What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense

[bigshot]

An attempt to get along on a friendly basis with others would go a long way. This has nothing to do with sound science.

 

[castleofargh]

That was my original thought, but the truth is tons of the power products I've used contain quartz sand which has a piezoelectric effect and vibration damping. Seems like in the ballpark of ferroelectric substances, which create measurable noise reduction.

Sand's great as a mechanical damping material. I'll go as far as admitting that the piezoelectric effect of quartz in it accounts for part of that(shape, size, humidity level being more important variables). But That's not what OP's reality stretching exercises are about.
Last time, he wanted his 3 rocks on a shelf to be ionizing the air in the room and explain the change in sound he was hearing from it. This time it's about placebo but only because when looking up the web to support New Age crystal ideas and sensory impacts, of course he kept finding that one Japanese guy who sells the rocks and says almost verbatim what OP says, and a bunch of articles that will try to debunk those ideas while mentioning placebo at some point. So that's it, placebo=bad.
Now I'm imagining him looking up for validation with different queries, and while looking for EMF and ionizing(which comes from the bad type of frequencies trying to kill us, ooops), he found that one paper that was alarmist enough to support a real life effect with a super vague relation to his original beliefs.
How does the stuff talking about child leukemia and duckweed relates to him having crystals and hearing the difference? You tell me.
I think he's just willing to grasp at anything remotely feeling like validation.
When asked what reason he has for most his certainties, we get something solid like

because "i know" what my expierence is

One axiom to rule them all.
And when we tell him to drop that baseless confidence he has, inevitably he goes

 

[IanB52]

Sand's great as a mechanical damping material. I'll go as far as admitting that the piezoelectric effect of quartz in it accounts for part of that(shape, size, humidity level being more important variables). But That's not what OP's reality stretching exercises are about.
Last time, he wanted his 3 rocks on a shelf to be ionizing the air in the room and explain the change in sound he was hearing from it. This time it's about placebo but only because when looking up the web to support New Age crystal ideas and sensory impacts, of course he kept finding that one Japanese guy who sells the rocks and say almost verbatim what OP say, and a bunch of articles that will try to debunk those ideas while mentioning placebo at some point. So that's it, placebo=bad.

I don't know much about EMF stuff, but wouldn't surprised if it can be felt by some people. I read some comments about EMF etc (or ionization) as speculative. With regard to ionized air, or regular crystals I'm open to the idea that they create a sensory effect, without doing anything that objectively effects sound.

In specific, Ghoostknight mentioned grounding boxes with crystals in them. I know about a few grounding boxes and use one of them, and they connect to the chassis ground of components and passively drain off low level noise through a blend ferroelectric and quartz sand. This isn't too far out.

 

[Ghoostknight]

In specific, Ghoostknight mentioned grounding boxes with crystals in them. I know about a few grounding boxes and use one of them, and they connect to the chassis ground of components and passively drain off low level noise through a blend ferroelectric and quartz sand. This isn't too far out.

hard to proof the noise reduction tho, imo "it does something" that is audible, what exactly i also can only guess, the big question is imo if someone likes it or not... sure, i feel also "more sane" if i can theorize about some stuff that seems to make sense as a whole picture but in the end in regards to audio your subjective expierence counts

for me it was a very long time also not clear, i just knew power conditioners improve the sound, atleast now i think EMF is probably one possible reason, even if its a far stretch in regards to audio perception
the thing is it doesnt make sense that we hear a difference to begin with if we look purely at dac output measurements, so is it really that far stretched?

------

also in regards to this thread, bigshot mentioned bias is the culprit here, but in the end, bias means placebo as endresult if you hear a difference...

there is no difference for these imo:

- good mood improving audio
- crystals changing your mood, and therefor audio perception
- less EMF affecting your "well being" in some way or another affecting sound perception
- your bias changing your perception *because* of biases, it could also be just your expierence telling you what to listen for example... in the end we are full of biases because of our expierences before

the question IS can you learn to differentiate them?

because in the end everything is "placebo", medically you wouldnt call it that because its probably "known" that your mood is not "placebo" per say, but imo the endresult, your brain changing your blood/hormon chemistry resulting in some differences "should be" pretty much the same

"placebo" seems to be a universal term for everything that the brain does itself, atleast i would categorize it like this

 

[bigshot]

You are very often wrong.

