For better or worse, the reputations of psychedelics precede them.
You’ve probably heard all sorts of claims about psilocybin.. Take the idea that psilocybin “rewires” your brain, for instance. It’s the kind of remark that gives psychedelics a certain framing, but isn’t always rooted in reality.
Despite sounding scientific, psilocybin doesn’t actually rewire the brain. At least, not in the way most people assume. Psilocybin does significantly impact the brain and, in the right circumstances, can lead to behavioral change.
“Rewiring” is a catchy colloquialism that you don’t need a neuroscience degree to understand. But, like with most slogans, it’s an incomplete picture. Scientific researchers sparingly use “rewiring” in their publications.
Precise language is longer, more nuanced, and less digestible to laypeople. But when it comes to understanding the potential (and limits) of psychedelics, specificity matters.
When people say magic mushrooms “rewire” the brain, they’re referring to a clinically verifiable phenomenon (even if the language doesn’t line up perfectly): Neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity broadly describes your ability to change. It’s how flexible, pliable, and receptive your brain is to new information.
There are two types of neuroplasticity. Structural plasticity refers to the physical connective tissue in your brain - think of a highway network being updated to include new merging lanes, exit ramps, or shortcuts. Functional plasticity describes how traffic flow changes as a result.
Psilocybin and alcohol are both considered mind-altering substances because they change your conscious perception of reality, but nobody credits booze with inducing personal breakthroughs. Psilocybin, on the other hand, has unique neuroplastic properties.
The idea that psilocybin physically rewires your brain traces back to some compelling scientific research. In 2018, Ly & colleagues published a paper claiming “psychedelics are capable of robustly increasing neuritogenesis [the formation of new neurons]…”
Other data has shown as much as +10% more neuronal connections which stuck around for at least a month after psilocybin administration.
However, more recent research has pointed to functional connectivity (the flow of traffic) rather than paving new roads and highways. Elsewhere, in the United Kingdom, psychedelic researchers at Imperial College London have zeroed in on psilocybin’s mechanistic effects:
In plain English, brain imaging studies in psilocybin users reveal an acute, potent spike in brain connectivity - particularly between regions which are otherwise rigid or locked down. Psilocybin doesn’t rebuild the highway network, but it does help direct traffic and may untangle jams.
The evidence that psilocybin can create long-term physical or structural changes to the brain is weak (but not nonexistent). However, there’s a strong case for psilocybin having a lasting impact, especially when used as part of a larger mental health treatment plan for conditions like depression.
More importantly, follow-up studies have shown sustained improvement for months after an acute psychedelic experience. It’s clear that psilocybin can help facilitate lasting psychological change, but perhaps not through physical “rewiring.”
Psychedelics aren’t a triage intervention or a band-aid solution. Unlike other forms of treatment, the context before, during, and especially after ingestion can significantly impact the quality of the outcomes that result.
Psilocybin-induced neuroplasticity lasts for hours to days after the acute effects subside. Primed for change, your brain is susceptible to being molded through integration techniques like journaling, talk therapy, or somatic practice. This is why the strongest clinical research backing psychedelic therapies emphasizes doing more than just taking the drug and waiting.
Put simply, it’s very much a use-it-or-lose-it deal. Psilocybin promotes both structural and functional plasticity, but it’s not exactly clear which is responsible for the real-world changes reported by some users. Science is still trying to work out how much credit is owed to pharmacology versus real-world choices.