> Why is microdosing popular and walks in the park are not?
Is there anywhere where this is true? Where I live (London), probably 80% of people go for walks in the park. And I don't think I know anyone who microdoses.
So many people use parks even without paths that a common technique for park designers is to simply build parks with no pathways then go pave where people go over time -- so called "Desire Paths."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path
While psychedelics have a long history - and surely some wild animals unintentionally microdose including homo sapiens in the early days just by trying a mushroom they see - it seems certain that it's many orders of magnitude more hours of the human experience spent on walks in nature than on psychedelics.
You can microdose with mushrooms, or anything really. Microdosing has become increasingly popular over the last few years, but I doubt it's ubiquitous where everyone is knowledgeable on the subject.
Not only is microdosing a thing, shrooms can be used recreationally with none of the cliche shroom effects.
I have a very adverse effect to alcohol, so if I'm seeking a mild buzz or want to enjoy social events more -- or just want a mental vacation -- a <2g dose (dried cubensis -- this is way beyond microdosing, but just on the topic of "not all shroom experiences are space walks") yields just a nice feeling and experience that lasts for many hours. I'm more in the moment, relaxed, and seem to enjoy experiences more, without hallucinations or altered judgment.
Obviously I need to disclaim that this is my experience. Other people might become murderous psychotics or something. I don't encourage anyone else to do anything based on this. However there is a pretty common advocacy of microdosing.
Though this submission is utterly absurd if it's seriously positing that the public at large is microdosing rather than taking walks.
Tell that to Justin Zhu. But it's not just LSD and mushrooms. It's nootropics and stimulants too just to keep up in the Red Queen's Race of Silicon Valley at places like AWS. And I know people firsthand who are to up these shenanigans.
But ask yourself perhaps why a job should implicitly require this and I think you'll come up short. Tech shouldn't be a choose your dystopia misadventure IMO.
I don't think it's a matter of popularity - clearly more people are going on walks than regularly talking small amounts of LSD. It's a matter of visibility and novelty. Microdosing is new and buzzworthy, it's been hyped low and high and a walk in the woods is as old (read boring) as time.
It's popular to extol the virtues of on the web, anyway.
The author explains their reasoning in the article:
>On the other hand microdosing is not common. However it has several characteristics that make it appear more valuable. Namely its difficulty, exclusivity and risk. It activates our bias of thinking that scarcity indicates value.
I know people in the kinds of circles where micro-dosing is popular, in San Francisco. I can say with absolute certainty, walks in the park are still more popular.
Although, if the homeless problem gets any worse, who knows.
Yes, it's a pretty narrow group where microdosing is even on really on the radar, let alone a common occurrence. It makes good copy though, so the amount of media attention it has had is way out of proportion to it's actual impact.
I know 0 people who have mentioned microdosing, or even know what that is. Hacker News has a way of distorting reality, citing specific studies, reinforcing and arguing against them with anecdata. Creating a bubble within the Hacker News reality. Many of the studies that these people reference, in psychology, and in health, the only way to get information out of them is through meta-analysis of many studies. These fields are so contradictory within themselves, it's not even worth looking at most "individual" studies. Sometimes even the meta-analysis can be wrong as well.
the homeless aren't an impediment to walking around unless you live in the tenderloin or someplace downtown that has an especially big problem. In most of the city they are around, but not bothering anybody. Also much of the "walking in nature" that people do is hiking outside the city where the homeless problem can't have an effect.
Funny you mention it, you can buy mushrooms, LSD, DMT, whatever on hippie hill in Golden Gate Park at all hours of the day. Although you're right, most people there are just walking around oblivious to all the hippies tripping.
As an aside, microdosing is a placebo for people too scared to take a real trip.
I lived in Berkeley, there was no circle in which microdosing is more popular than going to a park. Sure, people know of microdosing, but nowhere even close to a majority do it regularly.
I didn’t even know what “microdosing” before stumbling on this post, still am not 100% sure what it is, I guess it’s something related to taking psychedelics in small doses?
Using "microdoses" (i.e. doses that are too little to be intoxicating) of drugs such as LSD, shrooms, ecstasy or weed. There is some evidence that microdosing LSD and shrooms is beneficial to mental health (depression, anxiety etc).
This is one of those little echo chambers. If you go looking for people who microdose then you’re going to find people who microdose and extol the virtues of it. When everyone around you is doing it because you went looking then you think it’s the norm.
Having attended a bazillion completely random things on Meetup in the last few years in London of all kinds, which is a hobby of mine, yep walks in park it is. And not one microdoser.