 

[2leftears]

hard to proof the noise reduction tho, imo "it does something" that is audible, what exactly i also can only guess, the big question is imo if someone likes it or not... sure, i feel also "more sane" if i can theorize about some stuff that seems to make sense as a whole picture but in the end in regards to audio your subjective expierence counts

for me it was a very long time also not clear, i just knew power conditioners improve the sound, atleast now i think EMF is probably one possible reason, even if its a far stretch in regards to audio perception
the thing is it doesnt make sense that we hear a difference to begin with if we look purely at dac output measurements, so is it really that far stretched?

------

also in regards to this thread, bigshot mentioned bias is the culprit here, but in the end, bias means placebo as endresult if you hear a difference...

there is no difference for these imo:

- good mood improving audio
- crystals changing your mood, and therefor audio perception
- less EMF affecting your "well being" in some way or another affecting sound perception
- your bias changing your perception *because* of biases, it could also be just your expierence telling you what to listen for example... in the end we are full of biases because of our expierences before

the question IS can you learn to differentiate them?

because in the end everything is "placebo", medically you wouldnt call it that because its probably "known" that your mood is not "placebo" per say, but imo the endresult, your brain changing your blood/hormon chemistry resulting in some differences "should be" pretty much the same

"placebo" seems to be a universal term for everything that the brain does itself, atleast i would categorize it like this

It is posts like the above in amongst all their other tweak postings where I am losing @Ghoostknight's general train of thought (no sarcastic remarks here please folks, I'm pretty sure there is a train of thought at work here, as confused, inconsistent and incoherent as it may be or appear).

On the one hand that post (and others) contains some evidence that they are aware of the role perception and perception bias can play, and how external factors can be at play here, and that some thought and understanding has gone into that.

On the other hand in so many other posts they keep insisting that the attempted tweaks (varying from the vaguely plausible to the ridiculous) actually change the sound rather than just the perception of it, and are inventing and grasping at imaginary straws as to what "mechanism" could explain this, when science and measurements provide all the hard evidence to the contrary.

Many of those postings display a very haphazard, incomplete, incorrect and often total lack of understanding of the physics at play in these processes. What doesn't help (either @Ghoostknight or us) is the veritable mountain of pseudoscience available out there to pick from that itself picks-and-chooses from disjointed bits of both scientific and engineering facts, ripped out of context and reconstructed into an alternative scientific 'reality'. Whilst on the surface such pseudoscience may thus appear to be 'factual', underneath that veneer it is complete BS.

And then in other posts like the above they more or less imply that whether the tweak actually changes the sound, or just the perception of it, doesn't really matter anyway because in the end it is only the perception that matters. In that case, there is literally no end to the 'audio' tweaks one can try and may I suggest placing a couple of drops of lavender oil on top the DAC transformer. If it works, then there are plenty out there willing to sell "audiophile" lavender transformer oil at $80 per ml.

Often it feels like on the one hand @Ghoostknight underneath it all actually understands what may be going on, but on the other hand something prevents them from accepting the inevitable logical conclusions, largely justified by them trusting their own perception above all else.

Hence, I still can't work out whether @Ghoostknight is actually looking for help on this Sound Science forum, and are simply mentally unable/unwilling to accept it, or if they just enjoy stirring things up here in the hope of learning something...

 

[gregorio]

"Science" regards placebo as something that isnt real, its the "power of the brain/mind" making things up (there are even clear signs that a placebo can actually alter your blood composition " just by the power of the mind ")

OMG, you’re joking?! After all this time of denying what you’re experiencing is placebo, you title a thread “What actually is Placebo?”, admitting that you don’t know what it is. How can you deny that you’re subject to it, if you don’t even know what it is?

