6 ms·

Whoever thought the placebo effect was a ‘trick’? It’s well established that the mind controls the brain which controls the body. (And the other way around, to

Whoever thought the placebo effect was a ‘trick’? It’s well established that the mind controls the brain which controls the body. (And the other way around, too). A physiological problem in the mind can cause a chemical problem in the brain which can cause a ‘physical’ problem in the body. Or heal a problem in the body. Quotes around physical because mind and body are both physical. If doctors are surprised by this it must be because they are still clinging to some form Cartesian dualism.

MadcapJake 8y ago
I'm pretty sure doctors didn't write the article name.
- rando444 8y ago
  Right, but where did the article come from at all? Is it a common misconception that the placebo effect is a 'trick'?
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    > Is it a common misconception that the placebo effect is a 'trick'? My experience says yes, it's a trick. As in, mind may be over matter but if it's a placebo it's worse than the real thing, or at least that's the connotation I had for the word.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - matt4077 8y ago
    It's a trick as in "all the tricks of the trade" or "does the trick", or "the trick is to keep breathing". It does not necessarily have the negative connotation everyone here seems to pick up on, just as it doesn't involve any tricks being turned, two hours wasted at the helm, games of bridge, or sketchy coats of arms. (This post sponsored by MacOS' built-in dictionary)
qubax 8y ago
> Whoever thought the placebo effect was a ‘trick’? People pretending to be journalists who need to clickbait to make money. I wish the nytimes would stop making their headlines a question already.
abnry 8y ago
The placebo is based on belief. You give a sugar pill to someone and they believe it is something more. That's "tricking them." And yes, I do think most doctors in Western medicine cling to a form of Cartesian dualism. It's somewhat tempered, but the mind body connection is vastly underexplored.
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  Not always true. All you have to believe is that placebo helps, not that it is not a placebo. https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-...
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    There's an old story about Neils Bohr. He was out at his lakehouse with his students, where he had a horseshoe over the doorframe for luck. One of them was outraged and asked "Professor Bohr, surely you don't believe in this sort of silly superstition!" Bohr answered "Well of course not, that's absurd. But fortunately, it works whether you believe in it or not!" Which comes to mind because I know a few people who are quite knowledgeable about medicine, committed to evidence and rigor, and also go to treatments like acupuncture regularly. They all do it with that same sort of winking sense that sure, this probably doesn't work double-blind, but as long as I don't focus too hard on that it'll work for me. One or two have even said that they consciously avoided investigating past "it's not harmful" to preserve ambiguity. I'd always wondered how well that kind of doublethink could do for placebo, and while this isn't exactly the same I'm excited to find a discussion along those lines.
    - summerdown2 8y ago
      Much like Aleister Crowley's joke that explains how Magic works: ”Two strangers sat down opposite each other in a railway carriage. One of the men had on his lap a cardboard box with holes in the top. After some time wondering what might be inside it, the second man said, “Excuse me, but I couldn’t help noticing your box. Does it contain an animal?” The first man smiled politely. “Yes, a mongoose.” “A mongoose? Where are you going with that?" “Ah,” the first man replied, “My sister has terrible dreams. She sees snakes everywhere. I'm taking her the mongoose so it can scare them off." “But how can that work,” the second man said, “Those are imaginary snakes?” “Indeed,” his fellow traveller replied. “Which is why this,” and here he lifted the top and tilted it to show an empty box, "is an imaginary mongoose.”
Novashi 8y ago
> A physiological problem in the mind can cause a chemical problem in the brain which can cause a ‘physical’ problem in the body. Or heal a problem in the body. Unless my particular pathways are different and I respond to placebos differently than another population. You're not wrong that it's well established that there's some effect, but beyond that, it's barely science until we can map these pathways. So it's still a 'trick'.
- yomly 8y ago
  I don't really find this distinction useful - essentially it comes down to definitions. It's not a treatment that is well understood in the way that some physiological mechanisms may be understood, but trick is an overloaded term and the persisting feeling that it is a trick may well be dampening furthering our knowledge in this space. In any case after studying some pharmacology, my takeaway really was that "understand" is a pretty relative term - biochemistry is insanely complex and medical chemistry is a pretty fuzzy thing when it boils down to it...
kryogen1c 8y ago
Seriously. It's universally established and accepted that placebo is a legitimate medical effect. That's one of the major purposes of control groups and double blind studies: many medicines don't make it to market because they have a positive effect LESS than placebo. Clickbait more and more out of NYT. What a world.
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  Teaching people something that you happen to already know is not "clickbait". https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- kevinqiu1 8y ago
  I don't think the point of the article was to say that placebo is a legitimate effect but exploring the philosophy of science implications of the research on placebos the author was reporting on. I'm personally very interested in reading about this sort of stuff and similarly enjoyed their other recent article about Latour but I could also see how someone would think it's non-sense.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Clickbait doesn't mean what you seem to believe it does ("any headline that isn't the least interesting summary of the article"). More importantly, "trick" may also not mean what you think it does. It's a rather interesting word, actually. Your interpretation seems to focus on the bad aspects, i. e. deception. But a trick can also be a clever shortcut. It might still involve some make-believe, but puts it in service of a good cause. That's somewhat closer to the intended meaning here. And it's a perfectly valid way to describe the undeniable peculiarity of placebos.
cco 8y ago
For clarity could you please briefly define "mind"?
- carapace 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
  - cco 8y ago
    So in this paradigm mind is to brain what movement is to body?
    - carapace 8y ago
      Hmm, the brain is an organ of the body, is it any more mysterious if "mind", whatever that is, controls the movement of the arm rather than the brain? If you decide to think of biting a lemon and your saliva glands react, is that any weirder than throwing a ball? If you just think about throwing a ball without doing it your muscles will still contract in "micro-movements" to act out the act of throwing.
rednerrus 8y ago
It goes both ways, right? The body can create issues that cause chemical problems in the brain.
IX-103 8y ago
And yet placebos do not seem to significantly affect objective measures (they do not improve respiratory volume in asthma for instance). Placebos only seem to work when the mind is also in the measurement loop. That's why we wonder if the patient is actually better or we just think they are. There is some limited evidence that placebos have some actual effect on reducing pain, but it's hard to separate the effects for many conditions.
- WA 8y ago
  This is what I always wondered. Most placebo studies work with pain/chronic pain. But can you somehow use the Placebo effect to reduce the duration of the flu? Or other infections? Does a good patient-doctor relationship (article says that this is an important factor in Placebos) promote faster recovery when a virus is involved? Edit: Although even here, you often need to trust the answer of a patient about their well-being and can’t necessarily pinpoint the duration of the flu to measurable symptoms only.
monkeynotes 8y ago
I am not really sure we can say that the mind is purely 'physical' with conviction. I think to assert that the mind is as physical as the body falls well short of comprehending the complexities of mind that are truly distinct from body. This article supports a plausible theory that the mind is a complex system and does not define easily as being purely local to the body: https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/ https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined... I think when it comes to mind/consciousness the humble position is to say "we don't know enough yet". Humans are certainly not so enlightened that we can define ourselves with precision and we should operate in the world with appropriate humility.
muthdra 8y ago
I don't think it's fair to say the mind controls the brain. The relation between the controller and the controlled is reciprocal.

