Theory Concepts, Scope of Explanandum Domain
The Egodeath theory focuses only on classic psychedelics effects that relate to the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory explains:
The actual nature of ego transcendence.
The concept of tight cognitive vs. loose cognitive binding.
Mental model transformation in the loosecog state.
The concept of the personal control system, the contrast between the possibilism vs eternalism mental world models.
How mythology describes by analogy the experiences of the altered state, and the transformative experiences trajectory, not merely the isolated effects.
The Egodeath theory focuses only on Psilocybin; classic psychedelic effects, only.
The range of beginner unity consciousness effects is not an interest/ explanatory domain of the Egodeath theory, except to contrast beginners’ “ego dissolution” vs. advanced control-transgression/ “ego death”/ the mental worldmodel transformation process from possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Dittrich sought to identify categories of altered-state effects across different ways of inducing altered states.
The Egodeath theory only covers classic psychedelics’ effects, and doesn’t cover all psychedelics effects, but only the most profound transformation effects.
The Egodeath theory is not equally interested in all psychedelic effects. The Egodeath theory is more a model of Transcendent Knowledge than a model of psychedelics effects.
The Egodeath theory contains enough description of loosecog meta-perception to enable describing mental model transformation about control, time, and possibilities; to model personal control agency operating in a world.
Alleged non-drug mystic experiencing per Dittrich’s 1975 APZ inventory, or per meditation or hyperventilation, is not of interest to the Egodeath theory.
That’s a difference of motivation between the APZ/ OAV/ 5D/ 11 Factors questionnaire vs. the Egodeath theory.
Strassman’s HRS is more focused on specifically psychedelics effects, although ideally the focus should be limited to classic psychedelics.
SOCQ (including MEQ) is centered around a misrepresentation of alleged (imagined, fantasized) non-drug mystic-state experiences.
How All the Questionnaires’ Questions Fit into the Egodeath Theory’s Core Concepts Categories
Strategy
First, list all 300 questions from the 3 questionnaires, and for each question, write what sort of Egodeath theory core concept that is.
Stay loose at first; don’t assume I’m using the 13 Core Concepts page categories.
I’m not using just the 4 Categories in the Eternalism and Control Questionnaire (ECQ) (which were negative only, merely a a subset of the questionnaires’ inventories).
Start with the Core Concepts categories, then take the 300 effects questions and the categories from the 3 questionnaires (OAV, SOCQ, HRS), and place them within the Core Concepts categories.
Studerus (2010) retains all of Dittrich’s OAV (1994) questions, but gets rid of (or subdivides) Dittrich’s 3 dimensions/ categorization/ grouping scheme, and provides his own set of 11 Factors (question categories).
The Egodeath theory does the same – provides its own set of categories in which to place all of the OAV (1994) & SOCQ & HRS effects questions:
Experience of pure Being and pure awareness (beyond the world of sense impressions).
Experience of repulsive biological material.
Experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole. eternalism
Experience of the insight that “all is One”. eternalism
Experience of timelessness. eternalism
Experience of unity with ultimate reality.
Experiences of intense pressures on various parts of your body.
Eyes open visual field vibrating or jiggling.
Fear that you might lose your mind or go insane. loosecog, non-control
Feel as if moving falling flying through space .
Feel body shake or tremble. n/a
Feel isolated from people and things.
Feel like laughing. n/a, loose cog
Feel of oneness with universe. eternalism
Feel presence of a numinous force, higher power, God.
Feel reborn. mental model transformation
Feel removed detached separated from body.
Feeling of being rejected or unwanted.
Feeling of disintegration, falling apart. loosecog mental model transformation
Feeling that it would be difficult to communicate your own experience to others who have not had similar experiences. mental model transformation
Feeling that people were plotting against you.
Feeling that the consciousness experienced during part of the session was more real than your normal awareness of everyday reality.
Feeling that you could not do justice to your experience by describing it in words.
Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.
Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy.
Feeling that you have been “outside of” history in a realm where time does not exist.
Feelings of anger or aggression.
Feelings of despair.
Feelings of exaltation.
Feelings of grief.
Feelings of guilt.
Feelings of joy.
Feelings of peace and tranquility.
Feelings of tenderness and gentleness.
Feelings of universal or infinite love.
Flushed.
Freedom from the limitations of your personal self and feeling a unity or bond with what was felt to be greater than your personal self.
Frightened. non-control
From an initially diffuse noise, which I could not identify as real, clear rings and tones evolved.
Frustrating attempt to control the experience. noncontrol
Gain of insightful knowledge experienced at an intuitive level.
Heard something faintly that I could not identify. mental model transformation
How soon would you like to repeat the experience?
I could see images from my memory or imagination with extreme clarity.
I could see pictures from my past or fantasy extremely clearly.
I enjoyed boundless pleasure. n/a
I experienced a kind of awe. mental model transformation
I experienced a kind of awe. n/a
I experienced a profound peace in myself. mental model transformation
I experienced a touch of eternity. eternalism
I experienced an all-embracing love. eternalism
I experienced boundless pleasure.
I experienced everything as frighteningly distorted. meta perception
I experienced everything terrifyingly distorted. loosecog
I experienced my surroundings as strange and weird.
I experienced past, present and future as an oneness. eternalism
I experienced profound inner peace.
I experienced unbearable emptiness. suspension of egoic agency
I felt anxious.
I felt as if dark forces had overtaken me.
I felt as if I no longer had a body.
I felt as if I was floating.
I felt as if I was half-asleep.
I felt as if I were paralyzed. non-control
I felt as though I were floating.
I felt as though I were paralyzed. noncontrol
I felt connected to a higher power.
I felt drowsy. n/a
I felt drunk.
I felt exhausted.
I felt extraordinary powers within myself. 2 levels of control, control agency
I felt high.
I felt I was about to fall asleep.
I felt I was being transformed forever in a miraculous way.
I felt incapable of making even the smallest decision. the personal control system, personal control agency
I felt isolated from everything and everyone.
I felt like a puppet or marionette. noncontrol
I felt like I do shortly before falling asleep.
I felt numb. n/a
I felt one with my surroundings. spatial block-universe eternalism
I felt sleepy.
I felt that I was in a wonderful other world. mental model transformation
I felt that I was on the verge of unconsciousness.
I felt threatened. control transformation; noncontrol
I felt tormented.
I felt totally free and released from all obligations.
I felt very profound. mental model transformation
I gained clarity into connections that puzzled me before. mental model transformation
I had difficulties in distinguishing important from unimportant. mental model transformation
I had difficulty in distinguishing important from unimportant things. n/a
I had difficulty making even the smallest decision. control agency
I had feelings of unreality. mental model transformation
I had insights into connections that had previously puzzled me. mental model transformation
I had suspicious ideas or the belief that others were against me. control vortex
I had the feeling of being connected to a superior power. levels of control
I had the feeling of being outside of my body. mental model transformation, eternalism
I had the feeling something horrible would happen. noncontrol
I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own. levels of control
I had the feeling that I no longer had my own will. non-control
I had the feeling that something terrible was going to happen. control loss/ transgression
I had the idea that events, objects, or other people had particular meaning that was specific for me.
I had the impression I was out of my body.
I had very original thoughts. mental model transformation
I heard a ticking, knocking, ringing, or rattling without being able to recognize the cause.
I heard complete sentences without knowing where they came from. source of control thoughts
I heard diffuse noises without knowing where they came from.
I heard music without knowing where it came from. source of thoughts
I heard my thoughts as if I had spoken them out loud.
I heard rings and tones without knowing where they came from.
I heard single words without knowing where they came from.
I heard something like a buzzing, swooshing, or humming without recognizing the cause.
I heard voices or sounds that were not real.
I heard voices that did not come from the surroundings as usual.
I perceived everything as blurry, as if through a kind of fog.
I saw brightness or flashes of light with closed eyes or in complete darkness. meta perception, loose cognition
I saw colors before me in total darkness or with closed eyes.
I saw colors with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
I saw lights or flashes of light in total darkness or with closed eyes.
I saw regular patterns in complete darkness or with closed eyes.
I saw regular patterns with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
I saw scenes rolling by in total darkness or with my eyes closed. metaperception, loosecog
I saw things I knew were not real.
I saw whole scenes roll by with closed eyes or in complete darkness. meta perception, loose cognition
I stayed frozen in an very unnatural position for an extended period of time. personal control agency
I was able to remember certain events with exceeding clarity. meta perception, loose cog
I was afraid of losing control over myself. non-control
I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever. eternalism
I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.
I was not able to complete a thought, my thought repeatedly became disconnected.
I was not able to complete a thought; my thoughts repeatedly became disconnected.
I was scared without knowing exactly why. threat of loss of control
In control. the personal control system
Insights into personal or occupational concerns.
Intensity.
Intuitive insight into the inner nature of objects and/or persons in your surroundings.
It seemed to me as though I did not have a body anymore. mental model, personal control agency
It seemed to me that my environment and I were one. eternalism, mental model transformation
It was difficult to control my thoughts. noncontrol
Kaleidoscopic nature of visual images. meta percption, loose cog
Like the experience.
Loss of feelings of difference between yourself and objects or persons in your surroundings.
Loss of usual awareness of where you were.
Loss of your usual identity. the personal control system
Loss of your usual sense of space. eternalism
Loss of your usual sense of time. eternalism
Many things appeared to me as breathtakingly beautiful.
Many things seemed incredibly funny to me.
Meaningless noises sounded like real words or phrases.
Movement within images. meta perdception, loose cognition
My body felt numb, lifeless, and/or alien.
My body or body parts seemed to change their shape or position.
My experience had religious aspects. levels of control
My imagination was extremely vivid. loose cog, meta perception, mental model transformation
My perception was blurred. loose cog, meta perception
My sense of time and space was altered as if I was dreaming. eternalism
My surroundings seemed to change in size, depth, or shape.
My thoughts and actions were slowed down.
New thoughts or insights.
Noises seemed to influence what I saw.
Objects around me engaged me emotionally much more than usual.
Objects in my surroundings engaged me emotionally much more than usual. mental model transformation
Physically restless.
Pressure or weight in chest or abdomen.
Profound experience of your own death. noncontrol
Room looks different.
Room overlaid with visual patterns.
Safe.
Sense of awe or awesomeness.
Sense of being “outside of” time, beyond past and future. eternalism
Sense of being at a spiritual height. meta perception
Sense of being separated from the normal world, as though you were enclosed in a thick, silent glass chamber.
Sense of being trapped and helpless. noncontrol
Sense of chaos. noncontrol
Sense of profound humility before the majesty of what was felt to be sacred or holy.
Sense of reverence. 2 levels of control
Sense of speed.
Sense of the limitations and smallness of your everyday personality in contrast to the Infinite.
Sense that in order to describe parts of your experience you would have to use statements that appear to be illogical, involving contradictions and paradoxes.
Sense that the experience cannot be described adequately in words.
Sexual feelings.
Shaky feelings inside.
Shapes seemed to be changed by sounds or noises.
Some everyday things acquired special meaning. systemic reindexing, mental model transformation
Sounds and noises were fainter than usual.
Sounds in room sound different.
Sounds seemed to influence what I saw.
The boundaries between myself and my surroundings seemed to blur.
The colors of things seemed to be altered by sounds or noises.
The colors of things seemed to be changed by sounds and noises.
The intensity of colors changed.
The intensity of sound changed.
The passing of time was altered.
The shapes of things seemed to change by sounds and noises.
The world seemed to me beyond good and evil.
There were sounds in the room that I feel were unlikely to have been real.
Things around me had a new strange meaning for me.
Things came to my mind that I thought long forgotten.
Things in my environment had a new strange meaning. mental model transformation, systemic re-indexing
Things in my surroundings appeared smaller or larger.
Thoughts and ideas flashing by very rapidly.
Time passed slowly in a tormenting way. eternalism
Urge to close eyes.
Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities.
Visual effects. meta perception, loose cognition
Visual images.
Waxing and waning of the experience.
