Don't Feel Good, Now

[Suggestologist]

Commentary this weak contained a quote from a pharmacist: "She replied that she was in favor of anything which made people feel good."

Followed by the question: "Would she take a drug invented by a chemist who thought making people feel good was more important than expertise in chemistry?"

Now, I would never say that the person asking the question has read far more into the pharmacist's answer than she communicated. But that certainly is the case. What is the purpose of morphine if not to make "people feel good"? or at least better. Some people really need to think more about what it means to make someone feel better before disparaging those doing so - by whatever means: "legitimate", pseudoscientific, or psychological.

Additionally, and relatedly, Jim Moore's comment in the latest newsletter contained this: "I think that even if a "psychic" were to try to be scrupulous and helpful at all times, as I'm sure a few do try, they are still being unscrupulous in convincing their clients that supernatural forces are at the base of their understanding and explanations. This takes control — empowerment — away from the client, and this is a terrible thing to do to people who are often grasping for help in their lives."

Perhaps Jim Moore should read up on what it means to "blind someone with science" and compare the disempowering effects of scientific complexification of simple matters -- which disempowers people's ability to deal with life on their own without unneeded assistance from technicians of human brain chemistry, and such.

[BillyJoe]

Suggestologist,

Let's use scientifically proven treatments to help the person recover from the illness, augment this with a bit of empathy and understanding to help the person feel good, and dispense with the mumbo jumbo altogether.

BillyJoe

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Suggestologist,

Let's use scientifically proven treatments to help the person recover from the illness, augment this with a bit of empathy and understanding to help the person feel good, and dispense with the mumbo jumbo altogether.

BillyJoe

But empathy and understanding aren't "scientifically proven" to help anyone......

[BillyJoe]

Suggestologist,

Originally posted by Suggestologist
But empathy and understanding aren't "scientifically proven" to help anyone...... All I am saying is that you should treat the person like you, yourself, would like to be treated. Don't you like to be treated with empathy and understanding? Doesn't that make you feel good? It is the basis of the placebo effect of alternative medicine. So why not use real medicine (EBM) augment it aith the placebo effect by treating the patient with empathy and understanding (as many alternative practitioners do) and dispense with the mumbo jumbo.

BillyJoe

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Suggestologist,

All I am saying is that you should treat the person like you, yourself, would like to be treated. Don't you like to be treated with empathy and understanding? Doesn't that make you feel good? It is the basis of the placebo effect of alternative medicine. So why not use real medicine (EBM) augment it aith the placebo effect by treating the patient with empathy and understanding (as many alternative practitioners do) and dispense with the mumbo jumbo.

BillyJoe

Well, obviously empathy and understanding are pseudoscientific since sham empathy and sham understanding work just as well as the "real" thing.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
sham empathy and sham understanding work just as well as the "real" thing. I can see where sham empathy can exist, but sham understanding? How can you successfully fake understanding?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Well, obviously empathy and understanding are pseudoscientific since sham empathy and sham understanding work just as well as the "real" thing. Maybe you can pull it off if you take acting lessons.
In any case, let's dispense with the herbs and homeodrops.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Well, obviously empathy and understanding are pseudoscientific since sham empathy and sham understanding work just as well as the "real" thing.

"Sham" is the wrong word. It's artificial empathy and understanding. And that's not pseudoscientific.

Just like a chemical works just the same no matter if it's produced in a lab by someone who hopes it doesn't work, or extracted from a plant by someone who chants and rings bells, empathy and understanding works no matter if it's honest and heartfealt or an elaborate act.

If homeopathy "works" because the homeopath is a better listener, we should teach this skill to our doctors, not embrace homeopathy.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Beleth
How can you successfully fake understanding?You've obviously never spoken to a young-Earth creationist.



Oh, wait. Successfully. Carry on.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by bjornart


"Sham" is the wrong word. It's artificial empathy and understanding. And that's not pseudoscientific.

Just like a chemical works just the same no matter if it's produced in a lab by someone who hopes it doesn't work, or extracted from a plant by someone who chants and rings bells, empathy and understanding works no matter if it's honest and heartfealt or an elaborate act.

If homeopathy "works" because the homeopath is a better listener, we should teach this skill to our doctors, not embrace homeopathy.

You're missing the larger context. I use the word "sham" because it has been found that sham acupuncture (putting the needles in the "wrong" places) works just as well as "real" accupuncture (putting the needles in the "right" places). Of course, I'm not an accupuncture expert - nor do I know much more than that it involves sticking needles into people, so I don't know if such studies were conducted correctly or not.

