|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2024 13:19:54 GMT -5
- A study in the September 2021 issue of the journal Pain explored open-label placebos in treating people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Approximately 250 people with moderately severe IBS symptoms were randomly divided into two groups. One followed a traditional placebo-controlled format, where half received either a pill containing peppermint oil or a placebo. They were not told which one they took. (Peppermint oil may help with IBS symptoms like cramping and bloating.) The other group took only the placebo but was told it was fake medication (open-label placebo). Participants took the pills three times daily, 30 minutes before meals, for six weeks. Afterward, a majority of both the placebo-controlled and the open-label groups reported similar reductions in their IBS symptoms.
This was only one study, but other studies using open-label placebos have shown similar results for low back pain, cancer-related fatigue, migraines, and knee osteoarthritis.
"This is a major shift in how placebos were believed to work," says Kaptchuk. "Many doctors thought placebos needed deception to work, but these findings suggest that may not be true."
....
"You probably can't take Tic Tacs on your own and convince yourself it will help your back pain."
Still, it's conceivable to tap into the placebo effect's benefits by adopting rituals of healthy living and self-help, such as healthy eating, exercising, and meditating, Kaptchuk adds.
"While these activities are positive interventions in their own right, the level of attention you give them can enhance their benefits, which in some ways is similar to a placebo effect," he says. "If you expect these activities to help you get better, it's quite possible you will."
--- www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-real-power-of-placebos
All these seem to be explainable by the hypotheses of the inner-reality interconnection between everything, the nature of time, the gestalt structure of consciousness (the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements). The tic tac example is a good one for me i.e it applies to my experience. I believe we create our 'reality' through our beliefs. But just because I believe that doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that I have the power or control to change any belief I want. I've learned to pay attention to what I sense I can change, and what is appropriate for me to change in any given moment.......and what isn't. Some of our beliefs I consider to be intrinsic to the context of our physical incarnation e.g the body requires breath. These beliefs aren't absolute, but are 'relatively immutable'. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 23, 2024 15:56:22 GMT -5
- A study in the September 2021 issue of the journal Pain explored open-label placebos in treating people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Approximately 250 people with moderately severe IBS symptoms were randomly divided into two groups. One followed a traditional placebo-controlled format, where half received either a pill containing peppermint oil or a placebo. They were not told which one they took. (Peppermint oil may help with IBS symptoms like cramping and bloating.) The other group took only the placebo but was told it was fake medication (open-label placebo). Participants took the pills three times daily, 30 minutes before meals, for six weeks. Afterward, a majority of both the placebo-controlled and the open-label groups reported similar reductions in their IBS symptoms.
This was only one study, but other studies using open-label placebos have shown similar results for low back pain, cancer-related fatigue, migraines, and knee osteoarthritis.
"This is a major shift in how placebos were believed to work," says Kaptchuk. "Many doctors thought placebos needed deception to work, but these findings suggest that may not be true."
....
"You probably can't take Tic Tacs on your own and convince yourself it will help your back pain."
Still, it's conceivable to tap into the placebo effect's benefits by adopting rituals of healthy living and self-help, such as healthy eating, exercising, and meditating, Kaptchuk adds.
"While these activities are positive interventions in their own right, the level of attention you give them can enhance their benefits, which in some ways is similar to a placebo effect," he says. "If you expect these activities to help you get better, it's quite possible you will."
--- www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-real-power-of-placebos
All these seem to be explainable by the hypotheses of the inner-reality interconnection between everything, the nature of time, the gestalt structure of consciousness (the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements). The tic tac example is a good one for me i.e it applies to my experience. I believe we create our 'reality' through our beliefs. But just because I believe that doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that I have the power or control to change any belief I want. I've learned to pay attention to what I sense I can change, and what is appropriate for me to change in any given moment.......and what isn't. Some of our beliefs I consider to be intrinsic to the context of our physical incarnation e.g the body requires breath. These beliefs aren't absolute, but are 'relatively immutable'. There are important nuances that scientists overlook because of their beliefs. For example, the Tic Tac comment. There are several aspects in play. Firstly, the results in discussion are from experiments: there isn't the same thing to take the pill on your own, or part of an experiment in which a medicine is taken. Secondly, that comment was made by a believer in a certain reality, different from the belief of the one who would convince himself of the contrary. An important distinction is that the actual state of health of a biological body isn't determined by the medical tests, but by the symptoms it experiences. Once the mind is induced to believe that the body is ill, there is a different development than if the mind believes the body is healthy. There must be countless incipient illnesses that the biological body "fights off" successfully without our being aware of that. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 2:27:08 GMT -5
Any hypotheses about the placebo effect have to offer answers to such scientifically documented observations like: - - placebo effect observed in intellectually impaired people
- - placebo effect observed in animals
- - placebo effect observed in people who know they're taking placebo (open-label placebo)
- - placebo effect observed earlier at cellular level than brain level
These can't be explained as psychological effects. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 13:55:37 GMT -5
Any hypotheses about the placebo effect have to offer answers to such scientifically documented observations like: - - placebo effect observed in intellectually impaired people
- - placebo effect observed in animals
- - placebo effect observed in people who know they're taking placebo (open-label placebo)
- - placebo effect observed earlier at cellular level than brain level
These can't be explained as psychological effects. I believe menstrual synchrony is a phenomenon similar with placebo, amd explainable by the same hypothesis. - link
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24222338/
Menstrual synchrony : An update and review
Abstract
Several studies have now documented menstrual synchrony in human females. There is a broad consensus that the phenomenon mainly occurs in women who spend a significant amount of time together, such as close friends and coworkers, and that social contact rather than a similar environment plays an important role in mediating the effect. However, the mechanisms involved and the adaptive function of menstrual synchrony are not understood. There is some evidence that olfactory cues between females might underlie the effect. More research is needed before the precise mechanisms that regulate menstrual synchrony are elucidated.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 19:16:08 GMT -5
- ESP Study Gets Published in Scientific Journal
Cornell psycholgist researches precognition; journal accepts his findings.
