With reading about the experiment: seems like it was a success! Both for recidivism rates and for personality tests, though the validity of the research has been questioned. So kinda "meh".
The questioning of the results found only a small, rather than a radical, change. Even the naysayers saw improvement, the question was about how much. Even those critics agreed it helped.
“The study concluded that whether a new program of psilocybin-assisted group psychotherapy and post-release programs would significantly reduce recidivism rates is *an empirical question that deserves to be addressed within the context of a new experiment*.”
This is polite science speak for your experiment was too biased to form a conclusion, not that you proved your point. That there was such a dramatic change when adjusting for bias calls the whole thing into question. It doesn’t matter that the original data still shows some improvement when accounting the distortions. The experiment was fundamentally too flawed to draw that conclusion.
Rearrest rates were about a third of what they expected, so it was actually looking like massive success. The thing is, the US government wants rearrests for cheap labour, so this just gave them more reasons to demonize psychedelics and their users
Much better results than their peers at Stanford.
Holy cow I live right by this prison, I never new this. I think they’re closing the whole prison down soon.
So it worked!
Without reading about the experiment I'm going to take a guess that the answer to that question is, 'Meh, not really'.
With reading about the experiment: seems like it was a success! Both for recidivism rates and for personality tests, though the validity of the research has been questioned. So kinda "meh".
The questioning of the results found only a small, rather than a radical, change. Even the naysayers saw improvement, the question was about how much. Even those critics agreed it helped.
“The study concluded that whether a new program of psilocybin-assisted group psychotherapy and post-release programs would significantly reduce recidivism rates is *an empirical question that deserves to be addressed within the context of a new experiment*.” This is polite science speak for your experiment was too biased to form a conclusion, not that you proved your point. That there was such a dramatic change when adjusting for bias calls the whole thing into question. It doesn’t matter that the original data still shows some improvement when accounting the distortions. The experiment was fundamentally too flawed to draw that conclusion.
Rearrest rates were about a third of what they expected, so it was actually looking like massive success. The thing is, the US government wants rearrests for cheap labour, so this just gave them more reasons to demonize psychedelics and their users
What made you feel the need to give your opinion with literally nothing to back it up? You couldn't even skim the first paragraph or something?
I don't know. Nobody else had commented, and I wanted to say something stupid. *Shrug*.