On the original topic, walking anywhere is the best therapy for me as well. Especially when it ends in a pub with good company.
It's unclear from the article, but the author may mean "Why do people talk about microdosing for these benefits and not about walking in the park?" The author even mentions that microdosing is not common.
Alternatively they may mean, "Why is microdosing so trendy but walking in the park is not?"
The author flatly states, a few sentences later, "On the other hand microdosing is not common."
While the author's wording misses the mark, from context there's absolutely doubt he's referring to microdosing being a more popular discussion topic in some circles, not more popular in terms of the absolute number of people actually doing it.
I think to be be a true and sublime "forest bath", you need to be some ways from the din of human civ. Closest to Central London might be Richmond Park? But even then there are plenty of day drinkers idling about ;)
You would be very lucky to spend more than a minute in Hampstead Heath without another human being in view, at least at most times and in most parts of the park.
it's about using it for improved focus and creativity, rather than the prevalence of the behaviour. people go for walks in parks for many reasons, without acknowledging the beneficial effects
I've lived in the US and Canada. Nobody goes on walks in California. In fact where I live under 1% of the city is green space. I hate walking in this city. My dog hates it as well. Can you believe that?
When we lived in a major city in Canada there was so much green space.
Are you talking about LA? SF is the only city in the US where every resident is technically within a ~10min walk to a public park. And among my group of friends here I can definitely say that hiking and getting into nature is the most common hobby outside of work. And just in reference to this article, I know zero people here in SF who microdose (unless they just never talk about it).
I guess I don't actually live in California, weird that I pay state taxes here.
Between Muni and BART there are a lot of people walking around SF and the Bay Area to get to public transit. In the city with friends we would often walk because the city is walkable and there's stuff to do. Even out in the exurbs I enjoy frequent walks with my dogs on nature trails and enjoy the occasional hike on Mt. Diablo.
When family visits we go to Muir Woods and walk amongst the trees.
So everyday whether for work, exercise, or relaxation, I walk around the Bay Area and enjoy it a heck of a lot more than the car-centric midwest I grew up in.
I experienced the opposite moving from Toronto to SF. In Toronto, indoor life was the norm (due to cold winters, plenty of rain, and much nicer indoor spaces). In SF, we seem to do everything in parks. And hiking seems more popular than bars. Hiking seems to be the presumed common activity across all people (especially as it requires almost no money at all, which is a concern for many given how high rent is).
> Nobody goes on walks in [the very specific part of California I happen to live in]
There, that reads better.
California is the home of backpacking (US meaning) in a very real sense.
(To whom it may concern: please don't respond to this saying that wearing a backpack in the wilderness is older than John Muir. I know about Otzi as well.)
nobody goes on walks in california? i live in SF and going on walks, or hikes just outside of the city, is easily one of the most common activities people I know participate in. There is no chance going on walks is less popular than microdosing here.
Curious which city you live in?
Plenty of walking down here in Oceanside (north San Diego county). 2 large parks within a 5 min walk from my house, walking trails across the street from my office in SD.
London has lots of nice parks. There was much more greenery around me in London than there is in the ‘leafy’ suburb, elsewhere in the country, that I currently live in.
London is a bit of an outlier. It's high on the list of major cities with the most green space, at about 34%. It has more green space than any city in the UK, and it is the world's largest urban forest at over 8 million trees.
By comparison, Los Angeles is the only major US city with as much green space (the next is NYC at 27%), even though the US is 40 times bigger than the UK.
That's probably technically true, but a bit misleading. It's also pretty much the only city in the UK where it's difficult to get out into actual countryside. I used to live in Bristol and it certainly felt greener and more rural than London, even if it technically isn't.
Agreed. The closest parks to me do not offer serene nature. They offer a diverse mix of people (and dogs) engaged in all kinds of different activities. It's entertaining and stimulating but I doubt it provides the benefits the author is talking about.
Especially since they keep mentioning forests and there is nothing remotely like a "forest" in walking distance from my home in NY. Nor was there was I lived in SF, and not even in the suburbs where I grew up.
True, but if you live near Presidio in SF or Prospect Park in Brooklyn (as examples) you can totally walk to a forest! And in many places where people own cars you and just drive 5 or 10 minutes. But clearly these circumstances are far from universal. Most people are lucky to have a half-decent park within a 10 minute walk.
People have been walking through things like Temple Gardens for most if not all of recorded history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gardening
While psychedelics have a long history - and surely some wild animals unintentionally microdose including homo sapiens in the early days just by trying a mushroom they see - it seems certain that it's many orders of magnitude more hours of the human experience spent on walks in nature than on psychedelics.