A previous discussion about placebo effects between Morendil and I can be found here.
Interesting, I agree with what Morendil said in that previous conversation but rejected this post at the first line. I guess that’s just due to the difference between “there is no such thing as the placebo effect” and my position of “the placebo effect as commonly understood is almost entirely bullshit”.
Care to state your position more fully? Or where you disagree with the above, apart from the first line? (I do warn that my actual position is a bit more nuanced—I admit the reality of the expectancy effects on pain, and find the theories about classical conditioning somewhat plausible.)
Placebos make some degree of difference to how pain is processed by the brain (via ECG, not just self report).
There is some effect on short term stress levels.
If what I is read is correct the only actual physical ailments where studies suggest that placebos make any difference at all are those mediated by the aforementioned stress. A mild yet significant effect on ulcurs, for example.
The reason we use placebos when we test stuff is nothing to do with the idea that our body has magic healing powers that we can trick it into using. It is far more to do with avoiding the problem of humans lying to each other and themselves in response to social incentives.
Or where you disagree with the above, apart from the first line? (I do warn that my actual position is a bit more nuanced—I admit the reality of the expectancy effects on pain, and find the theories about classical conditioning somewhat plausible.
I primarily disagree with that line—which you present as a summary. Making your thesis a lazy over-generalization really undermines your position (at least to those of us who take things literally.) I would likely agree with most of your ‘nuanced’ position.
TL;DR: I align with the minority position that “there is a lot less to the so-called placebo effect than you think there is (and the name is horribly misleading)”, a strong opinion weakly held.
(Perhaps consider saying “most people” instead of “you”. People are easier to persuade when they are implied to already belong in the ‘right’ group rather than implied to be in the ‘wrong majority’. It’s also a little pessimistic in as much as your central position can only be true so long as your reader doesn’t believe you!)
Interesting, I agree with what Morendil said in that previous conversation but rejected this post at the first line. I guess that’s just due to the difference between “there is no such thing as the placebo effect” and my position of “the placebo effect as commonly understood is almost entirely bullshit”.
Care to state your position more fully? Or where you disagree with the above, apart from the first line? (I do warn that my actual position is a bit more nuanced—I admit the reality of the expectancy effects on pain, and find the theories about classical conditioning somewhat plausible.)
For most part placebos don’t do anything.
Placebos make some degree of difference to how pain is processed by the brain (via ECG, not just self report).
There is some effect on short term stress levels.
If what I is read is correct the only actual physical ailments where studies suggest that placebos make any difference at all are those mediated by the aforementioned stress. A mild yet significant effect on ulcurs, for example.
The reason we use placebos when we test stuff is nothing to do with the idea that our body has magic healing powers that we can trick it into using. It is far more to do with avoiding the problem of humans lying to each other and themselves in response to social incentives.
I primarily disagree with that line—which you present as a summary. Making your thesis a lazy over-generalization really undermines your position (at least to those of us who take things literally.) I would likely agree with most of your ‘nuanced’ position.
Post edited as a result of the above. Thanks!
ETA: further edit as per the reply below.
I now love this post and reversed my vote! :)
(Perhaps consider saying “most people” instead of “you”. People are easier to persuade when they are implied to already belong in the ‘right’ group rather than implied to be in the ‘wrong majority’. It’s also a little pessimistic in as much as your central position can only be true so long as your reader doesn’t believe you!)
Or even “than you may think” instead “than you think”.