link
Daryl Bem is a Cornell University psychologist ...
... he's written a paper attempting to prove the power of ESP -- extrasensory perception -- and had it accepted for publication in a major scientific journal.
"From seeing my own data, and from looking at other research on ESP, I think I could be classified as someone who now believes there's something there," Bem said in an interview with ABCNews.com.
...
Over an eight-year period, he says he conducted experiments with more than 1,000 volunteers on "precognition" -- the ability to perceive things before they actually happen -- and submitted it to The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association.
...
Bem's experiments were varied. In one, for example, he had volunteers look at a computer screen that showed two curtains and asked them to guess which one had an erotic photo behind it. In fact, the spaces behind both curtains were blank. A computer randomly inserted a photo behind one of them -- but only after the test subject had made his guess.
Fifty-three percent of the time, Bem reports in his paper, the volunteers picked the curtain behind which the computer then happened to place the racy picture. When the pictures were less enticing, he said, the volunteers' guesses were 50-50 -- a result Bem said was significant.
"Science is a way of finding things out," Bem said. "Nothing is off limits in terms of asking the questions."
The questions you (can) ask are limited by your beliefs ... Your interpretation of the answers / results is also filtered by your beliefs. In the above example, the researcher assumed that there is a future that could be foreseen or not. From the perspective of the " present being the point of power", you create / select the future by adhering to one of the endless number of possible realities. My interpretation is that the results showed that reality creation is influenced by the emotional interest of the subject, and sex, being high on that scale, tipped the probability for the random generator to match the intention of the subject (53%). When there was in emotional influence, the random 50% result was registered. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 24, 2024 23:30:29 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper.
I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 23:47:27 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper. I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist. There is another interpretation for the experiment you mentioned: the women incorrectly perceived themselves as being scarred, so they projected that feeling to the observers, who reacted to seeing scarred women, observers' reactions were then correctly perceived by those women.
So, it might have not been about the women's prejudiced perception of the observers. That's were science and scientists fail, as everybody does: inherently, scientists too interpret through their limiting beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 24, 2024 23:52:30 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper. I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist. There is another interpretation for the experiment you mentioned: the incorrectly women perceived themselves as being scarred, so they projected that feeling to the observers, who reacted to seeing scarred women, whose reactions the women correctly perceived. So, it might have not been about the women's prejudiced perception of the observers. That's were science and scientists fail, as everybody does: inherently scientists too interpret through their limiting beliefs.Scientists call that bias and try to be aware of their own biases. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 23:52:53 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper. I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist. You seem to draw conclusions before looking at the data, again, like with the polio. If you followed the link in my post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/511694"Over an eight-year period, he says he conducted experiments with more than 1,000 volunteers on "precognition" -- the ability to perceive things before they actually happen." |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 24, 2024 23:59:52 GMT -5
There is another interpretation for the experiment you mentioned: the incorrectly women perceived themselves as being scarred, so they projected that feeling to the observers, who reacted to seeing scarred women, whose reactions the women correctly perceived. So, it might have not been about the women's prejudiced perception of the observers. That's were science and scientists fail, as everybody does: inherently scientists too interpret through their limiting beliefs.Scientists call that bias and try to be aware of their own biases. Nobody can know what they don't know. The actual problem is the attitude. That's a problem of character, not of knowledge. Fortunately, it can be cured. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 25, 2024 6:41:02 GMT -5