White light.
With eyes open, seeing something in your surroundings more and more intensely and then feeling as though you and it become one.
Worries and anxieties of everyday life felt unimportant.
You are convinced now, as you look back on your experience, that in it you encountered ultimate reality (i.e. that you “knew” and “saw” what was really real).
OAV Categories of Psychedelic Effects
The OAV questionnaire’s 3 dimensions and how the Studerus 2010 11 Factors fit into the 3 dimensions.
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Experience of unity
Spiritual experience
Blissful state
Disembodiment
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED)
Impaired control and cognition (ICC) 👑☸️🌳 😱🐉🚪💎
Anxiety (ANX)
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
Changed meaning of perception
Audio-visual synesthesia
Complex imagery
Insightfulness
Elementary imagery
General altered state effects (G-ASC)
todo: list the non categ’d q’s from Fig S1 supplement: tree diagram, from Studerus 2010, to add in my 5D page a General category.
That might help map the Egodeath theory to the main questionnaires.
Dittrich Inflated the Ocean and Visionary Dimensions to Force them to Be as Big as the Anxiety/Dread Dimension
Dittrich in 1985 identified Ocean, Anxiety/Dread, and Visionary dimensions found in 1975’s APZ questionnaire, but found that: The Ocean & Visionary dimensions detected in APZ were relatively too small. The Anxiety/Dread dimension detected in APZ was relatively too big.
So in 1994, Dittrich released OAV that had more items to pad out (enlarge) the Ocean & Visionary dimensions.
But in 2010 Studerus found that now instead of only Anxiety/Dread being a bloated, over-broad, uselessly broad dimension/ category of effects, now all three O/A/V dimensions are uselessly broad, so Studerus:
broke up Ocean dimension questions into 4 factors: Experience of unity Spiritual experience Blissful state Disembodiment
broke up Anxiety/Dread dimension questions into 2 factors: Impaired control and cognition Anxiety
broke up Visionary dimension questions into 5 factors: Insightfulness Complex imagery Elementary imagery Audio-Visual Synesthesia Changed meaning of percepts
Dittrich 1985/1994: The 1994 OAV questionnaire fixes a problem with the 1975 APZ questionnaire: Given the large number of Dread (negative effects) questions, there needs to be a greater number of Oceanic & Visionary (positive effects) questions:
the OBN and VRS dimensions contained a relatively low number of items, and the conceptual breadth of the VRS dimension was considered too narrow.
… widening the conceptual breadth of the OBN [Oceanic Boundlessness] and VRS [Visionary Restructuralization] dimensions.
Whereas the OBN [Oceanic Boundlessness] dimension was changed toward a more complete assessment of mystical experiences by incorporating items that were formulated on the basis of six of the nine categories of mystical experiences proposed by Stace [20],
the VRS [Visionary Restructuralization] dimension was conceptually widened by incorporating items that measure an increase of imaginations, associations, and memory retrieval. The re-conceptualization of the VRS [Visionary Restructuralization] dimension was mainly driven by theoretical considerations of Leuner [22,23], who had hypothesized that visual hallucinations are associated with an increased internal stimulus production.
Studerus 2010 p. 2 right column top
Root Cause of Problem Has Been Identified: Walter Stace, 1960/1961, mysticism = all peace & light.
The one thing missing here is the outlines of so-called inventory of mystical experiencing, which probably like Charles Stang accused Roland Griffiths multiple times, fails to account for the negative mystical experiences.
Especially Stace 1961.
Supplement Figure S1, Studerus 2010 – “Unpleasant” on right replaced or characterizes the “Anxiety/Dread” dimension. “Pleasant” replaced or groups the “Ocean” and “Visionary” dimensions.
A better view of the 11 factors is page 9, figure 1 except that you need to move the “Insightfulness” factor down above “Complex Imagery” factor if you want to preserve the 3 O/A/V dimensions groupings. Ocean/ Anxiety/ Visionary.
Magic Math: now only 2/11 instead of 1/3 of psychedelic effects are classified as Here Be Dragons 🏥 🍽 🐉 “Unpleasant”
OAV 3 Dimensions: the above tree shows:
The topmost 2 Factors are within the OAV dimension “Dread of Ego Dissolution” (DED), those Factors are: Impaired control & cognition, & Anxiety.
The middle 5 Factors are within the OAV legacy dimension called “visionary restructuring”.
The bottom 4 Factors are within OAV’s “Oceanic Boundlessness” dimension.
CEQ article 2016 Griffiths – My critique of the Dionysus-free, Shadow-scrubbed final 26 psychedelic effects questions, after Griffiths’ Psychotherapy Marketing Dept. removed all the Control and Volition questions and replaced them by 6 duplicate redundant psychotherapy-paradigm Fear and Sad questions.
His psychometrics stats math proves that his masters should support his psychotherapy project.
I like how through trickery and sleight of hand in 2010, Studerus replaced the OAV’s 3 dimensions, one of which was considered “Unpleasant Experiencing”, and the other two are “Pleaseant Experiencing” by a set of 11 – most of them small – so-called “Factors”, so that now two of the 11 Factors are categorized as “unpleasant experiencing”
And this way, we have manufactured a bigger number, 9 out of 11 Factors are treated/ classified as “pleasant experiences”.
By this re-categorization sleight-of-hand of fabricating more-granular categories, and making sure that none of them are “negative”, we have magically increased from 2 out of 3 positive, to 9 out of 11 positive categories of psychedelic effects! 🎉
never mind that by far the biggest category is control loss. 7-8 q’s.
The second biggest Factor/ category is anxiety (6-8 q’s)
the third biggest Factor category is block universe “unity experiencing” (5-6 q’s)
Ocean, Anxiety/Dread, and Visionary work together/ conspire to drive transformation from egoic to transcendent thinking.
Bad Foundation Produces Pseudo Science of Psychedelic Psychometrics
These categs suck- no Volition, no Impaired Control.
No surprise, since SOCQ includes MEQ, Mystical Experiences Questionnaire.
Walter Stace’s 1961 massive false dichotomy, unscientific “inventory of mystic experiences” is the sand foundation for this Pseudo Science of Psychedelic Psychometrics.
Studerus 2010 p. 2 (context: OAV)
Proposes 11 dimensions for the OAV or 5D-ASC: Studerus E, Gamma A and Vollenweider FX (2010) Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/
What categ do these SOCQ q’s go in?:
66. Frustrating attempt to control the experience.
28. trapped and helpless
Walter Stace 1961 Categories of Mystical Experiences
The foundation of sand for Psychedelic Psychometric Science.
⌛️
Stace’s List of Mystical Effects Doesn’t Match the Reported Mystics’ Data Archive; Provides an Unscientific Basis for Questionnaires, Failing to Account for Challenging Experiences
Charles Stang & Cybermonk Refute that Stace’s List of Mystical Effects Matches the Scientific Archive Base of Data Reported by Mystics – Stace’s List Unscientifically Omits Challenging Experiences
Ocean of Dread Vision
One of Studerus’ categories of effects questions is ICC – Impaired Control and Cognition, which is the essence of the OAV legacy broad category/dimension, DED – Dread of Ego Dissolution.
Forget Studerus’ categories. Use the Egodeath theory’s categories of Core Concepts instead.
They say “we match the scientific(!) basis of our understanding of mysticism effects, provided by Walter Stace 1960/1961.”
Walter Stace 1961 = “the scientific data about what mystic effects are” and “we match that scientific data”.
But the FACTS/reality of mystic effects contradict Griffiths & Studerus’ EXPECTATIONS and presumptions about mystic effects – not the “scientific facts about the nature and character of mystic effects per Stace”.
Stace’s list of mystic effects is given as an example of “the scientific literature on the psychology of religion”:
High scores on the OBN [Oceanic Boundlessness] scale therefore indicate a state similar to mystical experiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion (eg, see [20]).
20. Stace WT (1961) Mysticism and philosophy. London, England: Macmillan.
Studerus 2010 p. 2 left column 2/3 down
I keep seeing the name Walter Stace 1961, though there are other lists of mystical effects, but Stace’s list seems to be the soggy foundation that these questionnaires are using to define what they imagine & fantasize mystical effects to be.
Stace’s foundation for the Science of Psychedelic Psychometrics:
🦄💨🌈
Griffiths’ model fails to match the gathered scientific base of mystics’ reported data, says Professor Stang.
This questionnaire selects and groups the key phrases that describe experiencing eternalism and its control-transformation aspects that are reported by the 5D-ASC, SOCQ, HRS, & EDI (Ego Dissolution Inventory) psychedelic effects questionnaires.
Dimensions/ Scales/ Factors
Block-Universe Eternalism (Time) [12 items]
Experience of timelessness.
Feeling that you have been “outside of” history in a realm where time does not exist.
I experienced a touch of eternity.
I experienced past, present, and future as a oneness.
Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.
Loss of your usual sense of time.
Sense of being “outside of” time, beyond past and future.
My sense of time and space was altered as if I was dreaming.
Time passed slowly in a tormenting way.
Change in rate of time passing.
My thoughts and actions were slowed down.
The passing of time was altered.
Block-Universe Spatial Unity [17 items]
I felt that I was in a wonderful other world.
Everything seemed to unify into a oneness.
Feel of oneness with universe.
Experience of the insight that “all is One”.
I felt at one with the universe
Experience of oneness or unity with objects and/or persons perceived in your surroundings.
Loss of your usual sense of space.
Experience of oneness in relation to an “inner world” within.
I felt a sense of union with others
The boundaries between myself and my surroundings seemed to blur.
I felt one with my surroundings.
Freedom from the limitations of your personal self and feeling a unity or bond with what was felt to be greater than your personal self.
Experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole.
Experience of unity with ultimate reality.
Experiences of intense pressures on various parts of your body.
I felt as if I no longer had a body.
It seemed to me as though I did not have a body anymore.
Non-Control, Egoic Agency Suspension [22 items]
It was difficult to control my thoughts.
Frustrating attempt to control the experience.
I had the feeling that I no longer had my own will.
I had the feeling that I no longer had a will of my own.
Feel presence of a numinous force, higher power, God.
I felt connected to a higher power.
I had the feeling of being connected to a superior power.
I felt incapable of making even the smallest decision.
I had difficulty making even the smallest decision.
In control. [scale]
Experience of confusion, disorientation and/or chaos.
I lost all sense of ego.
Change in strength of sense of self.
I experienced a dissolution of my “self” or ego.
I experienced a disintegration of my “self” or ego.
Sense of profound humility before the majesty of what was felt to be sacred or holy.
All notion of self and identity dissolved away.
Loss of your usual identity.
I felt extraordinary powers within myself.
Able to “let go”.
I heard complete sentences without knowing where they came from.
A voice commented on everything I thought although no one was there.
Threat of Loss of Control [20 items]
I had the feeling that something terrible was going to happen.
I had the feeling something horrible would happen.
I was afraid of losing control over myself.
I was afraid to lose my self-control.
Sense of being trapped and helpless.
I felt threatened.
I felt as if dark forces had overtaken me.
I felt like a puppet or marionette.
I felt like a marionette.
I felt as if I were paralyzed.
I felt surrendered to dark powers.
I was scared without knowing exactly why.
I was afraid without being able to say exactly why.
Feeling that people were plotting against you.
I had suspicious ideas or the belief that others were against me.
Experience of fear.
I felt tormented.
I felt anxious.
Frightened.
Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities.
Control Model Transformation [26 items]
I felt I was being transformed forever in a miraculous way.
I had very original thoughts.
Able to focus attention.
I felt very profound.
I had insights into connections that had previously puzzled me.
I gained clarity into connections that puzzled me before.
New thoughts or insights.
My imagination was extremely vivid.
Gain of insightful knowledge experienced at an intuitive level.
Some everyday things acquired special meaning.
Things in my environment had a new strange meaning.
Things around me had a new strange meaning for me.
Feel reborn.
Profound experience of your own death.
Feelings of grief.