And if that’s not bad enough already, here you are asserting how “science regards placebo”, when you don’t know what placebo is. This is so ridiculous it’s funny! Hardly surprising therefore that this assertion is WRONG and indeed pretty much any assertion about anything that you don’t even know what it is and don’t understand, is also very probably wrong.

i mean, science probably tested the effect on EMF radiation, but do they expect you fall to the ground or something?
imo its a pretty similar story with crystals

Duh, of course they expect you to fall to the ground. How useful do you think a taser would be if you shot someone with it and they didn’t even notice? You think maybe science doesn’t know or believe in tasers despite the fact that science invented them? Or maybe you think science believes that tasers make people fall to the ground due to placebo effect? Lol.

And what do you mean “science probably tested the effect of EMF”, you’re joking, science has been extensively testing the effect of EMF for well over two centuries and we teach that to school children!

Lastly, “in your opinion” if it were “a pretty similar story with crystals” then we could touch people with crystals and they’d fall to the ground, or their heart would start/stop or they’d even be electrocuted to death, although presumably you’d need bigger crystals for that? lol, what does this ridiculous assertion reveal about “your opinion”?

i mean science still hasnt got the memo that "placebo" actually works for many people....

So science wrote the memo of what placebo is and what effect it has on people but then “science still hasn’t got the memo” that science wrote over a century ago and is well established/accepted science? lol. If the placebo effect didn’t “actually work for people” then it wouldn’t be a placebo effect, it wouldn’t be any effect at all. You don’t even seem to know what an “effect” is, let alone specifically the placebo effect!

The framing of the practice as fraudulent is from a very narrow question of "Is there evidence it works as an athletic performance enhancer?" Since there is none, so far, the headlines will conclude it has no effect whatsoever, even as a massage or to help circulation.

No, that “very narrow question” (“is there evidence it works …”) would only be framed that way by children, ignorant adults or those deliberately or inadvertently misleading ignorant adults. It most certainly would NOT be how science (or those adults with a modest understanding of science) would frame it! The way science would frame the question is: “ls there reliable, repeatable evidence that it works beyond the level of placebo?”. If no scientific/reliable studies have been performed, then the scientific standpoint is that we don’t know for sure but the burden of proof is on the claimant and if there’s no rational explanation of how could work (EG. One that agrees with established science) then we can have quite high confidence that it’s fraudulent and confidence beyond any reasonable doubt if in addition to no rational explanation there is reliable evidence/scientific studies but it does not demonstrate any effect (beyond placebo). And lastly, no one here goes on what “the headlines will conclude”, this is a science discussion forum and it largely exists because what the “headlines will conclude” often bares little relation to the actual science.

Some of the critique of everything being placebo surely comes from people with high degrees of entrenched bias, and low sensory awareness, projecting their own mind-blindedness and rigidity onto other people.

Not necessarily low sensory awareness but certainly entrenched bias and in addition dishonesty, because no one claims “everything being placebo” so that’s a deliberate strawman argument.

In the foreword to Synchronicity Jung proposes that rare or random events can't be incorporated into science. For example, if every 100 years one person somewhere in the world experiences telepathy for 5 minutes, there would be no way to ever establish this occurrence.

Firstly, you may have misunderstood the context but if Jung really did propose that, then clearly he is wrong. For example, there cannot be any event rarer than the “Big Bang” because in the ~13.8 billion year history of the universe it’s only occurred once, so are you saying that the Big Bang theory cannot be incorporated into science, even though it’s a purely scientific theory? What about calderas exploding, which are random events and so rare it has only occurred once or twice in human history (so every 100,000 years or so, let alone once in 100 years), can’t calderas be incorporated into science? There are countless other examples or course. Secondly, how does one person in the world, once every 100 years experiencing something for 5 minutes, relate to thousands of audiophiles claiming to consistently experience something for decades? You think no one has ever tested an audiophile?

Let's be honest, in audio people like DBTs etc for two reasons: They tend to be onerous enough that nobody wants to do them, and because they are a sufficiently poor listening environment as to create a temporary null result, both of which confirm the critics existing bias.

You say “let’s be honest” but then both of the two reasons you cite are false. How is that “let’s be honest” and not the exact opposite of honestly?

but knowing what placebo can do, in my mind the brain A. "making things actually up because you believe in it" and B. "having an actual external influence triggering it" is very hard if not impossible to differentiate, because (atleast in my logic/mind) …

Hang on, your question “What actually is Placebo?” demonstrates you don’t know what it is but magically you do “know what placebo can do”? Clearly you don’t know what placebo is and your false assertion here demonstrates you do NOT know what placebo can do either! And then, instead of doing the obvious and curing that ignorance, you simply make-up a bunch of BS.

