What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense

[BS5711]

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

@gregorio

Did you read post #16 of his autism thread ?

It explains a lot and I am not sure amusing is the right description here.

 

[BS5711]

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.

Again, I think the “something” is outlined in post #16 of the autism thread.

I think folks operating a lot closer to social norms are unlikely to ever make rational sense of the contributions of our chap because they don’t come from a place of rationality.

Sorry @Ghoostknight

 

[Ghoostknight]

Sorry @Ghoostknight

well the real joke is how much people interpret into one post about my work/school history without knowing myself personally and my "cognitive abilities", some after reading this post might understand that 99% of my problem comes from being around other people, for exactly the reasons you guys demonstrate here, but thats another story...

Of course instead of staying objective to the thread/argument the conversation has to be stirred towards "personal attacks" because people run out of logical arguments beside it being "placebo" which exactly this thread is about and how you cant differeniate between a placebo pill and something that "makes the mind work a certain way" causing a placebo like effect that can be just as beneficial as taking some med in the first place...

you guys need to understand that your own opinion is formed around expierences/comparisons you have/did, this might be not for everyone the same, specially you need some kind of "cognitive dissonance" to even get accoustemed to the idea that EMF could have longterm side effects like (harmlessly) audio perception to even be open to the idea

(for me) my audiophile journey led me to this conclusion, the opinion i represent here, some might get it, some dont, and some just talk BS because it seems BS to them

of course, feel free to think im just living my delusions here, lol

 

[BS5711]

You are not getting the impression of you that we are and that impression is based entirely on how you present yourself here.

Our impression of you is formed by months of insistence that your subjective assessment of all manner if things outweighs science because .... well just "because", you have presented no reason why that should be so, and then recent posting of behavioral and social issues and drug use, the latter which goes hand in hand with another comment elsewhere from you about drug use to the extent that you felt it was becoming a serious problem for you.

You might want to stop and consider why most of the folks that contribute here have pretty much the same opinion of you. That isn't because individually we are screwed up in different ways and have all inaccurately came to the same conclusion, it is because you present yourself as screwed up.

I am done with any conversation that involves you, it isn't good for anybody.

 

[IanB52]

well the real joke is how much people interpret into one post about my work/school history without knowing myself personally and my "cognitive abilities", some after reading this post might understand that 99% of my problem comes from being around other people, for exactly the reasons you guys demonstrate here, but thats another story...

Of course instead of staying objective to the thread/argument the conversation has to be stirred towards "personal attacks" because people run out of logical arguments beside it being "placebo" which exactly this thread is about and how you cant differeniate between a placebo pill and something that "makes the mind work a certain way" causing a placebo like effect that can be just as beneficial as taking some med in the first place...

you guys need to understand that your own opinion is formed around expierences/comparisons you have/did, this might be not for everyone the same, specially you need some kind of "cognitive dissonance" to even get accoustemed to the idea that EMF could have longterm side effects like (harmlessly) audio perception to even be open to the idea

(for me) my audiophile journey led me to this conclusion, the opinion i represent here, some might get it, some dont, and some just talk BS because it seems BS to them

of course, feel free to think im just living my delusions here, lol

I am pretty open to many as yet possibilities, such as you describe. I think the issue here is that this forum is an ideological snake pit of incurious and orthodox thinkers. It basically belongs to them so any exploration or speculation about unconventional, ambiguous, or yet to be established phenomena is going to be a conflict. I think that's just the way it is, probably better posted somewhere else (but I don't know where).

 

[Ghoostknight]

that your subjective assessment of all manner if things outweighs science because .... well just "because", you have presented no reason why that should be so

i did, my subjective expierence around audio perception... and atleast for me i found enough reasons that line up with these and can explain them

Music:
- binaural beats
- monaural beats
- isochronic tones
- BPM working as isochronic tones
- if you wanna go deeper into esoteric look up Reich's frequency chart, Eg 38Hz for endorphins

now add
- EMF, while harmless as study actually showed (no increased heartattacks and whatever under a certain exposure level), it could still trigger "placebo like responses" that dont seem to make a statistical difference, *IT COULD BE* purely you believing exposure levels are lower, because the placebo-like response would be pretty similar, but atleast my longterm tests dont suggest this *to me* and there is not much more to say because its a completely subjective thing...
dont you think audiophiles are sure about their opinion? Nobody wants to trick themself, specially if you know about these potential biases

im just using this emf example because *IF THIS IS TRUE* it could explain alot of hifi tweaks including freaking cables...

Of course, its much easier to put any possible effect under the "placebo umbrella" and see them as inconclusive because you only trust studys and cant trust yourself for once

I am pretty open to many as yet possibilities, such as you describe. I think the issue here is that this forum is an ideological snake pit of incurious and orthodox thinkers. It basically belongs to them so any exploration or speculation about unconventional, ambiguous, or yet to be established phenomena is going to be a conflict. I think that's just the way it is, probably better posted somewhere else (but I don't know where).

unfortunaly

 

[BS5711]

That completely sidesteps the series of posts that my comment was in response to, no surprise there I guess.

Like I said, I am done with any conversation with you, it is ultimately pointless, for me and anybody reading.

 

[Ghoostknight]

That completely sidesteps the series of posts that my comment was in response to, no surprise there I guess.

What should have i responded to? the personal crap you "feel" about? ....

 

[BS5711]

" .......... so any exploration or speculation about unconventional, ambiguous, or yet to be established phenomena is going to be a conflict ...... "

I don't want to sound like the forum police but that is what the "Tweaks" type threads are for and why they have a comment right at the header that it is a DBT free zone.