Feeling of being rejected or unwanted.
Excited.
Difference in feeling of reality of experiences compared to everyday experience.
Feeling that the consciousness experienced during part of the session was more real than your normal awareness of everyday reality.
I had feelings of unreality.
I experienced my surroundings as strange and weird.
The world seemed to me beyond good and evil.
Change in sense of sanity.
Fear that you might lose your mind or go insane.
I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever.
My experience had religious aspects to it.
Objectives of the ECQ
The Eternalism and Control Questionnaire (ECQ) directly addresses the peak challenging experience for safety.
Research that’s informed by the ECQ will provide the greatest number of successful transformation experiences, while minimizing turmoil.
A major, distinctive reported challenging effect of psilocybin is the experience of eternalism and control-model transformation, as the Eternalism and Control Questionnaire demonstrates and highlights.
This questionnaire research enables people to freely use psilocybin while having viable stable control that is compatible with the psilocybin eternalism state of consciousness.
Key Phrases Describing Experiencing Eternalism and Its Control Transformation Aspects
The Eternalism and Control Questionnaire highlights phrases of the standard questionnaire items that describe the experience of eternalism and control transformation.
This questionnaire collects and groups key phrases that describe experiencing eternalism and its control-transformation aspects.
The shadow is usefully identified by the ECQ and the Egodeath theory as: the control-threat that’s posed by the experience of eternalism during mental model transformation in the loose cognitive association state from psilocybin.
The Egodeath theory is corroborated by its match with these eternalism and control effects that are reported by these questionnaire items.
{king steering in tree} {stand left leg} {see dragon snake monster} {guarded gate} {stand right leg} {snake frozen in rock} {treasure fruit immortality} {pass in and out} {prize}
Effects Categories Matched
The coverage provided by the ECQ and its categories of eternalism and control effects is approximately equivalent to these 5D-ASC categories:
Experience of unity
Spiritual experience
Anxiety
Impaired control and cognition
Insightfulness
The coverage provided by the ECQ includes selected items in all of the 5D-ASC top-level categories:
Oceanic boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Dread of ego dissolution (DED); anxious ego-dissolution (AED)
Visionary restructuralization (VR, VRS)
That’s an example of Domain Dynamics:
Visionary restructuralization is involved in control transformation.
Visionary restructuralization is mental model transformation in the loose cognitive state, and elevated awareness able to perceive cognition, which helps drive control-model transformation.
Visionary restructuralization is involved in the eternalism experiential state, driving control mental model transformation.
The three dimensions that are defined in the OAV inventory of psychedelic effects are oceanic boundlessness, dread of ego dissolution, & visionary restructuralization.
History of Dimensions: APZ, OAV, 5D-ASC, 11 Factors
APZ: 0 – 1975
OAV: 3 – 1994 (identified in 1985)
5D-ASC: 5 – 2006 – keeps the OAV 3, adds 2 supp’l unused dimensions.
11 Factors: 11 – 2010 – they replace & fit within the OAV 3 dimensions.
The main 3 of the 5 dimensions which are defined in Dittrich’s v2 of APZ, OAV (1994, identified in 1985): oceanic boundlessness, dread of ego dissolution, & visionary restructuralization.
The name “OAV” indicates that here is when Dittrich defined the main 3 dimensions (along with General): O, A, V = OB, AEA (DED), VR.
APZ (1975) used 0 categories.
OAV (1994) used 3 dimensions (identified in 1985): oceanic boundlessness, dread of ego dissolution, visionary restructuralization.
5D-ASC (2006) added two rarely used dimensions (auditory alterations, reduction of vigilance).
Studerus 2010 replaced the 3 main broad dimensions by more granular breakout of those 3 main dimensions to 11 more granular dimensions.
Oceanic boundlessness, dread of ego dissolution, & visionary restructuralization fit together and work all together to transform from naive possibilism-thinking to eternalism-thinking.
Egoic control agency is tested and experimented with by the God-mode mind, by combining oceanic boundlessness, dread of ego dissolution, and visionary restructuralization, working together toward the specific end, of transforming the mental model to be imperishable, no longer subject to that type of control-collapse.
Visionary restructuralization – control transformation mental model transferring control reliance onto a different foundation/ source.
Questionnaires Used
This questionnaire includes effects questions from these main psychedelics questionnaires:
Five-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness (5D-ASC)
Hallucinogen Rating Scale (HRS)
States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ)
… Mystical Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ)
Ego Dissolution Inventory (EDI)
The ECQ questionnaire proves that the Egodeath theory (psychedelic eternalism) successfully explains the most important of the challenging effects – the shadow (dragon monster).
The ECQ questionnaire together with the Egodeath theory is essential for understanding the nature of the most interesting risk of psychedelics, the experience of threat of loss of control while transforming thinking.
Relation Between ECQ, the Main Psychedelic Questionnaires, and the Egodeath Theory
The ECQ bridges the standard psychedelic questionnaires with the Egodeath theory.
Designing the Eternalism and Control Questionnaire (ECQ)
The Egodeath theory here defines a new subset-based questionnaire comparable to the Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), by selecting psychedelic effects questions from the main standard questionnaires: the Eternalism and Control Questionnaire (ECQ).
This ECQ questionnaire lists and groups the eternalism and control-transformation effects that are in the psychedelics effects questionnaires.
Strategy for further grouping into categories per the Egodeath theory – check the 1997 outline topic categories, and the topic categories in the Core Concepts page.
The ECQ is presently missing some questions from some of the main questionnaires, which are surprisingly hard to find.
See my per-questionnaire posts to identify the item numbers and name of which questionnaire each effect item is from.
The Inadequacy of the CEQ
The Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) is inadequate and doesn’t deliver on its stated strategic coverage of all of the reported negative experiences.
When the Initial Pool of 64 questions was reduced to the final set of 26 questions, all of the control-loss related questions were removed, leaving the peak challenging experience without any coverage.
The CEQ doesn’t discuss the decision to remove the control-loss questions; this selection process is undocumented.
The main objective of the CEQ wasn’t met: to provide a superset of the scope of challenging effects that are covered by the main questionnaires.
The main questionnaires cover an important negative effect that the CEQ removes from their scope of coverage: control-loss problems.
The CEQ isn’t driven by a comprehension of eternalism including control challenges, but the Eternalism and Control Questionnaire is.
The ECQ covers control-loss effects as its focus together with experiencing eternalism – providing a better treatment of these effects than the SOCQ, HRS, and 5D-ASC.
The ECQ provides the safety coverage and framework of comprehension to effectively provide the coverage which CEQ Initial Pool had but the final CEQ lacks and declined to cover.
Charles Stang’s assertion stands, despite the CEQ. Roland Griffiths claims to match negative as well as positive mystic experiencing effects, but upon examination of the 26 final items vs. the 64 Initial Pool items, the CEQ delivers woefully inadequate coverage of major, common, quintessential psychedelic effects, of non-control challenges during transformation of control agency.
Researchers need to continue using DED (dread of ego dissolution), ICC (impaired control and cognition), and now this ECQ, because the CEQ has a fatal gap in coverage of negative effects, that the main instruments cover.
The CEQ claims to deliver a superset of the main instruments’ negative effects coverage, but it’s actually only a partial overlap.
The CEQ fails to provide the complete coverage that it claims, and so – by its own argument – it leaves risky challenges without coverage or acknowledgement, suppressing the shadow, failing to acknowledge the commonplace experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control while transforming to the eternalism mental world model.
At the same time CEQ added Depression, claiming complete coverage, then they shrank to exclude all ICC control-related problems, so that the CEQ fails to do what it claims: provide full coverage of the negative, challenging effects that are actually reported by mystics and by the main questionnaires.
We cannot remove control-loss questions even if we add psychotherapy-conformant depression questions to the previous questionnaires.
Why is CEQ removing coverage of control-loss questions, instead of providing the superset of coverage that they claimed motivated the creation of the CEQ?
Control-loss effects need to be recognized and understood, as they are by the ECQ.
Mental World Model Transformation and Control Transformation
The guarded gate is between Saturn and the sphere of the fixed stars, represented by the zodiac.morphology match identified by Cybermonk Dec. 24 2022, a.m. 🍄🎄Photo: Cybermonk
Keywords for the Egodeath theory highlighted by Cybermonk – key words about experiencing eternalism and its control aspects.
News flash update: Jan 13, 2023:
Griffiths didn’t pick item “It was difficult to control my thoughts.” !!
HOW COULD YOU RECKON THAT THE EFFECT “It was difficult to control my thoughts” IS NOT CHALLENGING — even though it says “IT WAS DIFFICULT“?
So I am now adding notes from CEQ article’s HRS section of “Initial Item Pool” (Apx 2) to here: item numbers and WHICH QUESTIONS GRIFFITHS OMITTED AS “NOT POTENTIALLY CHALLENGING”.
Bizarre Omissions from CEQ Initial Item Pool
It was difficult to control my thoughts. CEQ: “not challenging” (!!) really?
I had suspicious ideas or the belief that others were against me. CEQ: “not challenging” (!) really?
Given that Griffiths struggled mightily with their flawed and broken category “Paranoia” that they warn people not to use, why didn’t they pad out their broken Paranoia CEQ factor (category) by adding this HRS question?
Griffiths demonstrates great enthusiasm for padding out their other fabricated pseudo-“categories” by 3 dups of the identical same single effect, “felt isolated” AND “feel isolated” AND “feeling of isolation” –> yay, its a 3-item category! 🤗
Answer/hypothesis: b/c they didn’t add their 7th, Paranoia factor until the last minute, seat of the pants method, out-of-band; see that Paranoia Bunk Factor paragraph in CEQ article Griffiths 2016, p. 13:
“An accepted clinical definition of “paranoia” is “unfounded fears that others intend harm to the individual” (Freeman et al., 2015).
“While one item of the paranoia scale of the CEQ is consistent with this definition (“feeling that people were plotting against you”), the other (“experience of antagonism toward people around you”), while likely related, is not closely consistent with this definition.
“Thus, the CEQ paranoia scale may be viewed as a crude measure of the clinical construct of “paranoia”, and the external validity of the paranoia scale may be somewhat restricted by this limitation.”
Change in strength of sense of self. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
Feel presence of a numinous force, higher power, God. CEQ: “not challenging” – really? subjection to higher power isn’t challenging?
I had feelings of unreality. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
Change in rate of thinking. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
I heard voices or sounds that were not real. CEQ: “not challenging” really?
Change in effort of breathing CEQ: “not challenging” – really? having to effortfully breathe isn’t challenging?
The 99 Effects Questions
find “really?” below:
My body or body parts seemed to change their shape or position. CEQ: “not challenging”
My surroundings seemed to change in size, depth, or shape. CEQ: “not challenging”
The passing of time was altered. CEQ: “not challenging”
I had feelings of unreality. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
It was difficult to control my thoughts. CEQ: “not challenging” (!!) really?
The intensity of colors changed. CEQ: “not challenging”
The intensity of sound changed. CEQ: “not challenging”
I heard voices or sounds that were not real. CEQ: “not challenging” really?
I had the idea that events, objects, or other people had particular meaning that was specific for me. CEQ: “not challenging”
I had suspicious ideas or the belief that others were against me. CEQ: “not challenging” (!) really?
I felt high. CEQ: “not challenging”
I felt drowsy. CEQ: “not challenging”
25. I felt anxious. CEQ Initial Item Pool
A rush CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in salivation CEQ: “not challenging”
Body feels different CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in sense of body weight CEQ: “not challenging”
Feel as if moving falling flying through space CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in body temperature CEQ: “not challenging”
Electric /tingling feeling CEQ: “not challenging”
9. Pressure or weight in chest or abdomen CEQ Initial Item Pool
10. Shaky feelings inside CEQ Initial Item Pool
11. Feel body shake or tremble CEQ Initial Item Pool
16. Physically restless CEQ Initial Item Pool
Sexual feelings CEQ: “not challenging”
21. Feel removed, detached, separated from body CEQ Initial Item Pool
25. Anxious again: CEQ Initial Item Pool
26. Frightened CEQ Initial Item Pool
Feel like laughing CEQ: “not challenging”
Excited CEQ: “not challenging”
Awe, Amazement CEQ: “not challenging”
Safe CEQ: “not challenging”
Feel presence of a numinous force, higher power, God. CEQ: “not challenging” – really? subjection to higher power isn’t challenging?
