Live data from Hacker News

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

theatlantic.com

291–300 of 315 posts

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

#291
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring? It's ok if you feel that what I said was irresponsible. I know that is the mainstream view of things, and I expected a lot of backlash for posting a comment on this. I usually hang out with the crowd where the experience and reality of subtle energy is not in doubt. Among them are the people fo…

You're basically describing emotions as though they are somehow more than just emotions. We understand them, they effect things, but they are just emotions. We know that mood can effect someone's physical responses, but we don't assume that's in any way special, unless you can show evidence of those "subtle energy" experiences affecting the world in a different way than regular emotions or placebos.

There is no objective evidence, nothing that I think would be convincing to you. There are plenty of experiences, which many skeptics dismiss as anecdoptal. I can say, here, take this psychedelic, but it would easily be explained as the effects of the psychedelic acting upon the brain. I can say, hey, meet this person, or try this technique ... but it wouldn't matter. Our civilization is simply just not ready for this stuff.

The thing is, there are a lot of phenomena that are difficult to show evidence, even in a laboratory setting. There was one parapsychology experiment that was interesting: a skeptic and a non-skeptic both collaborated and created an experimental protocol. They then watched each other conduct the experiment. The idea being that, each of them have a vested interest in proving or disproving the hypothesis.

Somehow, the skeptic had experimental results showing nothing beyond chance, and the non-skeptic had experimental results showing there is a statistical significance beyond random chance for the phenomena under study.

That can be taken as that, there were some bias that were missing. But what if, for example, it could be as simple as, neither experimenters were truly neutral, and it affected what happened?

Anyways, I'm in the point of my life that I simply don't care enough to try to convince people to believe in one way or another. That emotions behave more than "just" emotion is not something that is special or extraordinary for me. Sometimes, I encounter people for whom they start experiencing this. I help them when I do.

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

#292
post #112

> 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 su…

They're also the areas that are hardest to measure, of course. I always loved the Mitchell and Webb take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgxzSUxxRzE

Try to find a single area which is easy to measure where these "alternative medicine" successfully surpasses medicine based on the scientific method. Just one.

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

#293
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring? It's ok if you feel that what I said was irresponsible. I know that is the mainstream view of things, and I expected a lot of backlash for posting a comment on this. I usually hang out with the crowd where the experience and reality of subtle energy is not in doubt. Among them are the people fo…

Just as background, I've been doing yoga and meditation for decades. I think the phenomena that people experience as "subtle energy" are interesting and are worth investigating. But my best guess is that these are purely internal phenomena. As eusocial primates with poor internal perception, it's easy for us to mistake internal phenomena as objective. For example, people who think they know what God wants -- who are…

>> What if there are some things where scientific objectivity and scientific method breaks down, and is incapable of exploring?

> Then that's a thing you can demonstrate.

Then you are more clever than I am. I have no idea how to test some of this stuff, let alone do it with double-blind study.

It isn't as if science is incomprehensible to me. I understand and apply the scientific method, have run experiments. I also know its limits.

Part of it is that the most reliable instrument for this stuff is the consciousness itself. What is under observation changes when it is observed, and more troublesome (from the perspective of trying explore this scientifically), is that the observer is also changed by the observed.

Some of the phenomena won't happen if there is too much disbelief in it.

Do you have any ideas on how to experiment with stuff like this?

About the only time that gets interesting is when a life-long skeptic have some parts of their consciousness wake up, and now they are trying to figure out what is wrong with them. They were not looking for this stuff -- far from it. And here they are, finding themselves with these phenomena, inducing a lot of cognitive dissonance. When I have encountered someone like that, I point out resources for them to read. They are free to test and verify it for themselves. It works for them because they are capable of verifying it for themselves.

Everyone else have to start from scratch with things like meditation and yoga. And that is going to depend upon the teacher, quality of teaching, the transmission, and how you practice.

A good example is the standing meditation from Taoist traditions. One of the early stages of the phenomena are spontaneous movements in the bowels, or spontaneous movements of the limbs triggered from the early stages of movement of subtle energy. It tends to freak people out, because it is not something that is so easily attributable to internal experience.