IF external influences can trigger a "placebo responds" there is no way to tell the difference logically unless science finds a way to measure the effects on the brain without the person knowing …

You mean there’s no way for your logic “to tell the difference” and that’s because you don’t know what “logic” is either and then you falsely state that what you’re doing is logical, “my logic/mind”, etc. when in fact it’s the opposite of logic! It’s dead easy to tell the difference between a real effect and a “placebo response” without measuring the brain or ensuring the person doesn’t know. For example, if someone is reporting hearing a particular sound, all we have to do is measure the sound and if that particular sound doesn’t exist, then it’s placebo (or some other imaginary effect). No need to measure anyone’s brain, with or without them knowing and even a child should be able to work out this simple, logical solution!

atleast this would be the most objective test i could think of in regards to EMF radiation and Crystals

Which again, only tells us what your mental capacity “could think of”, which apparently isn’t the blatantly obvious that even a child should be able to think of. For the rest of us: For example, stick your fingers on a pair of crystal while grounded (really big crystals if you like or big bunches of them), then stick your fingers on a pair of defibrillator paddles (or in an electrical outlet) while grounded. Do you notice any objective difference … assuming you’re still alive? lol.

We know that electromagnetic fields affect the body, we’ve known for around 2 centuries, we know that the brain and nervous system relies on electromagnetic fields to work, as well as various other autonomous functions of the human body, such as the heart. So, we have an excellent, demonstrable, objective explanation of how and why electromagnetic fields affect the body and indeed have developed various tools based on this scientific knowledge (Defibrillators, EEGs, ECGs, pacemakers, etc.). Now what about crystals, what effect do they produce, what functions of the human body rely on whatever this crystal effect is supposed to be and therefore what excellent, demonstrable, objective explanation do we have of how and why crystals could work?

the thing for me is, you always listen subjectively, so if something subjectively changes your perception its (atleast for me) pretty much the same and shouldnt be excluded "just because it isnt part of the signal", …

It’s stunning that you can’t see how ridiculous that is and in fact still can’t see even after it’s been explained to you several times. If one is say measuring the performance of a DAC (or any other bit of gear) then how is is not blatantly obvious that you must exclude whatever isn’t part of the signal that subjectively changes your perception? Because if you included it then you would not be measuring the performance of the DAC, you would be measuring the performance of your subjective perception and DACs obviously do not have any subjective perception at all, let alone yours!

every audiophile will probably say this too you "measurements dont make sense if you include your subjective expierence"

Now you’re contradicting yourself! Of course measurements don’t make sense if you include your subjective experience; again, DACs (for example) don’t have any subjective experience and as we can’t measure your or anyone else’s subjective experience, how could you include your subjective experience in a measurement of a DAC to start with? As your assertion here is true; that it doesn’t make sense if you “include your subjective experience”, then it does make sense if you “exclude your subjective experience” but then that’s a direct contradiction to your previous assertion that your perception (and changes to it) “shouldn’t be excluded”! So which is it? The problem with just making-up BS is that it’s very difficult to remain logically consistent and avoid contradicting yourself. Your solution to this problem is apparently to completely dump logic but claim that’s your logic/mind! lol

Each person has both different ear canal anatomy and physiology which gravitates towards different sound personalities, but what happens when synergy occurs?

There’s no such thing as “sound personalities”, sound is pressures wave travelling though air, it doesn’t have a personality, you just made that up. And what happens when synergy occurs is (or should be!) the same as what happens when people report the occurrence of fairies, the lock ness monster, leprechauns or anything else that someone made-up that doesn’t actually exist.

I have a theory that these debates are really between different styles of cognitive processing.

