←back to thread

Messages that can only be understood under the influence of psychedelics

(qri.org)
637 points robinhouston | 2 comments | 05 Jun 23 07:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.44s | source
Show context
heisenbit ◴[06 Jun 23 10:37 UTC] No.36210689[source]▶
Have we all misunderstood the function of drug screening job applicants by the NSA?
replies(1): >>36210843 #
goolz ◴[06 Jun 23 10:57 UTC] No.36210843[source]▶
This gave me a good chuckle. I remember at school once there was a shadowy entity that I came to understand was NSA recruiters (think big engineering school, big Military budget, not atypical for students to have high clearance). If you signed away a couple years they gave you some cash, I remember that, but what made me laugh was the thought of those bland recruiters surreptitiously whispering, “Now look, the LSD is supposed to HELP you see the code, go on try some!”.
replies(1): >>36211150 #
thumbuddy ◴[06 Jun 23 11:37 UTC] No.36211150[source]▶
Ive heard a lot of folklore surrounding these topics. I'd just be weary personally. At one point if you admitted you had used psychedelics some number of times you were considered insane and there's no way you could pass a polygraph.

Obviously no one can vouch for this topic, but consider the vulnerability associated with intense psychedelic use. If someone wanted to make you die in real life, black mail you, etc, this would be very good leverage. I've been told that the government likes leverage like this for maintaining control/order of the people who work for it. But who really knows, could all be conspiratorial mumbo jumbo. What is known is that the government invested a lot of time into studying psychedelics for purposes of mind control, IE, something that is not in the interest of the practitioner whatsoever.

Me personally... If I had to choose between being a psychedelic user on my own with my own tribe, or durring a government evaluation of my character, I think it's probably safer to choose the former not the latter.

replies(1): >>36218956 #
goolz ◴[06 Jun 23 20:51 UTC] No.36218956[source]▶
Oh god mate, I would never hahaha. Not to mention I would never work for the soul-less NSA.
replies(1): >>36225273 #
1. thumbuddy ◴[07 Jun 23 10:55 UTC] No.36225273[source]▶
I have nothing against the agency. I know people who used to work for them, and they are alright once you see their soul and not how they operate. But, I also know that you have to offer something more than loyalty to be trusted in groups such as those. Drug traffickers will ask for the names of your kids, the NSA already has that and requires more(is my understanding anyways). me personally, I've given enough in my life, if my word isn't enough, then I have no interest in the asymmetric business relationship. IE if you need my life, then keep your secrets, I'll keep mine, and off we go in our separate directions.

Also, not super interested in barbed wire lunches, being used for psychological experiments, armed guards behind me while I write if statements, etc. Not my thing, but I know some people are fine with the trade.

replies(1): >>36249058 #
2. goolz ◴[08 Jun 23 21:06 UTC] No.36249058[source]▶
I personally have tons against the agency. The most morally confused people on the face of the earth. To each their own.