Similarly, there are ways of gaining rapport, trust, etc. that do not require real understanding, nor real empathy/sympathy.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You're missing the larger context. I use the word "sham" because it has been found that sham acupuncture (putting the needles in the "wrong" places) works just as well as "real" accupuncture (putting the needles in the "right" places). Of course, I'm not an accupuncture expert - nor do I know much more than that it involves sticking needles into people, so I don't know if such studies were conducted correctly or not.

Similarly, there are ways of gaining rapport, trust, etc. that do not require real understanding, nor real empathy/sympathy.

I disagree. For the patient there is no difference between real and sham accupuncture, unless you accept the meridian theories. Neither is a there a difference, between real and sham homeopathy, unless you accept some sort of memory of water. And this is true also for understanding and empathy. The difference lies in the fact that both accupuncture and homeopathy, when they have an effect at all, give a placebo effect, they are efficient not because of what the patient receives, but because the patient believes.
The effect of understanding and empathy however is a step up from placebo, it's what placebo depends on, but it isn't placebo.

I'm going to stop now, since anyone who disagreed with me could easily claim I've just painted myself into a corner. But just because I ain't eloquent don't mean I ain't right. :D

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Beleth
I can see where sham empathy can exist, but sham understanding? How can you successfully fake understanding?

Cold Reading allows a person to speak in vague but specific-sounding language that give the other the impression that they understand where they came from - their general background, and that they understand how that other person thinks about themselves and thinks about the world. Other ways exist, but cold reading comes up on these forums often, so it seems the most relevant modality to consider.

[Powa]

Originally posted by Beleth
How can you successfully fake understanding?
Just nod your head slowly and try to calculate 367/39 in your mind (it gives your face a frowned, "understaning" expression).

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by bjornart


I disagree. For the patient there is no difference between real and sham accupuncture, unless you accept the meridian theories. Neither is a there a difference, between real and sham homeopathy, unless you accept some sort of memory of water. And this is true also for understanding and empathy. The difference lies in the fact that both accupuncture and homeopathy, when they have an effect at all, give a placebo effect, they are efficient not because of what the patient receives, but because the patient believes.
The effect of understanding and empathy however is a step up from placebo, it's what placebo depends on, but it isn't placebo.

I'm going to stop now, since anyone who disagreed with me could easily claim I've just painted myself into a corner. But just because I ain't eloquent don't mean I ain't right. :D

How do you know that placebo depends upon it? How do you know that the sticking-pins-into-people-placebo effect is not better than the pretend-to-understand-and-sympathize-placebo effect for all people and all types of problems?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


How do you know that placebo depends upon it? How do you know that the sticking-pins-into-people-placebo effect is not better than the pretend-to-understand-and-sympathize-placebo effect for all people and all types of problems?

I don't care if it is more efficient _as_ a placebo, because promoting it harms society. It creates the impression that something is good because:
a) It's Chinese and 3000 years old.
- ah, yes, lets start grinding up tiger bones, eating dog for stamina, bear bile for whatever, predict the future with I Ching and plan our homes with Feng Shui as well.
b) It's not Western Medicine.
- so let's not pollute our bodies with drugs, or harm ourselves with chemo, or believe the nay-sayers who don't agree that diseases are all in the mind.

If there's nothing more than placebo there, and it gives the patient and society the idea that it somehow works outside our understanding, it is harmful.
If doctors learn to be more empathic and understanding in dealing with their patients, even if they fake it when it's late in the day and the patient is a moron, it is beneficial.

Edited for spelling

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by bjornart


I don't care if it is more efficient _as_ a placebo, because promoting it harms society. It creates the impression that something is good because:
a) It's Chinese and 3000 years old.
- ah, yes, lets start grinding up tiger bones, eating dog for stamina, bear bile for whatever, predict the future with I Ching and plan our homes with Feng Shui as well.
b) It's not Western Medicine.
- so let's not pollute our bodies with drugs, or harm ourselves with chemo, or believe the nay-sayers who don't agree that diseases are all in the mind.

If there's nothing more than placebo there, and it gives the patient and society the idea that it somehow works outside our understanding, it is harmful.
If doctors learn to be more empathic and understanding in dealing with their patients, even if they fake it when it's late in the day and the patient is a moron, it is beneficial.

Edited for spelling

Oh, but why do that when thorazine is so much more efficient than the harmful effects of believing in the efficacy of understanding and sympathy?

[BillyJoe]

Have you seen T'ai Chi's avatar. It goes round and round and round and.....