How to Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan: An Honest Review

🕑 15 min read

What This Book Is

How to Change Your Mind appeared in 2018 with a subtitle that tells you the scope: what the new science of psychedelics teaches us about consciousness, dying, addiction, depression and transcendence.

It does four things. It reconstructs the history of psychedelic research from the 1940s to the present. It reports on the science being done at the time of writing. It describes Pollan's own supervised experiences with psilocybin, LSD and a smoked toad secretion. And it works, throughout, at a question the author cannot answer and will not drop: what these experiences actually are.

It became an enormous bestseller and, more importantly, a permission slip. After it, the subject could be discussed at dinner tables where it previously could not.

Why the Author Mattered

Pollan built his career on food: on where it comes from, how it is grown, and what industrial agriculture has done to it. He was known to readers who had never thought about consciousness and would never have picked up a book about it.

He was also, by his own account, close to the least likely person to write this. He was in his sixties, had almost no drug history, described himself as temperamentally suspicious of altered states, and admitted to a fear of losing control that the book records repeatedly.

That profile is not incidental. A book making these arguments from inside the psychedelic community would have been read as advocacy and dismissed. Coming from Pollan, the same material read as reporting.

It is worth being clear-eyed about this: the book's cultural effect was substantially a function of the author's respectability rather than of new evidence. That does not make the reporting wrong. It does mean the reception tells you something about how credibility works.

The History, Which Is Excellent

The strongest material in the book is the historical reconstruction, and it holds up completely.

Pollan traces the accidental discovery of LSD in a Swiss pharmaceutical laboratory in the late 1930s and the chemist's realisation of what he had made in 1943. He follows the substance into psychiatry, where through the 1950s it was studied seriously by clinicians who published in respectable journals and reported results in alcoholism and end-of-life anxiety.

He recovers the figures the standard story forgets. The amateur mycologist who travelled to Mexico in the 1950s, participated in a mushroom ceremony conducted by a Mazatec healer, and published an account in a mass-circulation magazine that changed everything. The Czech-born psychiatrist who conducted an enormous number of sessions and built a theoretical framework around them. The English writer whose short book on mescaline gave the whole field its vocabulary.

What comes across is how ordinary this research was before it stopped being ordinary. It was not fringe. It was a live area of psychiatry with funding, conferences and a literature.

How the First Era Ended

Pollan is unusually fair about the collapse, and unusually hard on the counterculture.

The conventional account blames a moral panic and government overreaction. Pollan accepts that and adds the part the field prefers to skip: that a small number of researchers, above all the Harvard psychologist who became the movement's public face, abandoned research protocol for evangelism, distributed substances outside any controlled setting, courted publicity relentlessly, and made the material a symbol of generational revolt at exactly the moment it needed to look boring and clinical.

The promotional literature produced in that period was not research. It was recruitment.

By 1970 the substances were placed in the most restrictive American schedule, research became nearly impossible to fund or approve, and two decades of clinical work were effectively deleted from institutional memory.

The Quiet Revival

The recovery, when it came, was deliberately unglamorous, and Pollan's account of it is one of the book's pleasures.

Researchers in the 1990s and 2000s who wanted to reopen the field understood exactly what had gone wrong the first time. They avoided the press. They used clinical rather than countercultural language. They designed conservative studies with small numbers and careful screening. They dressed like doctors, published in ordinary journals, and did not talk about revolution.

The 2006 study that reopened the field at Johns Hopkins was framed as an investigation of mystical-type experience and its lasting personal meaning in healthy volunteers, which is about as unthreatening as such a study could be made to sound. It reported that a substantial proportion of participants rated the session among the most personally significant experiences of their lives, with the rating largely sustained at follow-up.

That paper reopened the door, and it did so by being methodologically cautious and rhetorically dull, which was the entire point.

The First-Person Chapters

Pollan takes psilocybin, LSD and a vaporised toad-derived compound, each with a guide, and reports what happened.

These chapters are better than they had any right to be, and the reason is that he does not perform. He is frightened beforehand and says so. One session is largely unpleasant. He describes the dissolution of his ordinary sense of self in a way that is neither breathless nor deflationary, notes that the experience felt more real than ordinary consciousness, and then immediately observes that the feeling of reality is itself a mental state and cannot be evidence for anything.

That double movement, taking the experience seriously and refusing to let it settle the question, is the intellectual honesty that makes the book worth reading. He also reports, weeks later, that he was not sure how much had actually changed, which is the sort of admission most writers in this genre omit.

He is candid that his sessions were illegal, conducted with underground guides, and that he was screened by no one but himself. He does not present this as a model.

The Mystical Experience Problem

Here is the finding that makes this subject genuinely interesting rather than merely newsworthy.

Across multiple studies, the degree of therapeutic benefit correlates with how strongly participants rate their session as mystical on a standardised questionnaire measuring things like unity, transcendence of time and space, a sense of encountering ultimate reality, and ineffability.

Higher mystical scores, better outcomes. The dose matters mainly because it makes such experiences more likely.

