What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense

[Ghoostknight]

Hello,

i have a very specific question....

"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 ")

Now tell me, how on earth is science differentiating between these:

-IF- EMF radation actually has an effect on humans, what does "science" expect to happen OTHER than a placebo ? it just doesnt make sense imo
where the mind might be altered by EMF, essentially "firing differently, changing your blood composition because of that" just like an actual placebo

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, either you learned to listen what your body tells you (essentially noticing what the "placebo" does) or you go by science, its all bull, placebo

Now i imagine "the power of the mind making things up" is just as strong, (if not stronger) than external influences, but does that really mean external influences can have no effect at all? science put all this "oh i can feel it" stuff under an placebo umbrella which just heavly goes against my subjective expierence with things

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

 

[Ghoostknight]

i mean one thing, everyone should actually notice, no matter if subjective or objective.... music can have a very profound effect on people, specially depending on what song you are actually listening to ...... its a subjective expierence barely anyone can explain and imo it shifts heavly into the "placebo direction", tho 95% of people will tell you "music is like magic"

as my system got better, i got this foottapping character pretty consistenly, every subjectivist will tell you its an actual thing and imo it just works like an placebo

 

[IanB52]

If you construct a narrow enough test, you can demonstrate almost anything in human perception is placebo. For example, I've read that cupping, (which is a chinese medicine thing where they use vacuum cups to pull tissue away from muscle, leaving a a red mark) is fraudulent. Anybody who has had it done can absolutely tell you they feel the effect, and it is usually pleasant. 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.

There is also the fact that what can be studied through controlled is experiments is a limited slice of what actually happens in the world. 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.

I should add that in context, denial or mindblindedness is a much stronger force in human perception than is expectation bias creating vivid daylight hallucinations. 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.

 

[Ghoostknight]

If you construct a narrow enough test, you can demonstrate almost anything in human perception is placebo. For example, I've read that cupping, (which is a chinese medicine thing where they use vacuum cups to pull tissue away from muscle, leaving a a red mark) is fraudulent. Anybody who has had it done can absolutely tell you they feel the effect, and it is usually pleasant. 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.

i mean exactly stuff like this
same goes for chiropractice i imagine

I should add that in context, denial or mindblindedness is a much stronger force in human perception than is expectation bias creating vivid daylight hallucinations. 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.

i also said this a few times, bias can work in both ways, which objectivists seem to denial somewhat "because just the subjectivists are the crazy ones living their dilusion"

 

[BS5711]

What you are referring to is not placebo it is more correctly expectation bias.

Expectation bias is a bag of crystals making a difference to your perception of audio because you expect and want it to. Placebo would be you thinking a bag of sugar did the same thing as a bag of crystals because you don't know which one is being used at any given time.

Something going against your subjective listening experience is immaterial as evidence against expectation bias since your listening experiences are influenced by expectation bias, they can't not be, you are human and we know you don't do blind listening comparisons since you believe they are flawed.

I have regular ongoing situations where I perceived a quite significant change in sound with perhaps a cable or maybe pairing a set of IEM with a different amplifier. Like, wow this amp really brings these IEM to life, must be the really low output impedance sort of thing, really apparent, no doubt at all, and with technical specs and details to actually make it possible. Except when I actually take the time to compare blind and as controlled as I can ..... then the really apparent difference disappears ....... more or less every time.

Mind-blind - I want these changes to be real and for my listening experience to be able to be improved by simple gear swapping. I am now more skeptical than I was when I started out but I didn't start out skeptical at all, I believed a cable would make a difference, and it did, again until I dug deeper. My position is based on my experience just like everyone else's. I think I probably try harder to prove to myself if and why a difference exists so I get past the expectation bias more often than not and maybe more often than some folks do.

 

[IanB52]

i mean exactly stuff like this
same goes for chiropractice i imagine

Yes. Having had a bit of it (and also gotten injured by it), I do think chiropractic work does make you feel better. And it can also be said that it probably doesn't correct the structure of your body long term in many cases, because that stuff is caused by muscles and connective tissue. So depending on the lens you can say it is helpful or pleasant release of pressure, or placebo.

 

[IanB52]

What you are referring to is not placebo it is more correctly expectation bias.

Expectation bias is a bag of crystals making a difference to your perception of audio because you expect and want it to. Placebo would be you thinking a bag of sugar did the same thing as a bag of crystals because you don't know which one is being used at any given time.

Something going against your subjective listening experience is immaterial as evidence against expectation bias since your listening experiences are influenced by expectation bias, they can't not be, you are human and we know you don't do blind listening comparisons since you believe they are flawed.

I go to the store and purchase the peanut butter cereal, but inside the bag is actually the berry flavored cereal. I return it to the store for a new bag. Why didn't I see (or taste) the peanut butter cereal as I expected? Likewise in audio, why are people sometimes surprised by, dislike, or return their anticipated purchases?

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.

Now, many of us do blind tests where feasible. Eventually I stopped doing them as it was largely a waste of time, and wouldn't be more useful than extended listening.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Expectation bias is a bag of crystals making a difference to your perception of audio because you expect and want it to. Placebo would be you thinking a bag of sugar did the same thing as a bag of crystals because you don't know which one is being used at any given time.