Absolutely, although I would phrase it as a difference between those who have a “style of cognitive processing” and those who don’t. Instead of a style of processing to gain cognition (knowledge and understanding) they process to gain misinformation and misunderstanding (albeit not necessarily intensionally). In this case, the process appears to be ignorance on many levels, pretty much all the science as well as the history of scientific discovery (even the basics we teach to school children) and then simply making-up a bunch of BS to replace all that ignorance. What’s truly bizarre in this case is that the OP somehow seems to think this process is logical and even valid enough to post and argue about it in an actual science discussion forum!

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

@gregorio seems to think science has figured it all out, a century ago i guess, probably the reason why EMF includes still ongoing studys

yea, after all that years we can convienently say a crystal isnt like a defibrillator or taser..

 

[gregorio]

@gregorio seems to think science has figured it all out, a century ago i guess, probably the reason why EMF includes still ongoing studys

And there we have it, of all the numerous points I posted, you did not address even a single one of them. The only thing you came back with was just another strawman fallacy, as you so often do. What does that demonstrate/prove, other than that fallacies or more falsehoods is the only way you know how to respond when challenged with your own self-contradictions, cognitive dissonance and made-up BS?

That’s why we keep going round in circles, instead of dealing with your ignorance, self-contradictions/cognitive dissonance like any rational person, who would alleviate their ignorance by learning the actual facts from reliable sources, such as encyclopaedias, text books, other reliable sources or even simply asking here and fact checking the responses if necessary, you instead just double down on the ignorance, defend it with fallacies and even more BS. Wash, rinse and repeat ad infinitum … and then call that “logical”!

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

And there we have it, of all the numerous points I posted, you did not address even a single one of them. The only thing you came back with was just another strawman fallacy, as you so often do. What does that demonstrate/prove, other than that fallacies or more falsehoods is the only way you know how to respond when challenged with your own self-contradictions, cognitive dissonance and made-up BS?

That’s why we keep going round in circles, instead of dealing with your ignorance, self-contradictions/cognitive dissonance like any rational person, who would alleviate their ignorance by learning the actual facts from reliable sources, such as encyclopaedias, text books, other reliable sources or even simply asking here and fact checking the responses if necessary, you instead just double down on the ignorance, defend it with fallacies and even more BS. Wash, rinse and repeat ad infinitum … and then call that “logical”!

G

No, you just didnt got my point why i created this thread or are ignorantly trying to make it look "fool-ish"

imo placebo trough crystals rely on a "scientific/objective" reasoning the only dissonance happens when science wants to figure out if these have any real effect, because a placebo-like response is just that in "science"

this probably counts for many things, low amplitude EMF fields etc...

tho we are all reasnoning here what we have expierenced ourself, one person might not be the same to another, another dissonance in science that trys to washes everything down to a "on average" level

 

[gregorio]

imo placebo trough crystals rely on a "scientific/objective" reasoning the only dissonance happens when science wants to figure out if these have any real effect, because a placebo-like response is just that in "science"

There is no cognitive dissonance in science, if there were, it wouldn’t be science! So, the only cognitive dissonance occurring here is your own and again, not just regarding crystals but scientific, objective reasoning, placebo and science itself. Just because you’re ignorant of the science or don’t even know/understand what science is, does not mean that science is wrong, it just means you’re ignorant of it! You’re trapped in this cycle because you don’t seem to realise you’re ignorant of it, despite the fact you have to keep making up BS yourself in order to plug all the holes caused by your ignorance! It’s quite amusing to watch though

G

 

[Whazzzup]

It’s a little pill that looks like it can do something but actually does nothing

 

[castleofargh]

No, you just didnt got my point why i created this thread or are ignorantly trying to make it look "fool-ish"

imo placebo trough crystals rely on a "scientific/objective" reasoning the only dissonance happens when science wants to figure out if these have any real effect, because a placebo-like response is just that in "science"

this probably counts for many things, low amplitude EMF fields etc...

tho we are all reasnoning here what we have expierenced ourself, one person might not be the same to another, another dissonance in science that trys to washes everything down to a "on average" level

 

[bigshot]

I don’t think it’s good for him to engage with him in argument. He needs to be encouraged to be considerate of others. Until he makes an effort to do that, any argument will be answered by him with double the argument. He needs a short vacation from the forum to give him time to think about what he’s doing here.

Or he can be allowed to derail the entire forum.

 

[BS5711]

I wonder if he literally is.