The "Science" forum is not, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, a place to discuss ideas and theories unless there is an effort to do so in a scientific manner with meaningful procedures and an open mind that said ideas and theories might ultimately prove to be complete horse . There is a bunch of information at the main page that indicates that sort of approach, annoying things like burden of proof for example.

Scientific methodology is the complete opposite of what our man Ghoost portrays here, he has done so for months which is the basis of the nature of the rebuttal he receives here then he wonders why.

 

[BS5711]

What should have i responded to? the personal crap you "feel" about? ....

You don't have to respond to anything, that would be preferable to sidestepping.

Cheers Ghoost, good luck man.

 

[Somafunk]

You folk on this thread have the patience of a saint

 

[bigshot]

I’m sorry. Now that I understand your situation, I won’t be arguing points with you any more. I don’t want to encourage your problem. I’m willing to forgive the past and start again from a place of friendly conversation if you make an effort in that direction. Until then, I’ll be on terse mode.

 

[Redcarmoose]

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.

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”?

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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?

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!

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

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.

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

You would argue with a can of beans if it could talk back. That's why I don't visit or bath in SS waters........total nonsense here, of about 50%.


You:
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.


You are completely missing my point, or you are justifying your options based on misunderstanding what I wrote.

Me:
Of course sound to each person in perceived not the same? There are the understood variables of IEMs in that sound is different depending on how they get IEM air-tight fit. The length of dimensions of inside person's ear canal. The inside canal coating of being dry or wet, the insertion depth inside which can be different from time to time and the sonic psychology in which people have believed and understood perception of sound variables. Basically how the tone of the music is perceived as correct.

These variations included what is thought of being the correct bass, the correct treble levels and the correct midrange levels. This idea goes on and on and could pertain to imaging inside the stage being close knit or spread-out, the variations of each IEM having different technicalities in regards to reverberations and staging.....and on and on. Each of these variables takes place different for each and every member, at time close to the same and at times very different. This perception is also based on the character of the DAP they use, the style and design of ear-tip they use, and the possibility of using EQ. So yes, there is both a perceived sound personality from the equipment and a receiver personality from their ear-drum and psychology preference of which the outcome of synergy depends on to take place.

If you are saying different sources and different fitment/cables/EQ of IEMs still results in the same sound, I'm sorry I can't continue with this conversation? In truth none of this matters that much anyways due to the original event of the reality of music being played is lost in time, never to exist on this earth again, so it is anyones guess what is correct, maybe the listener doesn't want it as correct. They admire exstended bass, and hyper treble..........more of something?

The human mind is totally wild in that it gets confused easily. Because all we have to go on at times with entertainment is what we perceive, then often the outcome is only momentary and does not prove long term realities. If an amplifier looks on the outside to be what we expect (a good one) like it to look........to a point we will hear such benefits. But give us an ugly amplifier and to a point it won’t sound as good. What is alcohol in the listening experience. At first the effects seem to open-up this pathway to greater emotional emphasis into the perception of music. Later our perception can not be as heightened?

Why? Because to a point everything is emotional, even though it is connected to proven science. Many people all hear differently, so some like the sound of tube amplifiers, others want cleaner more brisk ideas of playback. Each person has both different ear canal anatomy and physiology which gravitates towards different sound personalities, but what happens when synergy occurs?

Synergy is just two or three or four pieces of equipment blending to go one step farther to help us experience the next level, whatever that is. Is expectation bias part of that idea? Is placebo part of synergy? If we believe it is, then maybe it is? Still does expected desired outcome have a time limit, yes? Maybe, maybe not.....what if you always expect an amplifier to sound a certain way and it always does?

Unfortunately though, it doesn’t most of the time. We have various emotional changes that could possibly be our hearing, or the sound of a set-up we heard prior that makes the set-up we loved sound second-rate. Why is that? Because perception is not in any way factual, it is only relevant to the last thing we heard. If there was no last thing (for while) and we are thinking we will hear amazement, we just may!

Many years ago there was a member here (they are still here) that used to proclaim every amplifier sounded exactly the same, that all DAC were identical.

 

[bigshot]

Most of the time arguing with a can of beans is more productive than arguing with argumentative people. At least the beans don’t make stuff up then fight to the death to make their fantasy be the truth.

 

[2leftears]

I am pretty open to many as yet possibilities, such as you describe. I think the issue here is that this forum is an ideological snake pit of incurious and orthodox thinkers. It basically belongs to them so any exploration or speculation about unconventional, ambiguous, or yet to be established phenomena is going to be a conflict. I think that's just the way it is, probably better posted somewhere else (but I don't know where).

Some here may be incurious and orthodox thinkers, but not all of us.

Especially with respect to how external factors (incl. EMF) may affect the human body, immune system, and perception I think there is still a lot to be discovered by science.

But how do you expect the Sound Science forum to react? (I'm not specifically talking about @Ghoostknight's posts here, but in general)

Understanding and verifying new phenomena unfortunately requires careful scrutiny of hypotheses as well as properly conducted experiments, and independent verification of both by a community of peers. Hence bombarding the Sound Science forum with "but what about this hypothesis because I heard a difference..." is bound to be a frustrating experience for those who do so. All we can do here is point to the need for independent properly conducted listening tests, and point out the invariably many inconsistencies with established science and engineering theory exhibited by the hypotheses regularly put forward.

Does it not make sense that before getting into a lengthy heated discussion about some hypothesis that is clearly based on the misunderstanding of a few scientific facts (the explanation of which can be a long and arduous exercise, especially to those without a scientific background; we don't all have the communication skills of Richard Feynman), we advise first confirmation that the perception was reflecting a genuine phenomenon, and not (often subconsciously) biased by the desire for a hypothesis to be true? That is not being incurious or orthodox, that is simply rational thinking and an attempt not to waste everybody's time.