Well thats where it gets somewhat blurry, i actually found a study some time ago giving people A. Crystals and B. Plastic Replicas
unfortunaly i dont remember the exact results but the conclusion was placebo was prevelant in both groups, which might suggest its all a hoax

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) it could be both "placebo" (eg your mind acting measureable differently) but triggered differently

thats also where meditation comes into play, "placebo" without any external influence but many people swear by it

What you are referring to is not placebo it is more correctly expectation bias.

the thing is, your expectation bias triggers a "placebo responds"
and 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, (Eg. persons sits in a room, doesnt know what is tested, so is not aware at all and then we measure what the brain is doing, every study that includes the person knowing what is being tested also will lead to a "mind-made placebo responds" in some people)
atleast this would be the most objective test i could think of in regards to EMF radiation and Crystals..... i even think there are some studys for example showing EEG differences

 

[Ghoostknight]

i even think there are some studys for example showing EEG differences

There is now strong evidence that radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure influences the human electroencephalogram (EEG). While effects on the alpha band of the resting EEG have been repeatedly shown, the mechanisms underlying that effect have not been established. The current study used well-controlled methods to assess the RF-EMF exposure effect on the EEG and determine whether that effect might be thermally mediated. Thirty-six healthy adults participated in a randomized, double-blind, counterbalanced provocation study. A water-perfusion suit (34 °C) was worn throughout the study to negate environmental influences and stabilize skin temperature. Participants attended the laboratory on four occasions, the first being a calibration session and the three subsequent ones being exposure sessions. During each exposure session, EEG and skin temperature (8 sites) were recorded continuously during a baseline phase, and then during a 30 min exposure to a 920 MHz GSM-like signal (Sham, Low RF-EMF (1 W/kg) and High RF-EMF (2 W/kg)). Consistent with previous research, alpha EEG activity increased during the High exposure condition compared to the Sham condition. As a measure of thermoregulatory activation, finger temperature was found to be higher during both exposure conditions compared to the Sham condition, indicating for the first time that the effect on the EEG is accompanied by thermoregulatory changes and suggesting that the effect of RF-EMF on the EEG is consistent with a thermal mechanism.

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6539668/

whether this study suggests emf radiation differences are only triggered by thermal changes is one thing, but its changing EEG anyway which could lead to other "placebo like" responses

im pretty sure some people can "actively" change their brainwaves and tune into some kind of state, ALSO changing EEG, thats the thing with "mind-induced placebo" vs "external influence induced "placebo"" imo

 

[BS5711]

I go to the store and purchase the peanut butter cereal, but inside the bag is actually the berry flavored cereal. I return it to the store for a new bag. Why didn't I see (or taste) the peanut butter cereal as I expected? Likewise in audio, why are people sometimes surprised by, dislike, or return their anticipated purchases?

I struggle to connect any of that frankly but .... you don't tase peanut butter because the cereal has a red tinge to the colour and smells like berries so you know straight away it isn't peanut butter flavoured. Why is it red and why do they make it smell like berries, because you expect berry flavoured cereal to look and smell like that so it improves the eating experience.

If they made berry flavoured cereal black and smell faintly like burning rubber you would not taste berry the same, probably not at all.

Have you ever had a few zero alcohol beers and forgot they were zero alcohol but felt a bit drunk ?

 

[Redcarmoose]

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!

 

[BS5711]

If there was no last thing (for while) and we are thinking we will hear amazement, we just may!

That is very much the case for me.

I can get stale with listening to music and nothing is sounding as good as it usually does so I take a break for a while. Or perhaps a holiday takes me away from regular listening for several weeks.

When I come back to it everything sounds great again, maybe even better than usual. Nothing has changed, the gear and the music are the same, the change is all in my head.


I do think "synergy" is often a mindset unless impedance changes genuinely alter frequency responses. What could be better than one cool piece of gear than two or three connected with fancy cables all working together in beautiful "synergy". I have had days where the "synergy" of a set up of different gear was off the chart .... they are always the days when I am in a good mood and the sun is shining and they are more often than not on a Friday at the end of the working week.

 

[Redcarmoose]

That is very much the case for me.

I can get stale with listening to music and nothing is sounding as good as it usually does so I take a break for a while. Or perhaps a holiday takes me away from regular listening for several weeks.

When I come back to it everything sounds great again, maybe even better than usual. Nothing has changed, the gear and the music are the same, the change is all in my head.


I do think "synergy" is often a mindset unless impedance changes genuinely alter frequency responses. What could be better than one cool piece of gear than two or three connected with fancy cables all working together in beautiful "synergy". I have had days where the "synergy" of a set up of different gear was off the chart .... they are always the days when I am in a good mood and the sun is shining and they are more often than not on a Friday at the end of the working week.

The worst thing is when the IEM is brand new, maybe it has been a product that the IEM company has been working on for a while. Then with-in the first 2 years I ignore what other reviewers say, and present the IEM as great, but it has slight flaws it really does. The more you listen the flaws go away slightly, but in the end they are still there. This is the new toy phenomenon and it can last over a year or more, maybe 2?

Now all this does not make the IEM bad, because no IEM is perfect, and this character is only a subtle place in the response, but the new toy placebo overrides it!

 

[IanB52]

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!

I have a theory that these debates are really between different styles of cognitive processing. Probably a gradient between where cognition comes first in the chain, and where sensory input drives the chain of perception. All sensory experience is structured by memory, context, and organized by the mind. But I think different people have different balances between how active and prioritized thought or sensory input is in the chain of producing experience.

Maybe I could be a bit more respectful in this regard because some people highly filter information in a conservative way around situational context and prior information to create a more holistic and coherent experience, and there is probably a lot of value to that, even though others are more open to novelty.

 

[Redcarmoose]

@IanB52,

I totally agree. And just with night vision, there are ancient tribes of people who are now members of modern day third world countries who show a night vision. Such that different races of people have very different thought processes or even perception processes. There are arguments as to the possibility of 4 major personality types.

The time based
The ego
The structured
The direct