So you tell yourself there is a possibility of a 'real' perception being available, but you don't know you aren't lying to yourself.........?
Derfnofred, your explanation is most appreciated. "Lacking a solid treatment pathway"... Got it, and I must be ignorant of what is truly meant by " clinical studies."
Hanging over all this, for me, is the questioning of truth or falsehood of the placebo effect itself. While not identical, isn't there a strong relationship between "placebo effect" and "expectation bias"? Can you have one without the other?
Hanging over all this, for me, is the questioning of truth or falsehood of the placebo effect itself. While not identical, isn't there a strong relationship between "placebo effect" and "expectation bias"? Can you have one without the other?
Yes and yes. They are not the same thing, but they are two ways in which we humans fool ourselves.
This a list which is not comprehensive, but hits the main points:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Ah, gotcha. I misunderstood what your direction was.
Yes, Ben Goldacre is doing good. And medicine is plain hard even for those of us more immersed in it, admitting I lack the clinical background too. (I don't pretend to understand even 1/100 of what I read/do on a daily basis.)
Jacco--no comment.
Destroyer OS's thrust makes zero sense to me and reads like a carefully designed method of motivated reasoning. Then again, sound is one of those very things that our goal is ultimately subjective. Yes, we do well to pay close attention to other folks' psychoacoustics studies in order to see where improvements lie. But, ultimately, we do listen "seeing" in our own residences.
As I've said before, sighted preferences passed off as objective truths are what get me bothered. (Not at all aimed at Destroyer OS)
Sofa--you're welcome. By clinical trials, I'm primarily sticking to this book: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies/learn (it's long, just grab the top). There are also plenty of good studies that go back and ask the question, "is what we thought was effective *really* effective?"
As SY put it, placebo and expectation bias are different, but part of a greater family of ways we delude ourselves (deliberately or subconsciously).
Interestingly a while back I tried to start a discussion on methods people use to 'get in the mood' for listening and it petered out fairly quickly. For all the belief in magic pixie bricks that goes on no one seem interested in considering any techniques to clear the mind ready for critical listening.
Not checked the source but read once that a couple of beers knocks your HF down by 3dB or so. Yet for those of us that embibe, a drink often enhances the whole experience. so our hearing is worse but we are chilled and receptive. As a theory makes sense and no expenditure of vast amounts on snake oil unless you like odd chinese drinks
.
Wow! That is quite a list, SY! For me it reinforces the seriousness of investigations and interpretations into high fidelity audio reproduction. I.E., the ol' "you've got your work cut out for ya."
"Just listen" is certainly easier. It's my main choice, but I don't pretend it reveals any higher truths.
And thanks again, DNF.
"Just listen" is certainly easier. It's my main choice, but I don't pretend it reveals any higher truths.
And thanks again, DNF.
Last edited:
So you tell yourself there is a possibility of a 'real' perception being available, but you don't know you aren't lying to yourself.........?
I make a change where I'd like to expect a result. At first I might be enjoying what I did. But again the illusion of improvement doesn't always stand the test of time. It's easy to get excited, when having fun, trying things. But instead of rolling with it as if every change could be good, one has to come back an ***** it.
So I don't think about it like you do, in a form of non-sense. I don't say in my head "hey there's a possibility of real perception here!"
And yet more placebo articles:
The Placebo Phenomenon
An ingenious researcher (Ted Kaptchuk) finds the real ingredients of “fake” medicine.
by Cara Feinberg :: January-February 2013
Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard Medical School studies placebos | Harvard Magazine
Outsmarting the placebo effect
by Kelly Servick
The placebo effect—real improvement brought on by the expectation of receiving treatment—can offer significant relief for patients. But a strong placebo response is problematic in clinical trials, where it makes it harder to show that a drug is effective. Based on a small study that correlates variants of a certain gene to a person's level of placebo response, a former biotech executive has formed a company around predicting who will improve most from a placebo. The gene could offer a way to reduce the size and cost of clinical trials by excluding these people. But some veterans of placebo research are skeptical that this gene will be predictive across trials and for a wide range of diseases.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6203/1446.summary
'Expensive' placebos work better than 'cheap' ones, study finds
by Karen Kaplan
How do you convert a simple saline solution into a useful treatment for people with Parkinson’s disease? Tell them it’s a drug that costs $100 per dose. And if you want to make it even more effective, tell them it costs $1,500 instead.
'Expensive' placebos work better than 'cheap' ones, study finds - LA Times
The Placebo Phenomenon
An ingenious researcher (Ted Kaptchuk) finds the real ingredients of “fake” medicine.
by Cara Feinberg :: January-February 2013
Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard Medical School studies placebos | Harvard Magazine
Outsmarting the placebo effect
by Kelly Servick
The placebo effect—real improvement brought on by the expectation of receiving treatment—can offer significant relief for patients. But a strong placebo response is problematic in clinical trials, where it makes it harder to show that a drug is effective. Based on a small study that correlates variants of a certain gene to a person's level of placebo response, a former biotech executive has formed a company around predicting who will improve most from a placebo. The gene could offer a way to reduce the size and cost of clinical trials by excluding these people. But some veterans of placebo research are skeptical that this gene will be predictive across trials and for a wide range of diseases.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6203/1446.summary
'Expensive' placebos work better than 'cheap' ones, study finds
by Karen Kaplan
How do you convert a simple saline solution into a useful treatment for people with Parkinson’s disease? Tell them it’s a drug that costs $100 per dose. And if you want to make it even more effective, tell them it costs $1,500 instead.