MadcapJake 8y ago

I'm pretty sure doctors didn't write the article name.

rando444 8y ago
Right, but where did the article come from at all? Is it a common misconception that the placebo effect is a 'trick'?
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  > Is it a common misconception that the placebo effect is a 'trick'? My experience says yes, it's a trick. As in, mind may be over matter but if it's a placebo it's worse than the real thing, or at least that's the connotation I had for the word.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  It's a trick as in "all the tricks of the trade" or "does the trick", or "the trick is to keep breathing". It does not necessarily have the negative connotation everyone here seems to pick up on, just as it doesn't involve any tricks being turned, two hours wasted at the helm, games of bridge, or sketchy coats of arms. (This post sponsored by MacOS' built-in dictionary)

qubax 8y ago

> Whoever thought the placebo effect was a ‘trick’? People pretending to be journalists who need to clickbait to make money. I wish the nytimes would stop making their headlines a question already.

abnry 8y ago

The placebo is based on belief. You give a sugar pill to someone and they believe it is something more. That's "tricking them." And yes, I do think most doctors in Western medicine cling to a form of Cartesian dualism. It's somewhat tempered, but the mind body connection is vastly underexplored.

srtjstjsj 8y ago
Not always true. All you have to believe is that placebo helps, not that it is not a placebo. https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-work-even-when-you-know-10-12-23/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-...
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  There's an old story about Neils Bohr. He was out at his lakehouse with his students, where he had a horseshoe over the doorframe for luck. One of them was outraged and asked "Professor Bohr, surely you don't believe in this sort of silly superstition!" Bohr answered "Well of course not, that's absurd. But fortunately, it works whether you believe in it or not!" Which comes to mind because I know a few people who are quite knowledgeable about medicine, committed to evidence and rigor, and also go to treatments like acupuncture regularly. They all do it with that same sort of winking sense that sure, this probably doesn't work double-blind, but as long as I don't focus too hard on that it'll work for me. One or two have even said that they consciously avoided investigating past "it's not harmful" to preserve ambiguity. I'd always wondered how well that kind of doublethink could do for placebo, and while this isn't exactly the same I'm excited to find a discussion along those lines.
  - summerdown2 8y ago
    Much like Aleister Crowley's joke that explains how Magic works: ”Two strangers sat down opposite each other in a railway carriage. One of the men had on his lap a cardboard box with holes in the top. After some time wondering what might be inside it, the second man said, “Excuse me, but I couldn’t help noticing your box. Does it contain an animal?” The first man smiled politely. “Yes, a mongoose.” “A mongoose? Where are you going with that?" “Ah,” the first man replied, “My sister has terrible dreams. She sees snakes everywhere. I'm taking her the mongoose so it can scare them off." “But how can that work,” the second man said, “Those are imaginary snakes?” “Indeed,” his fellow traveller replied. “Which is why this,” and here he lifted the top and tilted it to show an empty box, "is an imaginary mongoose.”