Euphoria CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in feelings of closeness to people in room. CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in “amount” of emotions. CEQ: “not challenging”
Emotions seem different than usual CEQ: “not challenging”
Feel of oneness with universe CEQ: “not challenging”
44. Feel isolated from people and things CEQ Initial Item Pool
Feel reborn CEQ: “not challenging”
Like the experience CEQ: “not challenging”
48. How soon would you like to repeat the experience CEQ Initial Item Pool
Desire for the experience regularly CEQ: “not challenging”
Flushed CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in skin sensitivity CEQ: “not challenging”
A sound or sounds accompanying the experience CEQ: “not challenging”
Sounds in room sound different CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in distinctiveness of sounds CEQ: “not challenging”
Visual effects CEQ: “not challenging”
Room looks different CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in brightness of objects in room. CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in visual distinctiveness of objects in room CEQ: “not challenging”
Room overlaid with visual patterns CEQ: “not challenging”
Eyes open visual field vibrating or jiggling. CEQ: “not challenging”
Visual images. CEQ: “not challenging”
Kaleidoscopic nature of visual images. CEQ: “not challenging”
Difference in brightness of visions compared to usual daylight vision. CEQ: “not challenging”
Dimensionality of images. CEQ: “not challenging”
Movement within images. CEQ: “not challenging”
White light CEQ: “not challenging”
Sense of speed CEQ: “not challenging”
74. Contradictory feelings at the same time CEQ Initial Item Pool
75. Sense of chaos CEQ Initial Item Pool
Change in strength of sense of self. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
New thoughts or insights CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in rate of thinking. CEQ: “not challenging” – really?
Change in quality of thinking CEQ: “not challenging”
Difference in feeling of reality of experiences compared to everyday experience. CEQ: “not challenging”
Dreamlike nature of the experiences. CEQ: “not challenging”
Insights into personal or occupational concerns. CEQ: “not challenging”
Change in rate of time passing. CEQ: “not challenging”
88. Change in sense of sanity. CEQ Initial Item Pool
89. Urge to close eyes CEQ Initial Item Pool – why?
Change in effort of breathing CEQ: “not challenging” – really? having to effortfully breathe isn’t challenging?
Able to follow the sequence of events CEQ: “not challenging”
Able to “let go” CEQ: “not challenging”
Able to focus attention CEQ: “not challenging”
94. In control CEQ Initial Item Pool
Able to move around if asked to CEQ: “not challenging”
96. Able to remind yourself of being in a clinical room, being administered a drug, the temporary nature of the experience. CEQ Initial Item Pool
Amount of time between when the drug was administered and feeling an effect. (Put time)
Waxing and waning of the experience. CEQ: “not challenging”
“Originally developed to quantify acute effects of synthetic dimethyltryptamine (DMT), the Hallucinogen Rating Scale has become a frequently used instrument in the assessment of hallucinogen induced ASCs.
“Characteristic effects of hallucinogenic substances are covered by a collection of 100 items conceptually distinct in six distinct dimensions:”
Somaesthesia
“Interoceptive, visceral, and cutaneous/tactile effects
The faculty of being sensitive to stimuli originated inside the body (e.g. Urge to urinate; Urge to move bowels; Sexual feelings) “18. Urge to urinate” is in CEQ Initial Item Pool, “19. … bowels” is in CEQ Initial Item Pool
Affect
“Emotional as well as affective responses (e.g.
Feel like laughing;
Feel presence of numinous force, higher power, God;
Awe, amazement).
Perception
“Changes in the process of perceiving.
Alterations in the ordinary visual, auditory, gustatory, and olfactory experiences (e.g. Change in visual distinctness of objects in room;
Visual synesthesia (“seeing” sound or other non-visual perception);
Kaleidoscopic nature of images/ visions/ hallucinations).
Cognition
“Alterations in thought processes or content (e.g.
Sense of chaos;
Memories of childhood;
Change in rate of thinking).
Volition
“Changes in the interactive capacity such as
the faculty of making deliberate choices or decisions.
Alterations in the ability to willfully interact can be addressed to themselves, the environment, or certain aspects of the experience (e.g.
Able to focus attention;
Able to remind yourself of being in a research room, being administered a drug,
the temporary nature of the experience;
Able to follow the sequence of effects).
Intensity
The overall strength and the course of the experience (e.g. Waxing and waning of the experience; Intensity; High).
List of Categories
The HRS has these subscales:
intensity
somaesthesia
affect
perception
cognition
volition
Defines 11 subscales instead of the 3 OAV or 5 5D categories:
There are only 83 items from the spreadsheet I found, where are the others to make 99 total? 16 are missing. These questions are sure unclear and choppy.
Really strange choppy wording of some items. Poorly written, inarticulate.
A non-numbered list, try find better format: (CEQ article gives numbers for the Initial Pool’s HRS q’s)
SOCQ includes Walter Pahnke’s Good Friday Experiment’s Mystical Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ).
References
Pahnke, W. N. Drugs and Mysticism. International Journal of Parapsychology8, 295–314 (1966).
Pahnke, W. N. Drugs and mysticism: An analysis of the relationship between psychedelic drugs and the mystical consciousness. Harvard University Press, 1963
Sorted by number is available in “Supplement4_PES_English-and-German.docx”.
Complete, from Stocker “Supplement3_PES_Factors_Themes.xls“:
THE PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCE SCALE (PES100): OVERVIEW FACTORS AND THEMES
MYSTICAL — INTERNAL UNITY
12. Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.
35. Freedom from the limitations of your personal self and feeling a unity or bond with what was felt to be greater than your personal self.
41. Experience of pure being and pure awareness (beyond the world of sense impressions).
54. Experience of oneness in relation to an “inner world” within.
77. Experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole.
83. Experience of unity with ultimate reality.
MYSTICAL — EXTERNAL UNITY
14. Experience of oneness or unity with objects and/or persons perceived in your surroundings.
47. Experience of the insight that “all is One”.
74. Awareness of the life or living presence in all things.
MYSTICAL — NOETIC QUALITY
9. Gain of insightful knowledge experienced at an intuitive level.
22. Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality (in the sense of being able to “know” and “see” what is really real) at some time during your experience.
69. You are convinced now, as you look back on your experience, that in it you encountered ultimate reality (i.e., that you “knew” and “saw” what was really real).
MYSTICAL — SACREDNESS
36. Sense of being at a spiritual height.
55. Sense of reverence.
73. Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy.
POSITIVE MOOD
5. Experience of amazement.
18. Feelings of tenderness and gentleness.
30. Feelings of peace and tranquility.
43. Experience of ecstasy.
80. Sense of awe or awesomeness.
87. Feelings of joy.
TRANSCENDENCE OF TIME AND SPACE
2. Loss of your usual sense of time.
15. Loss of your usual sense of space.
29. Loss of usual awareness of where you were.
34. Sense of being “outside of” time, beyond past and future.
48. Being in a realm with no space boundaries.
65. Experience of timelessness.
INEFFABILITY
6. Sense that the experience cannot be described adequately in words.
23. Feeling that you could not do justice to your experience by describing it in words.
86. Feeling that it would be difficult to communicate your own experience to others who have not had similar experiences.
PARADOXICALITY
19. Experience of a paradoxical awareness that two apparently opposite principles or situations are both true.
26. Loss of your usual identity.
42. Feeling that you were “outside of” history in a realm where time does not exist.
51. Loss of feelings of difference between yourself and objects or persons in your surroundings.
59. Sense that in order to describe parts of your experience you would have to use statements that appear to be illogical, involving contradictions and paradoxes.
CONNECTEDNESS
58. Increase in the beauty and significance of music. [Connected to beauty]
60. Feelings of universal or infinite love. [Connected to spiritual principle]
62. Intuitive insight into the inner nature of objects and/or persons in your surroundings. [Connected to others and/or the world]
95. Experience of increased awareness of beauty. [Connected to beauty]
99. Increased awareness of the importance of interpersonal relationships. [Connected to others]
VISUAL EXPERIENCE
1. Visions of abstract geometric patterns of colored lines.
17. Visions of art objects (e.g. mosaics, statues, jewelry, buildings) that reflect expert craftsmanship.
38. With open eyes, seeing objects around you turn into great works of art.
DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE
13. Emotional and/or physical suffering.
16. Feelings of despair.
28. Sense of being trapped and helpless.
45. Experience of isolation and loneliness.
52. Experience of fear.
Personal/Transpersonal Transition
70. Profound experience of your own death.
84. Feeling of disintegration, falling apart.
85. Fear that you might lose your mind or go insane.
Personal/Transpersonal Post-Transition
25. Experience of radiant, golden light.
67. Visions of brilliant white light.
100. Feeling of being reborn.
MORE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: Nonordinary Consciousness More Real Than Ordinary Consciousness
3. Feeling that the consciousness experienced during part of the session was more real than your normal awareness of everyday reality.
MORE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: Humility
8. Sense of the limitations and smallness of your everyday personality in contrast to the Infinite.
31. Sense of profound humility before the majesty of what was felt to be sacred or holy.
MORE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: Dynamically Unfolding Extrovertive Mystical Experience
27. With eyes open, seeing something in your surroundings more and more intensely and then feeling as though you and it become one.
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE (at times possibly also only “sensed” rather than actually “seen”):
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Out-of-Body/Detached-Perspective-Point Experience
53. Sense of being outside your body.
68. Experience of exploring organs, tissues or cells of your own body.
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Archetypes/Entities
37. Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities.
49. Visions of angels, cherubim or seraphim.
56. Visions of blissful or compassionate deities.
71. Visions of beautiful jewels and precious stones.
82. Visions of events in the life of Christ (e.g. birth, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.).
96. Vision of a religious Personage (e.g. Moses, Christ, Buddha, etc.).
97. Visions of landscapes (e.g. oceans, mountains, deserts, etc.).
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Age Regression
20. Sense of decreasing in body size to infancy or early childhood.
33. Convincing feeling that you relived experiences that you had as an infant during your biological birth.
92. Reliving of sensations and feelings associated with past surgery, illness or accidents
98. Reliving of situations and events from your childhood.
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Travel or Contact With the Past
7. Sense of passing through stages in evolution.
75. Convincing feeling of contact with people who have died.
81. Convincing experiences of life in civilizations that existed in another time and/or place (e.g. Ancient Egypt or Rome, Renaissance France, Colonial America, etc.).
90. Convincing feelings of reliving part of another life prior to your birth (a previous incarnation).
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Transformation Into An Animal
94. Sense of becoming a specific animal and feeling like that animal.”
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Sexual Organs
11. Visions of sexual organs (genitals, breasts).
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Extrasensory Perception
46. Convincing feeling that you obtained information about people or events in an extrasensory manner (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.).
MORE VISUAL EXPERIENCE: Repulsive Material
39. Experience of repulsive biological material (urine, feces, pus, dead flesh, etc).
MORE DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE: Confrontation with Emotions
4. Feelings of anger or aggression.
57. Feeling of being rejected or unwanted.
88. Feelings of guilt.
91. Feelings of grief.”
MORE DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE: Paranoia
40. Feeling that people were plotting against you.
72. Experience of antagonism toward your guide or assistant guide.
MORE DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE: Separated From The World
76. Sense of being separated from the normal world, as though you were enclosed in a silent glass chamber with thick walls.