'Expensive' placebos work better than 'cheap' ones, study finds - LA Times
For all intensive purposes an expectation bias is a placebo when changes have no significance; whether you get P*E is another issue and can be described as expectation bias. You're getting caught up on nothing, trying to use language to define the facts of the event we are having/not having with Bybee's and such. That's ridiculous, as the facts of events define the language. Reading into the language too hard will always give you a result you're looking for... it's not as if the foremost minds on the planet are spectacular with language, or even capable of writing common tongue correctly. However sometimes an interpreter is necessary because otherwise **** like space shuttle explode with people in them...
I know my placebo talk isn't welcoming in concept because it blurs the yes/no we all want, but the reality is you and/or so many people you know wouldn't be taking/have taken any of the drugs that may be keeping them/you alive or allowing you to function as the person you wish to be, if not for equating the value of placebos vs drugs. It's just not a yes/no.
Here's something interesting... There's less supporting evidence of how a Bybee can't work, than there is how one does work. But we far from have a conclusive answer to them doing anything of value in consensus. Let's apply a value system. 1 point for each non-opinion.
Bybee's measure like a resistor on typical measuring devices. -1 point
Bybee's show a measurement difference on super-sensitive uncommon instruments. +1 point
Bybee's follow a voltage division and skin affect pattern for how they supposedly work, not unlike all known information about transmission on a wire. +1 point
Dung isn't my cup of tea.
Betjeman & Barton Gyokuro on special days.
(I need every help I can get)
Yada Yada Yada
Most of those articles are about headlines, not the whole truth.
Would you enjoy a real world example, with factual evidence, that the effect has a very short life-span ?
OK, before I read further... I've noticed this mistake on a few occasions. Call me pedantic or worse, my motivation is simply twofold - I hope to see the mistake less (good for me) and they make the mistake less (should be good for them).
The phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
OK, I've read further. If "facts of events" define the language, then the language had to preexist the event. That is ridiculous.
It is all just coincident to my rant above.
Frankly, I find the remainder either of little relevance or disingenous oversimplification. But that's just me.
The phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
OK, I've read further. If "facts of events" define the language, then the language had to preexist the event. That is ridiculous.
It is all just coincident to my rant above.
Frankly, I find the remainder either of little relevance or disingenous oversimplification. But that's just me.
Simmer down there Jacco.
My flippant (humorous intended) remark was in reference to this ".....after I started to hit walls/mirrors/lamps, to prevent me from physically attacking people."
Lack of self control/aggression is one symptom of amphetamine use.
I speak from personal experience also...ie I trust my ears.
Dan.
Yes, it's not difficult.
Last night I did a trial on a duo live band PA system with my 'purifier'.
Both musos and their promoter heard and described sonic changes in same words independently.
Interesting eh, how non technical types trust their ears also !.
Dan.
I would put it more like this:
Bybee's measure like a resistor on sensitive measuring devices. -1 point
There has been some evidence presented that Bybee's show a measurement difference on some instruments, though the magnitude and frequency of this difference is not clear. +0.1 point
Bybee's behave exactly like a low-value resistor, and no one has shown evidence that they behave otherwise. -1 point
My little anecdote was about accupuncture and placebos, not personalities.
You use BQP's, but the person behind them does not matter to you.
I have no product to sell, yet you find my personality worthy of a comment.
Does not do your IME credibility any good.
If I were to do a flippant, it would be something like :
Your posts have the appearance of a Mini-B*, supported by the Crisco greased armpit of Mr. Bybee.
(* © Dr Evil)
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
The explanations are offered as fact are at best hypotheses. They could be tested but are not. Which defines how "pseudo-science" works to sell to the gullible:
Offer *any* scientific sounding explanation, and people will accept that real science is behind the product.
The "science" is not contested as the purchaser is not an expert and does not understand it. So, they trust that those scientific sounding claims are facts.
The concept of sincerity enters into the picture as trust by the purchaser.
Although I have had experience with someone making a product who was so ill informed, they sincerely believed their own hypotheses were facts.
And here is the rub: Hypothesizing is not doing science. Testing hypotheses is doing science.
You mean like selling litz wire cables for 300 bucks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire
//
The explanations are offered as fact are at best hypotheses. They could be tested but are not. Which defines how "pseudo-science" works to sell to the gullible:
Offer *any* scientific sounding explanation, and people will accept that real science is behind the product.
The "science" is not contested as the purchaser is not an expert and does not understand it. So, they trust that those scientific sounding claims are facts.
The concept of sincerity enters into the picture as trust by the purchaser.
Although I have had experience with someone making a product who was so ill informed, they sincerely believed their own hypotheses were facts.
And here is the rub: Hypothesizing is not doing science. Testing hypotheses is doing science.
You mean like selling litz wire cables for 300 bucks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire
//
Last edited:
Because the tests are based on self measures of wellness, pain scales etc or looking at effects easily affected by mood, blood pressure etc. A placebo can decrease your blood pressure it can't affect your creatine clearance rate of your ldl cholesterol value.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.