4 ms·
> I'd say that's absolutely the scientific, empirical approach! Not at all. The scientific approach would involve a sample size greater than one, double-blind
by epicide 7y ago
> I'd say that's absolutely the scientific, empirical approach!
Not at all.
The scientific approach would involve a sample size greater than one, double-blind studies, and at least one control group. All of which you obviously can't do for studying an individual. However, not being able to do those things does not suddenly make this approach scientific nor empirical.
More importantly, it's very difficult to tell whether it's actually helping. It may be helping her in the short-term, but could be severely hurting her in the long-term [0].
As OP stated, they are not empowering the friend with tools to fix their own problem. Instead, they are clearly trying to promote this learned helplessness and dependence [1]. Sadly enough, it sounds like external dependence is the very problem the friend is trying to solve.
Basically, they are substituting the friend's problem with a different problem in the short-term, which will likely compound with the original problem in the long-term.
Yes, religions can help, but that's not guaranteed like a lot of religions would have you believe [2]. This scenario is a perfect example.
[0]: Give a man a fish, etc.
[1]: I realize psychologists are incentivized to do this as well, but a) I'm talking about in this particular case, and b) that's at least the intent behind the laws and regulations for having a medical license.
[2]: Including atheism.
- Consultant32452 7y agoPlacebos work even if you know it's a placebo. If a person believes religion/psychics/chiropractic/homeopathy helps them in some way, it probably does. Even if they know those things are bunk.
- epicide 7y agoAbsolutely. I'm not saying that it can't help or that it isn't helping in the short-term. I'm saying that the long-term net effect could still be negative even with short-term positive effects. The original implication is that short-term positive -> long-term positive, which is simply not true.
- xenophonf 7y agoPlacebos don't work at all. They're inert. Some people just get better on their own, which is lucky for them but not the basis of a treatment plan.
- Consultant32452 7y agoIt appears you have outdated information on this topic. Here a reference: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know-placebo-201607079926 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...
- skissane 7y agoA couple of times, when I've been too stressed out, a doctor has prescribed me diazepam. The funny thing about it, is when I take a diazepam tablet, I instantly start to feel better, even though I realise from a pharmacological viewpoint the diazepam could not yet have been absorbed by my stomach and travelled through my blood to reach my brain yet. Placebo effect happens even for therapies that actually really work.
- BurningFrog 7y agoRead what you're responding to carefully: > so long as it is helping, it isn't necessarily bad So it's about what you should think about this activity, IF it is actually helping. OP thinks it should be avoided even if it's helping. I'm arguing for the opposite. You're arguing about something different: Does it actually work? This is an entirely separate question that I don't have much of an opinion on. I would take issue with your (seeming) claim that you need a multi million dollar lab that does full scale double blind tests of every claim to have a scientific outlook. That's an unfortunate "all or nothing" world view. Most of the great science in history was done without that, and a rational person can make empirical observation in everyday life without such a huge apparatus, and gain a lot from it.