MORE DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE: Meaninglessness/Absurdity of Life
61. Experience of meaninglessness and absurdity of life.
MORE DISTRESSING EXPERIENCE: Physical distress
89. Experiences of intense pressures on various parts of your body.
TRIPARTITE MIND (COGNITION/AFFECT/CONATION) MISCELLANEOUS EXPERIENCE:
TRIPARTITE MIND: Cognition: Cognitive excellence
32. Feeling that you could think with an unusually high degree of sharpness and clarity.
79. Feeling of being extremely sensitive to fine nuances of meaning between different words.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Cognition: Rapid Thought
44. Thoughts and ideas flashing by very rapidly.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Cognition: Delusion of Grandeur
24. Feelings of being more important than other people and having a very important task to accomplish.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Cognition: Impaired Cognition
21. Experience of confusion, disorientation and/or chaos.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Affect: Exaltation
50. Feelings of exaltation.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Affect: Closeness With Guide
63. Feeling of emotional closeness with your guide or assistant guide.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Affect: Return Reluctance
64. Feeling of reluctance to return to normal consciousness.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Affect: Sexual Excitement [could be nonordinary, more “”‘spiritual’ rather than ‘erotic’ in nature”” (Pahnke & Richards, 1966, p. 180)]
78. Experience of sexual excitement.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Affect: Overflowing Energy
10. Experience of overflowing energy.
TRIPARTITE MIND: Conation: Impaired Volition
66. Frustrating attempt to control the experience.
The 100 SOCQ Questions about Psychedelic Effects [incomplete]
Keywords for the Egodeath theory highlighted by Cybermonk – key words about experiencing eternalism and its control aspects.
2. Loss of your usual sense of time.
3. Feeling that the consciousness experienced during part of the session was more real than your normal awareness of everyday reality.
4. Feelings of anger or aggression.
5. Experience of amazement.
6. Sense that the experience cannot be described adequately in words.
8. Sense of the limitations and smallness of your everyday personality in contrast to the Infinite.
9. Gain of insightful knowledge experienced at an intuitive level.
10. Experience of overflowing energy.
12. Feeling that you experienced eternity or infinity.
13. Emotional and/or physical suffering.
14. Experience of oneness or unity with objects and/or persons perceived in your surroundings.
15. Loss of your usual sense of space.
16. Feelings of despair.
18. Feelings of tenderness and gentleness.
19. Experience of a paradoxical awareness that two apparently opposite principles or situations are both true.
21. Experience of confusion, disorientation and/or chaos.
22. Certainty of encounter with ultimate reality (in the sense of being able to “know” and “see” what is really real ) at some time during your session.
23. Feeling that you could not do justice to your experience by describing it in words.
26. Loss of your usual identity.
27. With eyes open, seeing something in your surroundings more and more intensely and then feeling as though you and it become one.
28. Sense of being trapped and helpless.
29. Loss of usual awareness of where you were.
30. Feelings of peace and tranquility.
31. Sense of profound humility before the majesty of what was felt to be sacred or holy.
34. Sense of being “outside of” time, beyond past and future.
35. Freedom from the limitations of your personal self and feeling a unity or bond with what was felt to be greater than your personal self.
36. Sense of being at a spiritual height.
37. Visions of demons, devils or other wrathful deities.
39. Experience of repulsive biological material (urine, feces, pus, dead flesh, etc.)
40. Feeling that people were plotting against you.
41. Experience of pure Being and pure awareness (beyond the world of sense impressions).
42. Feeling that you have been “outside of” history in a realm where time does not exist.
43. Experience of ecstasy.
44. Thoughts and ideas flashing by very rapidly.
45. Experience of isolation and loneliness.
47. Experience of the insight that “all is One”.
48. Being in a realm with no space boundaries.
50. Feelings of exaltation.
51. Loss of feelings of difference between yourself and objects or persons in your surroundings.
52. Experience of fear.
54. Experience of oneness in relation to an “inner world” within.
55. Sense of reverence.
57. Feeling of being rejected or unwanted.
59. Sense that in order to describe parts of your experience you would have to use statements that appear to be illogical, involving contradictions and paradoxes.
60. Feelings of universal or infinite love.
61. Experience of meaninglessness and absurdity of life.
62. Intuitive insight into the inner nature of objects and/or persons in your surroundings.
65. Experience of timelessness.
66. Frustrating attempt to control the experience.
69. You are convinced now, as you look back on your experience, that in it you encountered ultimate reality (i.e. that you “knew” and “saw” what was really real).
70. Profound experience of your own death.
72. Experience of antagonism toward people around you.
73. Feeling that you experienced something profoundly sacred and holy.
74. Awareness of the life or living presence in all things.
75. Convincing feeling of contact with people who have died.
76. Sense of being separated from the normal world, as though you were enclosed in a thick, silent glass chamber.
77. Experience of the fusion of your personal self into a larger whole.
80. Sense of awe or awesomeness.
83. Experience of unity with ultimate reality.
84. Feeling of disintegration, falling apart.
85. Fear that you might lose your mind or go insane.
86. Feeling that it would be difficult to communicate your own experience to others who have not had similar experiences.
87. Feelings of joy.
88. Feelings of guilt.
89. Experiences of intense pressures on various parts of your body.
33 of the distractor questions are not found yet. Why do they make it impossible to simply get the list of the 100 questions?
I moved headings to a separate list.
I sorted numerically mixing all of the MEQ questions with the distractor questions which were in CEQ initial pool.
I have separated the headings/categories into a separate list. I’m interested in words in questions, and in category labels, but not interested in their use of categories.
I was going to sort 1-100 in order, but they make it as hard as possible [IMPOSSIBLE] to just simply get the list of all 100 questions.
VIII. Feeling That a Dragon Is Going to Eat the Entire Clinic
Source: RR Griffiths, WA Richards, U McCann, R Jesse. 2006. “Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.” Psychopharmacology (Berl). 187(3), 268-83, commentaries 284-292. Available on the Council of Spiritual Practices’ Psilocybin Research page (pdf). http://csp.org/psilocybin/ http://www.csp.org/psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf http://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2006.pdf – bottom has the grouped questions – but only the 43 MEQ questions, no trace of the 57 distractor questions, of which CEQ initial pool selected 24, omitting 33 (which I haven’t found yet).
“The States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ) was developed [1970] to assess the occurrence features of the change in consciousness induced by psilocybin [Pahnke’s Good Friday experiment]
“The SOCQ consists of 100 items, 43 of which are from the MEQ.”
“The remaining 57 items in the questionnaire served as distracter items.”
But a big problem in Stocker 2023 article is, the item count switches back and forth between “the 57 distractor items” and suddenly, mysteriously, “the 70 distractor items” – as if it doesn’t redefine the term.
Moving from MEQ43 to MEQ30 while the SOCQ superset remains fixed at 100 items, means that 13 “mystical items” from MEQ43 magically transformed into “distractor items” – need to EXPLAIN how that transformation (reclassification) makes sense.
“Mystical” is misconceived, producing indeterminate switching of classification.
Need Dedicated Page for Each Version of the Questionnaire
Plan: Need postings/pages titled like:
APZ (1975) (Dittrich)
OAV (1994) (Dittrich)
5D-ASC (2006) (Dittrich)
11-Factor (2010) (Studerus)
CEQ; Challenging Experiences Questionnaire (2016) (Griffiths); formed by gathering a few [3/21 = 14%] of the negative items from OAV, SOCQ, & HRS.
I am particularly interested in OAV: not 5D, not 11-Factor, but straight-up OAV.
Mainly interested in OAV 1994, more than the OAV 1985 that Dittrich identified within APZ 1975.
OAV has 66 questions and the only place I found them is Studerus 2010 Figure S1 – tree hierarchy.
I have to suppose how Dittrich presents the G-ASC General questions. I think those General questions are not in the O, A, or V dimensions.
I identified where O, A, and V would be shown in Studerus article’s figure S1 instead of the 11 smaller (preliminary) 11-Factors categories.
CEQ isn’t exactly in the lineage from Dittrich; CEQ draws from the 11-Factor hostile replacement of the OAV categories which also removes I think I counted 17 general G-ASC questions, and 7 (not 5 like article Studerus mis-counts) category-questions eg from Dittrich’s Angst/Dread category’s 17 questions Studerus deletes 4 questions (54, 41, 62, & 38 if memory serves).
These to-be-removed questions are shown in Studerus Fig S1 tree supplement, but not in Figure 1 in the article.
OAV 1994 Dedicated Page
Dedicated page for OAV only, because it has a good Dread category:
66 OAV Questions in 3 Broad Categories + General, with Added Preliminary 11-Factor Subcategories
This is not purely the OAV set of 66, because it additionally includes the initial version of the hostile (competing, alternative) replacement Studerus tree hierarchy per transitional Figure S1 (supplemental; a separate document from the 11-Factor 2010 Studerus .pdf article.
Keywords for the Egodeath theory highlighted by Cybermonk – key words about experiencing eternalism and its control aspects.
Update Dec. 27 2022: Added missing items that are found in Figure S2 hierarchy tree but not in Figure 1: Added 17 General factor (category) items. Added 7 items in “factors” (categories). Total: 24 added questions.Now there are 66 questions here, 1-66. Added 3 alternate names of factors/ categories.
The 66 omits the Auditory dimension, and the Reduction of Vigilance dimension. Not sure yet of the total items count in 5D-ASC 2006. 137 is a guess or tally from memory, possibly from PES 1962 Pahnke instead: as in, going backwards: MEQ30, MEQ43, MEQ137 = maybe PES 1962.
General (G-ASC)
These questions are in Studerus Figure S1 but not in Figure 1. todo: are these questions outside of O, A, V dimensions? If so, these are ADDITIONAL negative effects that weren’t even CONSIDERED for the initial pool of items for CEQ.
59. Time passed tormentingly slow.
36. I experienced an unbearable emptiness.
3. I felt surrendered to dark powers.
55. I stayed frozen in a very unnatural position for quite a long time.
40. Things came to mind, which I thought I had forgotten long ago.
64. I was able to remember certain events unusually clearly.
4. I saw things that I knew were not real.
2. Bodily sensations were very delightful.
22. Worries and anxieties of everyday life seemed unimportant to me.
50. I felt totally free and released from all responsibilities.
9. I felt I was being transformed forever in a marvelous way.
1. I felt like I was in a fantastic other world.
23. Like in a dream, time and space were changed.
31. The world appeared to me beyond good and evil.
26. I felt unusual powers in myself.
47. Many things seemed unbelievably funny to me.
58. Things around me appeared smaller or larger.
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Major legacy OAV category #1. The ‘O’ of OAV.
Experience of Unity
48. The boundaries between myself and my surroundings seemed to blur. (in Figure S1 only)
10. Everything seemed to unify into an oneness.
21. It seemed to me that my environment and I were one.
27. I experienced a touch of eternity.
28. Conflict and contradictions seem to dissolve.
35. I experienced past, present and future as an oneness.
Religious Experience/ Spiritual Experience
6. I had the feeling of being connected to a superior power.
56. I experienced a kind of awe.
66. My experience had religious aspects.
Blissful State
61. Everything around me seemed animated. (in Figure S1 only)
39. Many things appeared to be breathtakingly beautiful. (in Figure S1 only)
7. I enjoyed boundless pleasure.
60. I experienced a profound peace in myself.
65. I experienced an all-embracing love.
Disembodiment
15. It seemed to me as though I did not have a body anymore.
42. I had the feeling of being outside of my body.
62. Everything around me was happening so fast that I could no longer follow what was going on. (in Figure S1 only)
41. My body seemed to me numb, dead and weird. (in Figure S1 only)
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
54. I was afraid to lose my self-control. (in Figure S1 only)
12. I felt tormented. (in Figure S1 only)
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.
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
Major legacy OAV category #3. The ‘V’ of OAV.
