Placebo vs. Woo

[NobbyNobbs]

I went with a co-worker to the gym today, and at the front desk the receptionist was sitting cross-legged, back straight, eyes closed. A trainer was standing there, running one hand in front of her body and one in back. Each hand was about a foot away from her body. He'd move them from head to waist, then start again.

I watched for a moment, then asked, "What are you doing?" The answer was as I suspected: "Disseminating energies." To make sure, I said, "What was that?", and he said, "Energy work". I left it at that.

Inside the gym, I mentioned it to my co-worker. She pointed out, rightly so, that the placebo effect is a medically accepted phenomenon, and that the human brain is not completely understood, and that often times making better think they feel better actually does make them feel better. All of this is true, which is why I was stuck for words when trying to compare the placebo effect to "disseminating negative energies".

So how do you do it, both with the chakra thing and in the larger sense (like, for example, homeopathy)? How do I explain that while the placebo effect works, this stuff is a load of crap, when I can't really explain the difference?

If there is already a thread on this, feel free to point me to it and close this one. I couldn't find it.

Thanks!

 

[fls]

I guess I'd say, "so what?" Feeling better has no discernible effect beyond the feeling. You may as well tell the receptionist you like the way she does her hair and be done with it.

There have been several discussions on placebo here and here.

In the interests of reckless self-promotion, I direct you to my posts in these threads.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I guess I'd say, "so what?" Feeling better has no discernible effect beyond the feeling. You may as well tell the receptionist you like the way she does her hair and be done with it.

<snip>

Linda

Does that really work!?

ETA: Feeling better can have discernible effects beyond the feeling:- When someone feels better they stop 'acting' ill. I.e., their behaviour changes.

 

[fls]

Inside the gym, I mentioned it to my co-worker. She pointed out, rightly so, that the placebo effect is a medically accepted phenomenon, and that the human brain is not completely understood, and that often times making better think they feel better actually does make them feel better. All of this is true, which is why I was stuck for words when trying to compare the placebo effect to "disseminating negative energies".

So how do you do it, both with the chakra thing and in the larger sense (like, for example, homeopathy)? How do I explain that while the placebo effect works, this stuff is a load of crap, when I can't really explain the difference?

The difference is that homeopathy and the chakra thing are unnecessary to the effect. The objective, medically accepted component to the phenomenon is to simply notice that people get better without additional intervention. Or that when symptoms wax and wane, that they will wane after they have waxed. You don't need to do anything (no magic hand waving or magic pills) to obtain this benefit except to take note of it. The subjective component to the phenomenon is probably influenced by the kind of ritual used to induce it, but again, it is not specific to the brand of woo. And pretending that you "feel better" because your negative energy has been disseminated distracts you from understanding just what it was about the ritual that was particularly effective in changing your subjective perceptions. I protest its presence because it stifles understanding and curiosity by providing a pat, but false, explanation.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Info. on Illness and Sick-Role behaviour:

http://www.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/illness-sick-role-behavior

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The difference is that homeopathy and the chakra thing are unnecessary to the effect. The objective, medically accepted component to the phenomenon is to simply notice that people get better without additional intervention. Or that when symptoms wax and wane, that they will wane after they have waxed. You don't need to do anything (no magic hand waving or magic pills) to obtain this benefit except to take note of it. The subjective component to the phenomenon is probably influenced by the kind of ritual used to induce it, but again, it is not specific to the brand of woo. And pretending that you "feel better" because your negative energy has been disseminated distracts you from understanding just what it was about the ritual that was particularly effective in changing your subjective perceptions. I protest its presence because it stifles understanding and curiosity by providing a pat, but false, explanation.

Linda

The ritual was effective because the subject believed her negative energy had been disseminated.

 

[777]

I went with a co-worker to the gym today, and at the front desk the receptionist was sitting cross-legged, back straight, eyes closed. A trainer was standing there, running one hand in front of her body and one in back. Each hand was about a foot away from her body. He'd move them from head to waist, then start again.

I watched for a moment, then asked, "What are you doing?" The answer was as I suspected: "Disseminating energies." To make sure, I said, "What was that?", and he said, "Energy work". I left it at that.