This is awkward for everyone. For a strictly pharmacological account it is awkward because the active ingredient appears to be a quality of experience rather than a molecule doing something to receptors. For a spiritual reading it is awkward because the questionnaire is a blunt instrument, the correlation does not establish the direction of causation, and people primed to expect profundity in a room designed to encourage it will report profundity.

Pollan sits with the discomfort rather than resolving it, and that is the correct response. The honest position is that something real is being measured and nobody knows what it is.

The Neuroscience Chapter

The book's account of what is happening in the brain centres on a network of regions that is most active when a person is not doing anything in particular: mind-wandering, self-referential thought, the ongoing internal narration.

Imaging studies found activity in this network reduced under psilocybin, and the reduction correlated with reports of self-dissolution. The interpretation Pollan reports is that this network functions as a constraint, filtering and organising experience into a familiar shape, and that loosening it allows connections that would ordinarily be suppressed.

Treat this chapter as the most provisional part of the book. It was a plausible early model, the imaging literature has become considerably more contested since, and the tendency to identify a single network with the self is exactly the kind of tidy story that later work tends to complicate.

What Has Happened Since 2018

An honest review in 2026 has to say that the field has had a harder time than this book expects.

The growth has been real. Funding increased, centres opened at major universities, several jurisdictions moved toward regulated access, and the volume of published research expanded enormously.

So have the problems. Trials remain small. Participants are unrepresentative, skewing toward people who sought out a psychedelic study. Adverse events have in some cases been under-reported, a criticism raised about specific high-profile trials. Concerns have been documented about therapist conduct in trial settings. And in 2024 an application for regulatory approval of an MDMA-assisted therapy was rejected in the United States, with the advisory committee raising exactly the methodological concerns critics had been raising for years.

None of this shows the substances do nothing. It shows that the confident 2018 narrative of imminent approved treatments was premature, and a reader coming to the book now should hold its optimism at arm's length.

The Blinding Problem

The deepest methodological issue deserves its own explanation, because it is not a technicality.

A placebo-controlled trial works because neither the participant nor the assessor knows who received the active treatment. With a substance that produces unmistakable and prolonged alterations of perception, almost every participant knows immediately, and so does the therapist sitting with them.

Now add the rest of the setup. Participants volunteered because they hoped for benefit. They were prepared in advance by enthusiastic staff. The session takes place in a room arranged for meaning, over many hours, with two attentive people present. Afterwards they discuss what it meant. They are then asked, by those same people, whether they feel better.

Every element of that is a powerful driver of reported improvement independent of pharmacology, and the design cannot separate them. This does not mean the effects are illusory. It means the trials as currently constructed cannot tell us how much is the drug, and that is a serious limitation to carry into any claim about what the evidence shows.

What the Book Underweights

The narrative arc is discovery, suppression, rediscovery, and that shape has a cost.

Several of the substances under study have been used ceremonially for a very long time by specific peoples, within structures of preparation, community, ritual and interpretation that took generations to develop. The Mazatec practice that first reached English readers in the 1950s was not waiting to be found; it was ongoing, and the consequences of that publicity for the community involved were not good.

Similar issues attend ayahuasca and the tourism that has grown around it, and the sustainability of harvesting particular plants and animals now in demand.

Pollan touches on this. He does not make it structural, and it should be, because the framing of laboratories rediscovering what communities never lost is doing quiet work throughout the book.

The Risks, Stated Plainly

The book acknowledges these. It does not dwell on them, and a review should.

Acute psychological distress is common enough to be expected rather than exceptional. Prolonged difficulty, including anxiety, destabilisation and perceptual disturbance persisting for weeks or longer, is documented. People with a personal or family history of psychosis or bipolar disorder face a substantially higher risk and are excluded from clinical trials for that reason.

There are physical considerations, including cardiovascular effects, and serious interactions with prescribed medication, particularly some antidepressants, where combinations can be dangerous.

And there is the setting problem. The underground and quasi-legal guide world has no licensing, no accountability and no complaints procedure, and there are well-documented cases of financial, sexual and psychological exploitation of people in a maximally vulnerable state.

What Holds Up

The history, entirely. It is the best popular account of how this research was built, destroyed and rebuilt, and nothing in the last eight years has undermined it.

The first-person chapters, because their honesty about fear, confusion and uncertain aftermath is rare in a literature dominated by transformation narratives.

And the central intellectual question, which the book poses better than it answers: what to do with an experience that feels more real than ordinary life, when the feeling of reality is itself just another experience. Pollan does not solve it. He declines to pretend he has, and that refusal is worth more than a conclusion would have been.

Who Should Read It

Read it for the history, which is the reason to own the book.

Read it if you are interested in how the dissolution of ordinary selfhood gets described by someone with no prior framework for it, and how that description compares with the contemplative literature.

Read it alongside Huxley's short account, which supplied much of the vocabulary Pollan is still using sixty years later, and follow it with recent critical journalism on the trials.

Do not read it as a current account of the evidence, as a guide, or as encouragement. It is a work of reporting from a specific moment, and the moment has moved.

Frequently Asked Questions