Insightfulness
34. I felt very profound.
46. I gained clarity into connections that puzzled me before.
52. I had very original thoughts.
Vivid Imagery/ Complex Imagery
25. I saw scenes rolling by in total darkness or with my eyes closed.
49. I could see pictures from my past or fantasy extremely clearly.
57. My imagination was extremely vivid.
Elementary Visual Alterations/ Elementary Imagery
8. I saw regular patterns in complete darkness or with closed eyes.
13. I saw colors before me in total darkness or with closed eyes.
20. I saw lights or flashes of light in total darkness or with closed eyes.
Audio-Visual Synesthesia
11. Noises seemed to influence what I saw.
14. The shapes of things seemed to change by sounds and noises.
51. The colors of things seemed to be changed by sounds and noises.
Changed Meaning of Percepts
17. Everyday things gained a special meaning.
18. Things around me had a new strange meaning for me.
37. Objects around me engaged me emotionally much more than usual.
Source/Origin of the Above List
From page 9, Studerus 2010. Caption is on page 10 top.
The other, hierarchy diagram Figure S1 from Studerus 2010 lists 66 items. 66 – 42 = 24[fact check?] G-ASC (general) items, which don’t go into the 11 categories. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/
“5D-ASC1.pdf” translated from German to English has 94 items (14 pages),
These are from pdf “5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (5D-ASC) A. Dittrich, D. Lamparter, M. Maurer Translation from the original German by Felix Hasler and Rael Cahn“ The translations are easy to match with Studerus 66 items from OAV; the other 94-66 = 28 items probably are dims 4 & 5, Aud + ReducVigil; that would be avg 14 items each.
3. I felt surrendered to dark powers. [Studerus Figure S1 G-ASC question]
1. I felt that I was in a wonderful other world.
2. My thoughts and actions were slowed down.
3. Bodily sensations were very enjoyable.
4. I heard single words without knowing where they came from.
5. I heard rings and tones without knowing where they came from.
6. I felt as if dark forces had overtaken me.
7. I saw things I knew were not real.
8. I felt like a puppet or marionette.
9. I felt connected to a higher power.
10. I felt sleepy.
11. A melody occured to me that I had to constantly repeat.
12. I experienced boundless pleasure.
13. Meaningless noises sounded like real words or phrases.
14. I saw regular patterns with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
15. I felt drunk.
16. I felt I was being transformed forever in a miraculous way.
17. I felt that I was on the verge of unconsciousness.
18. Everything seemed to unify into a oneness.
19. I heard my thoughts as if I had spoken them out loud.
20. Sounds seemed to influence what I saw.
21. I felt tormented.
22. I saw colors with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
23. Shapes seemed to be changed by sounds or noises.
24. I perceived everything as blurry, as if through a kind of fog.
25. A voice commented on everything I thought although no one was there.
26. I felt as if I no longer had a body.
27. I felt incapable of making even the smallest decision.
28. Some everyday things acquired special meaning.
29. I felt drowsy.
30. I heard complete sentences without knowing where they came from.
31. Things in my environment had a new strange meaning.
32. I was afraid that the state I was in would last forever.
33. I saw brightness or flashes of light with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
34. I felt one with my surroundings.
35. Worries and anxieties of everyday life felt unimportant.
36. My sense of time and space was altered as if I was dreaming.
37. My perception was blurred.
38. I had difficulties in distinguishing important from unimportant.
39. I saw whole scenes roll by with closed eyes or in complete darkness.
40. I felt extraordinary powers within myself.
41. I experienced a touch of eternity.
42. Conflicts and contradictions seemed to dissolve.
43. I was scared without knowing exactly why.
44. I experienced everything as frighteningly distorted.
45. The world seemed to me beyond good and evil.
46. I experienced my surroundings as strange and weird.
47. I felt as if I were paralyzed.
48. I heard music without knowing where it came from.
49. heard something faintly that I could not identify.
50. I felt very profound.
51. I felt numb.
52. I experienced past, present, and future as a oneness.
53. I experienced unbearable emptiness.
54. Objects in my surroundings engaged me emotionally much more than usual.
55. From an initially diffuse noise, which I could not identify as real, clear rings and tones evolved.
56. I felt threatened.
57. Many things appeared to me as breathtakingly beautiful.
58. Things came to my mind that I thought long forgotten.
59. I felt like I do shortly before falling asleep.
60. My body felt numb, lifeless, and/or alien.
61. I felt as if I was half-asleep.
62. I had the impression I was out of my body.
63. I felt as if I was floating.
64. I felt isolated from everything and everyone.
65. I heard voices that did not come from the surroundings as usual.
66. I heard something like a buzzing, swooshing, or humming without recognizing the cause.
67. I was not able to complete a thought; my thoughts repeatedly became disconnected.
68. I felt I was about to fall asleep.
69. I had insights into connections that had previously puzzled me.
70. Many things seemed incredibly funny to me.
71. The boundaries between myself and my surroundings seemed to blur.
72. I could see images from my memory or imagination with extreme clarity.
73. I felt totally free and released from all obligations.
74. I heard diffuse noises without knowing where they came from.
75. The colors of things seemed to be altered by sounds or noises.
76. Sounds and noises were fainter than usual.
77. I had very original thoughts.
78. I had the feeling that I no longer had my own will.
79. I was afraid of losing control over myself.
80. I stayed frozen in an very unnatural position for an extended period of time.
81. I experienced a kind of awe.
82. My imagination was extremely vivid.
83. Things in my surroundings appeared smaller or larger.
84. I felt exhausted.
85. Time passed slowly in a tormenting way.
86. I experienced profound inner peace.
87. Everything around me seemed to be animated with life.
88. Everything happened so fast that I could not follow it all.
89. I had the feeling that something terrible was going to happen.
90. I was able to remember certain events with exceeding clarity.
91. I experienced an all-embracing love.
92. There were sounds in the room that I feel were unlikely to have been real.
93. I heard a ticking, knocking, ringing, or rattling without being able to recognize the cause.
Dittrich v3 = 5D-ASC – adds two rarely used top-level dimensions: auditory, other.
The Huge Amount of Research this Page Took
I have to propagate year corrections in my pages (for 5D, change from 1999 to 2006). I’m the first one to plainly and clearly identify the actual timeline. Fixed in the present page.
The experts are making elementary mistakes about the publication years of Dittrich’s versions of his questionnaires, in their key publications.
It took me a lot of intensive research merely to get the correct years of publishing each version of the Dittrich questionnaires! And of the 11-factors categorization.
Now I’m better placed to obtain the 5D-ASC specification. It’s 2006, and doesn’t have the 11 factors.
– Cybermonk December 24, 2022 🍄🎄
The 5D-ASC Test for Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness: Background and Purpose
Barry Klein, PhD, General Psychology Tests and Measurement (PSYC-8316) Walden University March, 2012
“The current 5D-ASC test is an extension of the OAV instrument, which, in turn, is based on Dittrich’s APZ (“Abnormer Psychischer Zustaende” — Abnormal Mental States) questionnaire, and the two revisions mentioned are widely used for self-reporting subjective experiences of ASC.”
“OAV” stands for the German equivalents of the original three dimensions used:”
“One article (MacLean, Johnson, & Griffiths, 2011) gives these [main, first three] groupings as OSE, AIA, and VUS, respectively.” [weird acronyms, check article/ cited report]
OAV = Oceanic / Anxiety/ Visionary
5 Dimensions adds two more dimensions: Auditory/ Vigilance-Reduction [little used]”
Definition, Characterization, Themes of the 5 Dimensions
I started this section based on Klein’s descriptions, then added Studerus’.
Per Klein 2012: states associated with mysticism and religion euphoric or exalted states of non-self being at one with everything time distortion or sense of timelessness
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED) – Definition, Characterization, Themes
Dread or Anxiety of Ego-death (DED or AED [AIA in one report]) [the ‘A’ of OAV] [false dichotomy: negative experiencing therefore not mystic] [“ego death” is probably incorrect – check vs. “dissolution”] “cognitive disturbances negative depersonalization paranoia loss of control “thought disorder anxiety arousal loss of self-control“
DED per Studerus 2010: “negatively experienced derealization negatively experienced depersonalization cognitive disturbances catatonic symptoms paranoia loss of thought and body control”
False statement based on Walter Stace’s Fundamental 1961 Error: “negatively … therefore … very unpleasant … bad trips” [ie not mystical]
[the ‘V’ of OAV] “hallucinations of all kinds changes in the meanings of percepts and symbols changes in meaning and perception” Subcategories: “basic illusions and hallucinations background hallucinations synaesthesia altered meaning of percepts aided memory facilitated imagination”
VRS per Studerus 2010: “visual (pseudo)-hallucinations illusions auditory-visual synesthesiae changes in the meaning of percepts.”
Reduction of Vigilance (RV, VIR) – Definition, Characterization, Themes
“states of drowsiness reduced alertness diminished cognitive function”
little used
For more info about whether the 11 categories are below those 5 dimensions, see one of the cited Studerus papers.
“In the most recent version of the [APZ/OAV] test (5D-ASC), additional components include Auditory Alterations (AA) and Reduction of Vigilance (RV).
These two versions [OAV, 5D-ASC] of the Dittrich questionnaire have been used all over the world in at least 70 studies, mainly to report on psychedelic drugs, … but also including studies dealing with various induction methods and psychosis.”
The Irony of the Name “Five-Dimensional”
People only use the original 3 categories:
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED)
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
No one uses categories 4 & 5:
Auditory Alterations (AA, AUA)
Reduction of Vigilance (RV, VIR)
No one uses those high-level “dimensions” whether 3 or 5.
The 3 or 5 high-level dimensions/categories are from Dittrich’s OAV then Dittrich’s 2006 5D-ASC. But people don’t use either his 1975 3 dimensions nor his 2006 5 high-level dimensions; they instead use the 2010 lower-level 11 categories by Studerus/ Gamma/ Vollenweider 2010.
So in practice, since 2010, “5D-ASC” is actually used as if “11D-ASC”.
That’s like how in 1988-1997, the Egodeath theory tried to have 12 same-level Principles, but things really came together in 2006 main article, by reducing to 4 quadrants – but there remain 13 sections in the Egodeath theory Core Concepts catalog.
Takeaway: Confirms the need for flexible zoom-in/ zoom-out.
In the Conclusion, they say don’t use VRS, because those are really OBN items (I don’t follow how that would be).
Ego Death Effects Experiences Not Allowed 🚫⚰️
Another strange thing: there’s a DED category, yet no questions in 5D-ASC are about ‘dead’/ ‘died’/ ‘dying’ effects.
Stace’s False Dichotomy: Mystic = Positive
Psychedelic Psychometrics “Science” = Walter Stace’s Fantasy of “Mystical = Positive”
False statement based on Walter Stace’s Fundamental 1961 Error: Studerus page 2: “positive … therefore … similar to mystical experiences as described in the scientific literature on the psychology of religion (eg, see [Stace 1961])”]
positive … therefore … similar to mystical experiences … negatively … therefore … similar to … bad trips”
Studerus, Gamma, & Vollenweider 1961 p. 2 Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV), p. 2
All of this would-be scientific psychedelics theory rests on the sand of Stace 1961’s unscientific false assumption that mystic experiencing is simply positive. The result?
CEQ Study 2 deletes all of the questions about control-loss, replacing them by vague “fear”, and then finds that the survey gives the same results as Study 1 (the Initial Pool of effects questions including control-loss questions) and is “therefore validated”.
Validated garbage; the CEQ is incapable of gathering info about volition and control loss, it is blind except totally vague “fear”, aka “shadow”, to detect the experience of the threat of catastrophic loss of control.
Why doesn’t the CEQ have a vague question with the word ‘shadow’?
It has “I was afraid but I didn’t know why”.
self-threatening psalter image viewer
The G-ASC High-Level Category
Studerus’ char’zn:
G-ASC: “general measure of consciousness alteration.”
The 5 Dimensions of Altered-State Effects
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED)
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
Auditory Alterations (AA, AUA) – little used
Reduction of Vigilance (RV, VIR) – little used
Experience of unity
Spiritual experience
Blissful state
Insightfulness
Disembodiment
Impaired control and cognition
Anxiety
Complex imagery
Elementary imagery
Audio-visual synesthesia
Changed meaning of perception
Do the 11 categories form a tree under those 5 top-level categories?