Novashi 8y ago

> A physiological problem in the mind can cause a chemical problem in the brain which can cause a ‘physical’ problem in the body. Or heal a problem in the body. Unless my particular pathways are different and I respond to placebos differently than another population. You're not wrong that it's well established that there's some effect, but beyond that, it's barely science until we can map these pathways. So it's still a 'trick'.

yomly 8y ago
I don't really find this distinction useful - essentially it comes down to definitions. It's not a treatment that is well understood in the way that some physiological mechanisms may be understood, but trick is an overloaded term and the persisting feeling that it is a trick may well be dampening furthering our knowledge in this space. In any case after studying some pharmacology, my takeaway really was that "understand" is a pretty relative term - biochemistry is insanely complex and medical chemistry is a pretty fuzzy thing when it boils down to it...

kryogen1c 8y ago

Seriously. It's universally established and accepted that placebo is a legitimate medical effect. That's one of the major purposes of control groups and double blind studies: many medicines don't make it to market because they have a positive effect LESS than placebo. Clickbait more and more out of NYT. What a world.

srtjstjsj 8y ago
Teaching people something that you happen to already know is not "clickbait". https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
kevinqiu1 8y ago
I don't think the point of the article was to say that placebo is a legitimate effect but exploring the philosophy of science implications of the research on placebos the author was reporting on. I'm personally very interested in reading about this sort of stuff and similarly enjoyed their other recent article about Latour but I could also see how someone would think it's non-sense.
matt4077 8y ago
Clickbait doesn't mean what you seem to believe it does ("any headline that isn't the least interesting summary of the article"). More importantly, "trick" may also not mean what you think it does. It's a rather interesting word, actually. Your interpretation seems to focus on the bad aspects, i. e. deception. But a trick can also be a clever shortcut. It might still involve some make-believe, but puts it in service of a good cause. That's somewhat closer to the intended meaning here. And it's a perfectly valid way to describe the undeniable peculiarity of placebos.

cco 8y ago

For clarity could you please briefly define "mind"?

carapace 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
- cco 8y ago
  So in this paradigm mind is to brain what movement is to body?
  - carapace 8y ago
    Hmm, the brain is an organ of the body, is it any more mysterious if "mind", whatever that is, controls the movement of the arm rather than the brain? If you decide to think of biting a lemon and your saliva glands react, is that any weirder than throwing a ball? If you just think about throwing a ball without doing it your muscles will still contract in "micro-movements" to act out the act of throwing.

rednerrus 8y ago

It goes both ways, right? The body can create issues that cause chemical problems in the brain.

IX-103 8y ago

And yet placebos do not seem to significantly affect objective measures (they do not improve respiratory volume in asthma for instance). Placebos only seem to work when the mind is also in the measurement loop. That's why we wonder if the patient is actually better or we just think they are. There is some limited evidence that placebos have some actual effect on reducing pain, but it's hard to separate the effects for many conditions.

WA 8y ago
This is what I always wondered. Most placebo studies work with pain/chronic pain. But can you somehow use the Placebo effect to reduce the duration of the flu? Or other infections? Does a good patient-doctor relationship (article says that this is an important factor in Placebos) promote faster recovery when a virus is involved? Edit: Although even here, you often need to trust the answer of a patient about their well-being and can’t necessarily pinpoint the duration of the flu to measurable symptoms only.

monkeynotes 8y ago

I am not really sure we can say that the mind is purely 'physical' with conviction. I think to assert that the mind is as physical as the body falls well short of comprehending the complexities of mind that are truly distinct from body. This article supports a plausible theory that the mind is a complex system and does not define easily as being purely local to the body: https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/ https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined... I think when it comes to mind/consciousness the humble position is to say "we don't know enough yet". Humans are certainly not so enlightened that we can define ourselves with precision and we should operate in the world with appropriate humility.

muthdra 8y ago

I don't think it's fair to say the mind controls the brain. The relation between the controller and the controlled is reciprocal.