Inside the gym, I mentioned it to my co-worker. She pointed out, rightly so, that the placebo effect is a medically accepted phenomenon, and that the human brain is not completely understood, and that often times making better think they feel better actually does make them feel better. All of this is true, which is why I was stuck for words when trying to compare the placebo effect to "disseminating negative energies".

So how do you do it, both with the chakra thing and in the larger sense (like, for example, homeopathy)? How do I explain that while the placebo effect works, this stuff is a load of crap, when I can't really explain the difference?

If there is already a thread on this, feel free to point me to it and close this one. I couldn't find it.

Thanks!

1. When they test drugs, they use placebo to make sure that the drug is working beyond the placebo effect. Therefore, placebo doe not work like the new agers claim.

2. If energywork is a placebo, then <b> they are admitting that it's crap and has no effect whatsoever besides giving people the belief that it is working. </b>

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So how do you do it, both with the chakra thing and in the larger sense (like, for example, homeopathy)? How do I explain that while the placebo effect works, this stuff is a load of crap, when I can't really explain the difference?

Thanks!

As far as I can see it, if a therapy treatment already admits from the beggining that it operates according to the placebo effect; then it is not full of crap. It's just honest.

If it claims that the reason they got better was because the chakras and the energies went aligned with the seven starts from the Mekrah Galaxy and the Blind-Cat-Constellation, then yeah..... they're full of s***.

 

[quarky]

people make money doing this sort of 'work'.

It has positive effects on the energy 'worker'.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Placebo effect is composed of several contributing factors. A placebo is intentionally ineffective (not like altmed which is ineffective because it's bs). A certain number of patients with a disease will be expected to improve without treatment and these would be the improvement in a placebo group. It is thought that sometimes with a placebo there is another effect. This has not been shown to be true so far but it seems like much of the sensation of pain is psychological. So in cases of treating pain a placebo group would show more improvement than if they were just not treated (some of them would get better on their own). You could call it the power of positive thinking. However it is still being studied to determine if a placebo actually has a physical effect on a patient. Skeptics remain skeptical about it.

 

[Blondin]

A placebo is just a way of doing nothing without the experimentor or the subject knowing they are doing nothing.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I guess I'd say, "so what?" Feeling better has no discernible effect beyond the feeling.

Exactly that what! "feeling better" is a sensation, but it can change the behavior of an individual. Remember we are not dealing with a sick body, but only "transmitting positive energy" to a person.

I have to say that I hate to be skeptic about lots of things. The saying "ignorance is bliss" is true in more than one way (yes I know for some things is better to be a skeptic). Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. Yes, even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.

All we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real", or "objective opinions".

So, in a sense, it is irrelevant if we are believers in woo or believers in placebo. The point is, for many, that those energies "work". End of story.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Exactly that what! "feeling better" is a sensation, but it can change the behavior of an individual. Remember we are not dealing with a sick body, but only "transmitting positive energy" to a person.

I have to say that I hate to be skeptic about lots of things. The saying "ignorance is bliss" is true in more than one way (yes I know for some things is better to be a skeptic). Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. Yes, even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.

All we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real", or "objective opinions".

So, in a sense, it is irrelevant if we are believers in woo or believers in placebo. The point is, for many, that those energies "work". End of story.

They certainly work.........work as well as doing nothing.

 

[fls]

Exactly that what! "feeling better" is a sensation, but it can change the behavior of an individual. Remember we are not dealing with a sick body, but only "transmitting positive energy" to a person.

I have to say that I hate to be skeptic about lots of things. The saying "ignorance is bliss" is true in more than one way (yes I know for some things is better to be a skeptic). Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. Yes, even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.

All we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real", or "objective opinions".

So, in a sense, it is irrelevant if we are believers in woo or believers in placebo. The point is, for many, that those energies "work". End of story.

I realize that excuses can be made. Perhaps a change in attitude is sufficient justification for nonsense? After all attitude and behaviour can impact our health.

I go back to my original complaint. These ideas stifle creativity, understanding, curiosity, and beauty by providing pat, yet false, answers to our questions. Can you really be satisfied with "and they lived happily ever after"? Not I.

Linda

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you really be satisfied with "and they lived happily ever after"? Not I.

For a time, I was a recalcitrant skeptic, almost laughing about wooism at every opportunity. As soon as I understood that "knowledge" is nothing but an opinion (any knowledge), I learn the answer for your question:

They can. And that's what matters.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Some opinions match the facts closer than others.