Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#21

Post by gnramires » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:23 AM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #17

Maybe there is a way to use this concept of reducing stress with a gesture without invoking supernatural gibberish. I mean to me it seems totally plausible that having a person there that is trying to help you in and of itself can reduce stress. Also if they touch you, that seems like it could definitely reduce stress also. Or just the psychological effect of knowing that there are people who care, that seems like it…

> The question is can that basic concept work without the mumbojumbo

I used to think like that too, but I'm more open that sometimes a story, any story, allegory can be helpful in many contexts, by creating an identity, an aesthetic quality of the thing; help us conceptualize it. Since this in particular is about psychological phenomenon, I think it perhaps shouldn't be discarded. The question would be (if the story is an important part of a working practice) how to keep the story from being confused with fact. I think that's achievable (treat it as a mythology, or something). I don't think anyone would defend the banning of telling stories to children or fiction movies.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#22

Post by crispinb » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:25 AM UTC

Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses, bifurcating essentially into:

1. it's all mumbo jumbo

2. there's more in heaven and earth, my son

Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence, though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it.

An empiricist mindset is really hard for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic hard-heads included) judge propositions new to us largely in terms of what we think we already know, and pre-existing metaphysical beliefs weigh far, far heavier than does empirical evidence.

My reflexive reaction is closer to 1 than to 2. But I don't take that reaction more seriously than any old muscle twitch I might happen to have.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#23

Post by hcarvalhoalves » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:39 AM UTC

> The ailments that Reiki seems to treat most effectively are those that orthodox medicine struggles to manage: pain, anxiety, chronic disease, and the fear or discomfort of facing not only the suffering of illness but also the suffering of treatment.

This is key.

Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit subjective, which is well-being.

The figure of the family doctor that takes his time and actually shows you attention has vanished. The average experience of a hospital visit is that of being treated like a number.

No surprise then that Reiki, or whatever other alternative practice really, that allows you to have the undivided attention, one day a week, from someone who cares about you, works wonders. Endorphins are powerful, Oxytocin specially, its role in modulating inflammation response is already known, and a lot of complains (chronic pain, mood disorders, mental function, even obesity) are tied to chronic inflammation.

So, yes, about time more serious study is done on the importance of well-being.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#24

Post by GuiA » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:49 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #22

Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses, bifurcating essentially into: 1. it's all mumbo jumbo 2. there's more in heaven and earth, my son Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence, though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it. An empiricist mindset is really hard for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic hard-heads included) judge p…

3. Humans tend to feel better when other humans take care of them, pay attention to them, touch them

It’s not that crazy, and it’s based in empirical observation and consistent with our biological/medical understanding.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#25

Post by Illniyar » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #17

Maybe there is a way to use this concept of reducing stress with a gesture without invoking supernatural gibberish. I mean to me it seems totally plausible that having a person there that is trying to help you in and of itself can reduce stress. Also if they touch you, that seems like it could definitely reduce stress also. Or just the psychological effect of knowing that there are people who care, that seems like it…

Well, placebo doesn't work if you know it isn't real.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#26

Post by mmhsieh » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

Human touch does trigger positive neurochemical cascades. We might understand how all this works much better in the future, perhaps we big improvements in in vivo imaging of biological processes. Maybe some future version of CARS microscopy that does not fry the cell; better theory on multi-scale processes in human biology; and much better fMRI than what we have now.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#27

Post by ghthor » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

It can possibly work, if you open your mind to more then what's possible in the materialist scientific viewpoint.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#28

Post by adrianN » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

Illniyar wrote: post #25

ilaksh wrote: post #17

Maybe there is a way to use this concept of reducing stress with a gesture without invoking supernatural gibberish. I mean to me it seems totally plausible that having a person there that is trying to help you in and of itself can reduce stress. Also if they touch you, that seems like it could definitely reduce stress also. Or just the psychological effect of knowing that there are people who care, that seems like it…

Well, placebo doesn't work if you know it isn't real.

Actually it does:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#29

Post by Ididntdothis » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #24

crispinb wrote: post #22

Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses, bifurcating essentially into: 1. it's all mumbo jumbo 2. there's more in heaven and earth, my son Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence, though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it. An empiricist mindset is really hard for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic hard-heads included) judge p…

3. Humans tend to feel better when other humans take care of them, pay attention to them, touch them It’s not that crazy, and it’s based in empirical observation and consistent with our biological/medical understanding.

A lot of people still have the mindset that the body is a system with clear inputs and outputs and predictable outcomes. But in many cases the brain plays a big role so things like people feeling good and getting attention helps a lot. A lot of regular medicine feels very rushed and if you have a complex problem it's hard to get anybody to listen. I bet for things like chronic pain or chronic fatigue they would get better results if they slowed down a little and listened.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#30

Post by seer » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:07 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #22

Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses, bifurcating essentially into: 1. it's all mumbo jumbo 2. there's more in heaven and earth, my son Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence, though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it. An empiricist mindset is really hard for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic hard-heads included) judge p…

Great comment and I apologize in advance for going off topic.

We all have our mental models and it takes effort to re-evaluate and change them. And as the saying goes - there are no right models, only useful ones in some situations. Some are useful in more situations than others. Take “flat earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise enough for the purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with that, its when you want to venture out, then you have to find a more precise one. But if you live your life in that village - it’s very useful and you can be excused for believing that this is all there is to the world.

I once started learning some chinese martial arts, and the instructor was a true believer in more than the fighting techniques, but the spirituality that comes with it. Very easily debunked by modern fact based science. But if you followed the practices that the believes justified, you could help your health tremendously - meditation, physical exercise, calmness - it had a very neat system to explain everything.

Imagine being a practitioner several thousand years ago - you had a system and if you made people practice it - they got better. Even if the exact mechanism of why it happened is flawed, and failed in some cases, by the most part it worked. You just had to refine it a bit.

And it did help me as well. Had I just dismissed it as shaman mumbo jumbo and not went through with it, I’d be worse off for sure. No reason I had to adopt his model wholesale though - I just needed to attempt to reconcile his one with the science based one I knew, and see where I can learn a thing or two.

Anyway just wanted to say that from that I did learn to be more tolerant and not dismiss out of habit things that were not peer reviewed double blind tested, but rather look at the results first.

All models are wrong, some models are useful.