No, it’s a tree under (fit into) the 3 main/orig high-level categs, ignoring the later 2 unpopular high-level categs.
Per Studerus 2010, the main 3 dimensions (OBN, DED, VRS) are broken up into — or replaced by — a set of 11 “subscales” (lower-level categories), which don’t cover the added two, unpopular AA & RV dimensions (higher-level categories).
How the 11 Low-Level Categories Fit Into the 3 Main High-Level Categories
2-level hierarchy of the useful 3 of the 5 high-level categories & the 11 low-level categories of psychedelic effects:
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Experience of unity
Spiritual experience
Blissful state
Disembodiment
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED)
Impaired control and cognition (ICC)
Anxiety (ANX)
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
Changed meaning of perception
Audio-visual synesthesia
Complex imagery
Insightfulness
Elementary imagery
General altered state effects (G-ASC)
Effects not assigned to the 3 OAV dimensions or 11 granular categories.
Griffiths’ CEQ removes all effects questions that are in the most important group, “impaired control and cognition (ICC)” (= the “volition” category in the HRS inventory), except keeps “I feel isolated” only.
Studerus Categorizes “Dread of Ego Dissolution” as “Unpleasant”, and “Oceanic Boundlessness” & “Visionary Restructuralization” as “Pleasant”
Here’s how Figure S1 in Studerus 2010 – tree hierarchy diagram:
Unpleasant Experiences
Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED)
Impaired control and cognition (ICC) – CEQ omits every item except “I feel isolated”
Anxiety (ANX)
Pleasant Experiences
Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN)
Spiritual experience
Experience of unity
Blissful state
Disembodiment
Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS)
Changed meaning of perception
Audio-visual synesthesia
Complex imagery
Insightfulness
Elementary imagery
General altered state effects (G-ASC) – 72 individual non-categorized effects/ questions are shown assigned to General, in the diagram. Studerus 2010 p. 2 discusses.
The diagram doesn’t explicitly show labels for the 3 legacy top-level categories (OB, DED, VR).
APZ History
todo – use / see Studerus 2010 p. 2 to fill in this section.
Created by: Dittrich
Created when: 1975
Citation:
Dittrich A 1975 Zusammenstellung eines Fragebogens (APZ) zur Erfassung abnormer psychischer Zusta¨nde [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states]. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
Number of effects/ questions/ items:
158 (Studerus 2010 p 2 left)
Number of categories:
Trick question. In 1975, no categories were defined. In 1985, Dittrich identified 3 dimensions. In 1994, OAV was created (Dittrich, Bodmer, Lamparter). Citation: Studerus 2010, p. 2 right top & p. 17 right.
OAV History: 1994
Created by: Bodmer, Dittrich, & Lamparter
Created when: 1994
Citation:
Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D 1994 Aussergewo¨hnliche Bewusstseinszusta¨nde – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment] In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, eds. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB. pp 45–58.
Number of effects/ questions/ items: 72 per APZ
Number of categories: todo
3-4:
Bodmer et al dev’d OAV. Discussed in Studerus 2010 p. 2.
5D-ASC History
todo
Created by:
Created when:
Citation:
Number of effects/ questions/ items:
Number of categories:
11 Granular Categories History
todo
Created by: Erich Studerus, Alex Gamma, Franz Vollenweider
Scope = OAV, = the 3 main categories of 5D. Plus the General items (G-ASC) from [APZ? | OAV?].
Number of categories: 11. Does Studerus 2010 show the 11 within the legacy 3 broad dimensions? __ todo.
Diagram S1 (“Hierarchical item clustering tree diagram”) shows “Unpleasant Experiences” and “Pleasant Experiences” as the 2 top-level categories or characterizations containing the 11 new fine-grained categories, doesn’t mention the 3 legacy dimensions.
DED was divided into ICC+ANX in 2010 by Studerus
Who Divided DED into ICC+ANX, When? Ans: Not 5D, Which Uses Broad Dimensions, so, Studerus 2010.
The “impaired control and cognition” (ICC) “factor” (granular category) was defined in 2010 – it was not identified in 1985, or published in OAV in 1994, or part of 5D 2006 (which still used broad, not granular categories).
IMPORTANT HISTORY SUMMARY: Before 2010, only the broader DED/AEA (dread of ego dissolution) dimension was defined. The “dread of ego dissolution” (DED/AEA) broad dimension was:
Identified in 1985.
Published as part of OAV in 1994.
Accompanied by two added broad dimensions in 2006.
Replaced by ICC+ANX granular factors in 2010.
Take me to the year the Egodeath theory development started and Dittman identified the “dread of ego dissolution” (DED/AEA) dimension for his 1975 APV questionnaire.
DED was incorporated into Dittman’s 1994 OAV version of the questionnaire.
DED was superseded in 2010 by Studerus’ “impaired control and cognition” (ICC) & “anxiety” (ANX) factors.
Whose idea was it, when, to split DED/AEA (dread of ego dissolution) into ICC (impaired control and cognition) + ANX (Anxiety)? Answer: Studerus 2010. Not 5D-ASC 2006, which still uses the broad “dimensions” that Dittman identified in 1985.
Dittrich 2006, when publishing 5D-ASC? – No, hint is in name: the 5 dimensions are O, A, V, and two new ones, plus general, and therefore 5D-ASC continues to use the broad dimension “oceanic boundlessness” (OB) rather than the granular 11 categories (“factors”).
Studerus 2010, when defining the 11 categories (“factors”)
From 2016 CEQ article:
“A recent psychometric analysis identified 11 plausible sub-scales of the 5DASC, which include the impaired cognition and control (ICC), and anxiety (ANX) scales (Studerus et al., 2010). The 13 items of the 5DASC that constitute the [later defined!] ICC and ANX sub-scales were retained for the initial item pool”
Studerus et al., 2010 =
Tricky! You can say ICC+ANX is “from 5D” – but, 5D-ASC in 2006 doesn’t define them; they are retrofits extracted/applied to 5D 4 years later.
The hint is in the name “5D”, meaning 3+2 broad (not granular) categories, one is dread of ego dissolution (DED).
The 2006 5D-ASC article doesn’t mention the two subdivisions “of DED” or “that replaced DED” that were defined 4 years later: impaired control and cognition (ICC) & anxiety (ANX).
a factor = narrow category of questions – aka sub-scale
a dimension = broad question category
a measure, a scale = questionnaire, list of psychedelic effects/ questions
Griffith Removed Paranoia and Volition-Control Questions, then Restored Paranoia – Similarly Restore Volition-Control
Paranoia and Volition-Control Questions Got Removed, then Paranoia was added back in later – but Volition-Control questions – which are genuinely numerous, not like the “fear” question dup’d 3 times – , then added Paranoia back in – but now needs do same for Volition-Control just same as corrected error of removing Paranoia.
The Volition-Control questions/ effects are genuinely numerous.
Studerus: “We have a problem: too many Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED) questions, and too few Oceanic Boundlessness and Visionary Restructuralization questions.”
What they end up doing: Dividing each of the 3 unevenly to create more of the positive categories of questions, 4 or 5, but only divide DED dimension into 2 factors (cats of q’s).
Griffiths removed Paranoia and Volition-Control, then added Paranoia back in – but now needs do same for Volition-Control, just the same as he corrected his error of removing Paranoia.
Not explained: Why did you remove the Paranoia question – explicitly discuss each question, stop hiding behind a cloak of math. “Based on math, we deleted 30 questions, including the Paranoia and Volition-Control.”
Why, specifically, did you remove each particular Paranoia q?
WHY DO YOU KEEP REMOVING NEGATIVE ITEMS? Because they already have a problem per Studerus 2010:
The Dread dimension (the negative dimension) has too many questions.
The Ocean and Visionary dimensions (the positive dimensions) have too few questions.
Studerus 2010
Griffiths was under pressure to diminish the total number of negative effects while he was adding Depression/Sad/Grief effects questions.
That damn problem category, Dread of Ego Dissolution (Volition Control) and the “volition control” category (ICC, impaired control and cognition, and HRS’s volition factor –
Just like you screwed up and removed Paranoia items from the 64 initial pool creating 6 factors containing 24 items, and you had to awkwardly un-remove them for end up with your 7 so-called “final” factors and so-called “final set of 26 items”
They did an intermediate, seat-of-the-pants, late-in the game self-correction phase.
Why did they remove the Paranoia questions?
They’ve already set a precedent, restoring questions and not explaining why they screwed up and removed all of the Paranoia questions and took so long to correct their removal of important effects – now self-correct again and add back in the the Volition-Control questions that you similarly shouldn’t have removed.
What other negativ equestions did you remove, and what are you trying to remove so many negative questions? To try to offset the fact that you’re adding Depression questions, your’re trying to KEEP A CAP ON RATIO OF NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE EFFECTS.
Added a 7th factor/categ to restore the Paranoia questions.
Similarly, add an 8th factor/categ to restore the Volition-Control questions.
Context: their mission is to add Depression questions.
Why did you remove so many questions, from 64 to 24, then you realized you removed too many.
Griffiths team: WHY DID YOU AGGRESSIVELY REDUCE 64 questions TO ONLY 24?
I thought you wanted a comprehensive, broadened coverage.
What’s the decision process to pick the size 64 or 24?
What exactly was your decision process to aim for 64 or 24 or 26 or as I’m saying, you were in error to discard questions, as you found out when you late in the game added the Paranoia questions back in.
Why did you remove the Paranoia questions?
Articulate your decision process: Black magic?
Your math only serves to cloak what your decision process was when removing specific items from the initial pool to produce the final CEQ set of questions.
Why did you remove the Volition-Control questions? Add them back, just like you corrected your error with removing Paranoia questions.
You seem to focus too much on adding your pet couch psychotherapy effects questions: Sad, Depressed, Grief.
You remove all kinds of questions willy-nilly, never stating your decision process except “We messed up and restored Paranoia questions, because it’s common”.
If Paranoia is common, then what possessed you to remove the Paranoia questions? Answer: our adding Depression questions conflicts with Studerus’ call to have more positive effects and fewer negative effects in psychedelics experiences.
“We felt bad adding so many negative questions when Studerus complained that there are too many negative effects and not enough positive effects. So we deleted all kinds of other negative effects while adding out Depression negative effects.”
You only provide vague math, never an explanation of why you remove each specific question – except you give 1 sentence about your decision process for restoring the Paranoia questions, “it’s common”.
We are only given math at a broad level, without any discussion of whether to remove each specific question. Your math is objectively unclear and vague. You need to discuss removing each effect, or else your method is arbitrary – as it was for Paranoia questions: you arbitrarily removed them, then restored them.
Where’s the decision process for each question? The process you’re using is no process, since you don’t document your removal process of removing questions.
The math you present near “removed” is not a decision process for a specific question.
History of the Dittrich Publications
Here are the first References from Studerus 2010, by date.
Summary/Findings
Years of publishing the questionnaires (APZ, OAV, 5D-ASC) or add-on retrofit categories (11 “factors”), or partial subsets (CEQ, ECQ).
APZ = 1975 – Dittrich – questionnaire.
OAV = 1994 – Dittrich – questionnaire (dimensions identified in 1985 by Dittrich).
5D-ASC = 2006 – Dittrich – questionnaire.
11 factors = 2010 – Studerus – add-on retrofit to replace the main 3 dimensions.
(CEQ = 2016) – Griffiths – partial subset also drawing items from SOCQ & HRS.
(ECQ = 2022) – Cybermonk – partial subset (focusing on Eternalism and Control effects) drawing items from 5D-ASC, SOCQ, & HRS and defining new categories for those items:
OMG IT HAS BEEN SO HARD TO FIGURE THAT OUT! – Cybermonk December 24, 2022 🍄🎄
ECQ defines 5 specialized categories for eternalism and control transformation effects:
Block-Universe Eternalism (Time)
Block-Universe Spatial Unity
Non-Control, Egoic Agency Suspension
Threat of Loss of Control
Control Model Transformation
CEQ defines 7 specialized categories for challenging experiences:
Fear
Grief
Physical Distress
Insanity
Isolation
Death
Paranoia
Control = Volition = Impaired Control – not challenging, per Griffiths
🏥 🍽 🐉
CEQ –> ECQ Challenging Experiences –> Eternalism Control since Griffiths has it all backwards, tossing “Impaired Control / Volition” into the river (as “not challenging experiences”) along with Browns’ St. Walburga tapestry that’s totally not Amanita.
