3 ms·

> as there's a general attitude among scientifically-minded people that the notion of a link between emotions/thoughts and physiology is absurd I am surprised

> as there's a general attitude among scientifically-minded people that the notion of a link between emotions/thoughts and physiology is absurd I am surprised to hear that's the case, and also it absolutely does not match my experience of the scientifically minded people I know, all of whom are familiar with both the placebo effect and the term psychosomatic.

chongli 7y ago
Anyone who is scientifically minded enough to have spent some time learning biology and human anatomy has probably heard of hormones such as adrenaline and have felt their effects on the body. Under stress we sweat, feel jittery or flighty, get dry mouth, have trouble speaking clearly, and more. Casually speaking, it might seem easy to wave off such body changes in response to emotion as a temporary thing. That would be premature. Cortisol is another hormone associated with stress and people with stressful lives show elevated cortisol levels which may be related to weight gain and obesity [1]. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2009.76 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2009.76
tomhoward 7y ago
> all of whom are familiar with both the placebo effect and the term psychosomatic Sure, but those concepts are more often regarded with dismissiveness in the context I'm talking about. Try proposing to such a person that chronic auto-immune illness, that has resisted treatment by conventional medicine, could be remedied via non-mainstream subconscious healing techniques. It's notable that zealots end up tying themselves in knots over these topics. In attacking homeopathy (which, to be clear, I’m not into), Science Based Medicine [1] goes as far as claiming that the placebo effect doesn't bring about any actual physiological improvement, but rather just brings about a feeling of wellbeing. This seems to contradict the way in which it the concept is used in mainstream medical trials. It also presumes that "feeling good" and physiological healing are unrelated concepts, which would be surprising from an evolutionary perspective. But hey what do I know? I'm no doctor, just a poor shmo trying to make sense of it all while trying whatever means possible to get well. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-myths-debunked/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-myths-debunked/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cbkeller 7y ago
  I don't know anything about the folks behind that website, but a quick survey of the literature would lead me to expect a scientific consensus that the placebo effect is absolutely physiologically real. Just to pick one particularly interesting study from way back in 1978, Levine, Gordon, and Fields [1] reported in the Lancet that naxolone (better known now as Narcan) can actually block placebo pain relief (in this case, in the context of dental surgery), implying that the placebo analgesia is mediated by actual physiological release of neurotransmitters (in this case, endorphins). [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92762-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92762-9
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    Yep, indeed. This isn't the place for an extended discussion/debate about this stuff, as I've long learned that it's driven far more by ideology and ego than actual science. But I've heard it said by a leading proponent of mind-body health hypotheses and practices, that there's a pattern the debate so often seems to follow when discussing this stuff with materialist hardliners: You start by suggesting that physiological illnesses can be (at last partially) treated with emotion-based therapies, and they scoff, "that's preposterous". You then carefully explain it using known, established science, to do with factors like cortisol, the fight/flight response, priority resource allocation, etc. They then respond "well of course, everyone knows that, there's nothing novel about this at all". Yet after many years of people talking about, actual practice of this kind of treatment is still confined to the fringes and beyond.
- matwood 7y ago
  The SBM folks are actually pretty good. The person who started SBM also has a podcast (The Skeptics Guide to the Universe) which is also interesting. The point that they make constantly is that there are too many shysters selling sham treatments, that when studied turn out no better than the placebo baseline. I do think it's pretty well established at this point that stress causes inflammation [1]. Chronic inflammation looks like it wrecks havoc on the body and can turn up as all sorts of symptoms. Addressing the psychological issues that are causing the stress absolutely should help. Where the skeptics get caught up, and I believe rightly so, is when practitioners start talking about woo or chi. [1] https://www.everydayhealth.com/wellness/united-states-of-stress/link-between-stress-inflammation/ https://www.everydayhealth.com/wellness/united-states-of-str...

chongli 7y ago

Anyone who is scientifically minded enough to have spent some time learning biology and human anatomy has probably heard of hormones such as adrenaline and have felt their effects on the body. Under stress we sweat, feel jittery or flighty, get dry mouth, have trouble speaking clearly, and more. Casually speaking, it might seem easy to wave off such body changes in response to emotion as a temporary thing. That would be premature. Cortisol is another hormone associated with stress and people with stressful lives show elevated cortisol levels which may be related to weight gain and obesity [1]. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2009.76 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2009.76

tomhoward 7y ago

> all of whom are familiar with both the placebo effect and the term psychosomatic Sure, but those concepts are more often regarded with dismissiveness in the context I'm talking about. Try proposing to such a person that chronic auto-immune illness, that has resisted treatment by conventional medicine, could be remedied via non-mainstream subconscious healing techniques. It's notable that zealots end up tying themselves in knots over these topics. In attacking homeopathy (which, to be clear, I’m not into), Science Based Medicine [1] goes as far as claiming that the placebo effect doesn't bring about any actual physiological improvement, but rather just brings about a feeling of wellbeing. This seems to contradict the way in which it the concept is used in mainstream medical trials. It also presumes that "feeling good" and physiological healing are unrelated concepts, which would be surprising from an evolutionary perspective. But hey what do I know? I'm no doctor, just a poor shmo trying to make sense of it all while trying whatever means possible to get well. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-myths-debunked/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-myths-debunked/

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cbkeller 7y ago
I don't know anything about the folks behind that website, but a quick survey of the literature would lead me to expect a scientific consensus that the placebo effect is absolutely physiologically real. Just to pick one particularly interesting study from way back in 1978, Levine, Gordon, and Fields [1] reported in the Lancet that naxolone (better known now as Narcan) can actually block placebo pain relief (in this case, in the context of dental surgery), implying that the placebo analgesia is mediated by actual physiological release of neurotransmitters (in this case, endorphins). [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92762-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(78)92762-9
- tomhoward 7y ago
  Yep, indeed. This isn't the place for an extended discussion/debate about this stuff, as I've long learned that it's driven far more by ideology and ego than actual science. But I've heard it said by a leading proponent of mind-body health hypotheses and practices, that there's a pattern the debate so often seems to follow when discussing this stuff with materialist hardliners: You start by suggesting that physiological illnesses can be (at last partially) treated with emotion-based therapies, and they scoff, "that's preposterous". You then carefully explain it using known, established science, to do with factors like cortisol, the fight/flight response, priority resource allocation, etc. They then respond "well of course, everyone knows that, there's nothing novel about this at all". Yet after many years of people talking about, actual practice of this kind of treatment is still confined to the fringes and beyond.
matwood 7y ago
The SBM folks are actually pretty good. The person who started SBM also has a podcast (The Skeptics Guide to the Universe) which is also interesting. The point that they make constantly is that there are too many shysters selling sham treatments, that when studied turn out no better than the placebo baseline. I do think it's pretty well established at this point that stress causes inflammation [1]. Chronic inflammation looks like it wrecks havoc on the body and can turn up as all sorts of symptoms. Addressing the psychological issues that are causing the stress absolutely should help. Where the skeptics get caught up, and I believe rightly so, is when practitioners start talking about woo or chi. [1] https://www.everydayhealth.com/wellness/united-states-of-stress/link-between-stress-inflammation/ https://www.everydayhealth.com/wellness/united-states-of-str...