Scientists call that bias and try to be aware of their own biases. Nobody can know what they don't know. The actual problem is the attitude. That's a problem of character, not of knowledge. Fortunately, it can be cured. A person can be conscious of their bias, and researchers are specifically trained to be. I can't say researchers have particularly predominant character problems compared to another category of human beings. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2024 12:18:30 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper. I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist. You seem to draw conclusions before looking at the data, again, like with the polio. If you followed the link in my post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/511694"Over an eight-year period, he says he conducted experiments with more than 1,000 volunteers on "precognition" -- the ability to perceive things before they actually happen." So, Dunning-Kruger strikes again. This is an interesting development. I think it is a good lesson in how to communicate effectively. When I first talked to Lolly and he didn't even seem to understand the argument, I thought the fault was with me, maybe I wasn't clear enough or too highbrow in my approach. But then the same happened to you, and then Andrew, and also Laughter and before also to Satch (see mantra debate). So it seems we've uncovered a pattern here, or maybe even an MO. What I find most interesting though is that on the surface, Lolly seems to make very rational and often science based arguments that tend to convince the casual observer or the uninitiated, as we can see here: While I don't see the point of studying elaborate religious theories, the karma theory posts also struck me as somewhat neutral and unattached. I'm not even sure if you "believe" it, or simply find it interesting as religious anthropology. The LOA preachers sound like they're trying to push their delusions onto others. (Classic religious fear-based behavior.) But once you actually analyze it, it's just hot air, there is no science, there are no facts, often there isn't even any logic behind the argument, just personal opinions and guesswork, painted with a broad brush. So, the lesson we can learn here, if we want to convince a larger crowd, a good argument is not enough, a good presentation is equally important, maybe even more important. On the other hand, if you only rely on your presentation skills, there will come a point when someone calls your bluff. Usually you can buy some time with elaborate appeals to authority (the Buddha!, or science!), but when the time comes to show the receipts and you come up empty handed, the clown show is definitely over. So I'd say a balanced approach is probably most effective. So, thank you for playing, everyone, especially Lolly. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2024 13:27:22 GMT -5
Scientists call that bias and try to be aware of their own biases. Nobody can know what they don't know. The actual problem is the attitude. That's a problem of character, not of knowledge. Fortunately, it can be cured. There are four entries in the truth table: known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns. The statement "I admit I am subject to cognitive bias", moves the issue, generally, from the 4th to the 2nd, and sets up the possibility of moving from the 2nd to the 1st for specific biases, ie: becoming conscious of the dynamic and content of our mind. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 26, 2024 14:14:33 GMT -5
"You don't know what you don't know" has a different meaning than
"You don't know that you don't know" has.
I wrote the former.
The latter is also related to the D-K efect, which asserts a linear interpolation, where there is a polynomial one.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 26, 2024 18:42:32 GMT -5
I don't get it, in a 50% probability game, if one game saw 53:47comparedto another one that saw 50:50% - that being significant depends on the number of iterations. if it were 100 iterationds, That important information that is missing, and the whole numbers. We have no way of calculating a reasonable margin of error from the information we have. I would have checked the methodolgy if they named or provided a link to the paper. I heard about a experiment where they told women they were trying to find out if looks created prejudice, so they used makeup to give them facial scarring when they attended an interview. Just before they were called in, the make up artist did 'final touches', but secretly removed the scarring altogether. After the appointment the women were asked what, if any, prejudice they perceived due to facial scarring, and the women reported their perceived prejudice. However, there was no scarring. They simply believed there was and were led by suggestion. Due to this misapprehension, they perceived prejudice where none could possibly exist. You seem to draw conclusions before looking at the data, again, like with the polio. If you followed the link in my post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/511694"Over an eight-year period, he says he conducted experiments with more than 1,000 volunteers on "precognition" -- the ability to perceive things before they actually happen." It's possible he did 8 years of poor methodology and/or skew them toward his bias, or even fudge the numbers, and the news report quoting him didn't name a study or provide a link, so I can't tell one way or the other, and unless the experiments are repeatable, they don't meet scientific standards.
I looked into it and found a metaanalysis that strongly supported precognition, then I looked at the authors to find Bem was the lead researcher! Bem has obvious bias, and maybe the selection criteria for the metanalysis was cherry picking. I suspect so because the metaanalysis did not have a clear section that detailed the selection criteria.
I tried to look a bit further for general information, but Bem is all over the shop and you really can't find anything that he doesn't have a finger in,but I found one group that attempted to replicate his experiments that found no statistical significancc, and that's not particularly relevant because did they actually replicate exactly or even accurately? I don't know,but they had great difficulty getting they replicastion paper published. Since Bem was on a journal selection panel, did he influence the publishing community to reject the paper? I don't know, but it's not unlikely.
There are a couple of small things that give me pause, not like the house is on fire, but better check the smoke alarms.
|
|