Keep the citation numbers here, keyed in Studerus 2010: “Dittrich’s APZ (Abnormal Mental States) questionnaire [1–4] and its revised versions, OAV [5] and 5D-ASC [6,7]”
Errata: Studerus 2010 Falsely States 5D-ASC Was Published in 1999 – It’s Actually 2006
Damnit now I have to correct his error in my pages.
(not 1999!), 2010 keep “2006 NOT 1999” note here until I make corrections in my posts – todo. Find “1999” in the articles, who’s been writing “1999” re: what? answer:
“an extended version of the OAV, called 5D-ASC (‘‘five dimensions of ASC questionnaire’’) was published in 1999 [7]” – Studerus 2010; Psychometric Evaluation of the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV). This looks like a Studerus error! Reference 7 is:
7) Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2010) 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
How can it possibly be 1999, Studerus doesn’t even list a 1999 References entry!
And why does Studerus cite a 2010 article to support the claim that “5D-ASC was published in 1999”?
The CEQ article has no references about any related 1999 publication.
an extended version of the OAV, called 5D-ASC (‘‘five dimensions of ASC questionnaire’’) was published in 1999 [7]
Reference 7: Dittrich 2010
Studerus 2010, page 3
Errata: Griffiths Falsely Says/Implies: “APV 1975, OAV 1998, 5D-ASC 2010” Actually: APV 1975, OAV 1994, 5D-ASC 2006
the various forms of Dittrich’s Altered States of Consciousness questionnaires (Dittrich, 1975, 1998; Studerus et al., 2010)
CEQ article, Griffiths 2016
CEQ ariticle’s References entries:
Dittrich A (1975) Zusammenstellung eines fragebogens (APZ) zur erfassung abnormer psychischer zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states]. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20. Correct. APZ = 1975.
Dittrich A (1998) The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84. Incorrect if this vague terse passing citation is supposed to represent OAV, which actually = 1994 per Studerus p. 1: “Dittrich’s APZ (Abnormal Mental States) questionnaire [1–4] and its revised versions, OAV [5] and 5D-ASC [6,7]” – Studerus’ Reference 5 is: “Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D (1994) Aussergewo¨hnliche Bewusstseinszusta¨nde – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment]. In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, eds. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB. pp 45–58.”
Studerus E, Gamma A and Vollenweider FX (2010) Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV). PloS One 5: e12412.
How “Oceanic Boundlessness”, “Dread of Ego Dissolution”, & “Visionary Restructuralization” All Produce Eternalism Ego Death
How the High-Level Effects Categories “Oceanic Boundlessness (OB, OBN), Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED, AED), and Visionary Restructuralization (VR, VRS) Are Related to Eternalism-Driven Ego Death and Control Model Transformation
The psilocybin eternalism experience is not only of time & space (per OBN effects), but also control agency (per DED effects) within the no-longer-branching world.
The mental model transforms driven by this experiencing and perception (per VRS effects).
There’s a broad general 4th category too:
General altered state effects (G-ASC)
Heading
Actually I think I got this hierarchy nesting correct, either I saw it somewhere or have just read sufficiently so I’m pretty certain.
… to confirm that such a hierarchy is defined in Dittrich’s spec’n of OAV or 5D-ASC.
It’s ridiculous that no one – Studerus 2010 – bothers to specify whether the 3 categories get replaced by 11 per a messy relationship, or is a simple mapping/ containment/ tree.
Tipado’s article supports my claim that this point is failed to be doc’d – it vaguely says that the set of 11 is contained in the set of 3 high-level, but doesn’t show the nesting/ mapping/ containment!
The category DED in OAV got replaced by ICC+ANX in 5D-ASC.
Dittrich’s 3 broad dimensions (ocean, dread, visionary) dating back to OAV (198x) are more or less directly referenced, even since Studerus’ 2010’s replacement of the 3 high-level (broader) dimensions by the 11 lower-level (granular) categories.
5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale
(5D-ASC)
A. Dittrich, D. Lamparter, M. Maurer
Translation from the original German by Felix Hasler and Rael Cahn
article summarizing: https://healingmaps.com/five-dimensions-altered-states-of-consciousness/ – they don’t say “dread of ego dissolution” for one category, they say for one of the top three categories… maybe they have broken out the three categories in a different way or with different wording but it says “anxious”, not “dread”:
“Although it has five-dimensional in the name, it’s actually* an 11-dimensional scale, and occupies* three genres or themes of psychedelic trips.”
*Do you mean that there are 5 top-level categories, then 11 2nd-level categories?
Update: Answer: The 11 low-level categs are supposed to either replace or (more likely) fit into the 3 main high-level cats.
The 2 other, unpopular high-level categs are outside the 11 low-level categs.
Why not just put a hierarchical outline at top, if it’s a 2-level tree (3-level including the questions).
“Those three themes are:
Visionary Restructuralization. This covers visuals experienced in trips
Oceanic Boundlessness. Covers general blissful or otherworldly experiences in trips
Anxious Ego-Dissolution. Essentially, this is physical dissociation or hyperfocus within a trip
[General altered state effects (G-ASC)]
“Within those three themes are eleven dimensions:
Experience of Unity
Spiritual Experience
Blissful State
Insightfulness
Disembodiment
Impaired Control and Cognition
Anxiety
Complex Imagery
Elementary Imagery
Audio-Visual Synesthesia
Changed Meanings of Percepts
— Cybermonk, December 22, 2022
Research Questions
How many dimensions or categories has APZ?
todo
5D-ASC (2006) has 5 or 6 dimensions: Global, Ocean, Dread, Visionary, (the main dimensions) Auditory, Vigilance.
5D-ASC per Studerus 2010 has 11 or 12 categories replacing the 3 main dimensions: Global + 11.
What year was OAZ created?
todo
What Does CEQ Claim About Being a Superset of OAV’s DED Category and 5D-ASC’s ICC+ANX Categories?
todo
To do this, I have to narrate podcasts to get in the headspace of page 2 of the CEQ article.
Here are the criticism of why we need a clearer view specifically pulled out and focused on, of the negative experiences – they are hidden folded into the undifferentiated positive effects, in the HRS, SOCQ, and OAV & 5D-ASCC in the following ways:
How negative effects are obscured in HRS: __
How negative effects are obscured in SOCQ: __
How negative effects are obscured in OAV: __
How negative effects are obscured in 5D-ASC: __
See Also
Reference numbers, eg 2-5, are from Studerus’ 2010 article that defines the 11 factors to replace the 1985-identified 3 dimensions.
1975: Dittrich publishes APZ, no dimensions defined
2. Dittrich A (1975) German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Zusammenstellung eines Fragebogens (APZ) zur Erfassung abnormer psychischer Zusta¨nde [ Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
3. Dittrich A (1985) A¨tiologie-unabha¨ngige Strukturen vera¨nderter Wachbewusstseinszusta ¨nde. Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen u¨ber Halluzinogene I. und II. Ordnung, sensorische Deprivation, hypnagoge Zusta¨nde, hypnotische Verfahren sowie Reizu¨berflutung [ German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Etiology-independent structures of altered states of consciousness. Results of empirical studies on hallucinogens of the first and second order, sensory deprivation, hypnagogic states, hypnotic procedures, and sensory overload]. Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
1994: Dittrich Publishes OAV
5. Bodmer I, Dittrich A, Lamparter D (1994) Aussergewo¨hnliche Bewusstseinszusta ¨nde – Ihre gemeinsame Struktur und Messung [ German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Altered states of consciousness – Their common structure and assessment] In: Hofmann A, Leuner H, eds. Welten des Bewusstseins. Bd. 3, Experimentelle Psychologie, Neurobiologie und Chemie. Berlin, Germany: VWB. pp 45–58.
1996: Dittrich publishes [about use of OAV?]
4. Dittrich, A (1996) German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. A¨tiologie-unabha¨ngige Strukturen vera¨ nderter Wachbewusstseinszusta ¨nde.Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen u¨ber Halluzinogene I. und II. Ordnung, sensorische Deprivation, hypnagoge Zusta¨nde, hypnotische Verfahren sowie Reizu¨berflutung [Etiology-independent structures of altered states of consciousness. Results of empirical studies on hallucinogens of the first and second order, sensory deprivation, hypnagogic states, hypnotic procedures, and sensory overload]. Berlin, Germany: VWB.
1998: Dittrich publishes about use of OAV again?
1. Dittrich A (1998) The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84. 10.1055/s-2007-979351.
1998: Dittrich publishes about us of OAV again? CEQ bib implies 1998 = OAV, 2010 = 5D-ASC [that’s a flaw in CEQ article!] but Studerus bib shows 5D is 2006
2006: Dittrich publishes 5D-ASC
Studerus is more credible than CEQ article here; CEQ misreps 5D as 2010, but it’s actually 2006.
6. Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2006) 5D-ABZ: German garbled from pdf, see Studerus 2010: References. Fragebogen zur Erfassung Aussergewo¨hnlicher Bewusstseinszusta¨nde. Eine kurze Einfu¨hrung [5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction]. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
Not findable in English. The publishing in German is a big reason why it’s so impossible to get any straight answers in English, and why there are errors in Griffiths’ CEQ article and in Studerus’s 2010 article about when 5D-ASC was published.
Errata: Studerus 2010 Falsely States 5D-ASC Was Published in 1999 – It’s Actually 2006.
Errata: Griffiths 2016 Falsely Says/Implies: OAV 1998, 5D-ASC 2010. Actually, OAV 1994, 5D-ASC 2006.
Just show me the damn specification of the 5D-ASC! Unobtainium. Not Available, in English.
2010: Dittrich’s Overview of 5D-ASC
7. Dittrich, A, Lamparter, D, Maurer, M (2010) 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the assessment of altered states of consciousness. A short introduction. Zurich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
Proposes 11 dimensions for the OAV or 5D-ASC: Studerus E, Gamma A and Vollenweider FX (2010) Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/
This is the article that contains these good solid numbered citations of Dittrich’s publications.
Not a Dittrich publication, but the CEQ is what I’m tracking the timeline for.
Other See Also References Links
The article that defines 5D-ASC is in German, that could explain variant wordings of items in English.
Griffiths’ CEQ article cites “Dittrich 2010” and “Studerus 2010”:
Nonexistent, fake, make-believe article that doesn’t exist, yet everyone copies and pastes the citation: 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment Of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction Dittrich A, Lamparter D and Maurer M (2010) TODO: NEED URL WTF THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT EXIST, IT IS NOT FOUND IN ANY DATABASE OF ARTICLES. THIS FIELD SUCKS! The basis for this field of science is fantasy, air, nothing. aka Walter Stace’s lopsided imaginings, aka unicorns & rainbows
Psychedelic Psychometrics “Science” = Walter Stace’s Fantasy of “Mystical = Positive”
Proposes 11 dimensions for the OAV or 5D-ASC: Studerus E, Gamma A and Vollenweider FX (2010) Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930851/
Dittrich A 1975 Zusammenstellung eines fragebogens (APZ) zur erfassung abnormer psychischer zustände [Construction of a questionnaire (APZ) for assessing abnormal mental states] Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 23: 12–20.
Dittrich A 1998 The standardized psychometric assessment of altered states of consciousness (ASCs) in humans Pharmacopsychiatry 31: 80–84.
Dittrich A, Lamparter D and Maurer M 2010 5D-ASC: Questionnaire for the Assessment Of Altered States of Consciousness. A Short Introduction Zürich, Switzerland: PSIN PLUS.
The Egodeath theory 