The problem is that reliably being able to get to that point to experience for yourself requires dedicated training. A lot of groups might think 1 hr standing meditation is a kind of holy grail of practice ... but I know of one group that drops beginners into 6 hr sessions. It is a huge investment of time, for both student and teacher. Complicating that even further is that there is quite a bit of fraud and abuse aimed at conning people.

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

#294
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of Dean Radin's work. For example, these studies on the sense of being stared at. Here's one of the conclusions: >We conclude that for both data sets that there is a small, but significant effect. This result corresponds to the recent findings of studies on distant healing and the ‘feeling of being stared at’. Therefore, the existence of some anomaly related to distant intention…

Thanks for saying so. My response there stands. Neurotypical humans anthropomorphize things excessively. So much so that whole societies get built around perception of pervasive mind, from the Greek gods and the Hindu pantheon to Christian and Muslim single pervasive intelligences to Mesmer's magnetism and the Jedi force. A lot of minds just like the idea that minds are fundamental The obvious explanation for Radin's…

Have you been able to disprove that mind is fundemental?

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

#295
I am enjoying the comment section here just as much as the article. Not many here will pull more comments than points. I cant see the word "Reiki" without hearing "URAMESHI!"

To me, most new-age medicine is an exercise in low grade mental programming. By forming and guiding behavior under close supervision, positive reinforcement helps to remake harmful neural short-circuits. By giving your treatment a name, a method, and a history, you are creating a corrective program that is then delicately implanted in the patient, then activated in the physical sessions. If coercive brainwashing and mind-control is black magic, what these people and other similar healers do can best be called white magic. Braincleaning. In the article, they especially note that these treatments are effective on problems that cannot be fixed with surgery or medicine, thus are almost totally in the mind. There is such a thing as psychosomatic illness, and the nervous system doesnt end at the spinal cord. Your muscles have a simple, low-level form of memory in the patterns of nerves and motor neurons, and this extends throughout the body. Sometimes these systems get badly imbalanced, and the body's failsafe mechanisms, the sympathetic, parasympathetic, lymphatic and immune systems cannot correct it. Rolfing, chiropractice, and massage techniques act physically on this system to reset muscles and nerves, putting them back into line. By combining a physical regime with psychological correction, you can clear the nervous system of stubborn low-grade problems.

True, in a double-blind experimental setup, it may be difficult or impossible to reproduce the results. This is because the results hinge on a relationship between patient and practitioner, the experimental setup tends to nullify the methods that this relationship advances on. Its programming, brainwashing, but to benefit the person; not just turning them into a cultist.

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

#296
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that these "fads" fade away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. Has anything in the nonmaterial realm been conclusively disproved that you connect to the decline in popular interest? Academia has a built-in "knowledge filter" (confirmation bias, if you will), and ideas that run contrary to existing mainstream beliefs don't get funding, and indeed get labeled as pseudoscience or explained awa…

Fringe theories generally can't be conclusively disproven, so if that's your bar, it's an unachievable one. E.g., are infectious diseases really all caused by evil spirits? Maybe! Might it also be miasmas? [1] Could be! But now that we have ideas like "bacterium" and "virus", we we don't need those models to explain and treat diseases. So the "evil spirits" has mostly (but not entirely!) faded, and I think miasma the…

Perfect, a bad faith argument from authority. Thank you.

>In the 1970s ESP got a lot of attention. As did things like remote viewing. There was a definite fad for those concepts, and there was significant academic interest and funding. But nobody had any replicable results, so it all faded away

I don't think so. Here's a list of peer-reviewed journal articles from 1964 onwards, including some replication studies: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm. It's fine though, you're clearly not interested in changing your mind.

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

#297

> 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 su…

> 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 "economic reasons" are just the preferences of the rich & powerful. Resources could be allocated in other ways. It is just that those that call the shots are not interested. In the US, they also managed to convince a large part…

You dream of Capitalism?

No, of course not. People who say "an economic system that serves human beings" never mean an economic system that actually serves human beings... except in the "To Serve Man" sense.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my understanding (see references in linked page) is that when one does what you said and compare placebo to “nothing”, almost the entire effect goes away.

How would you propose a blinded study will work to compare between a Placebo treatment and no treatment?

One way is to use waiting list controls.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, that is also true when studying energy in physics. You can't ever measure it directly. Only indirect effects. From that we build models. And one of those models contains a quantity called "energy [physics/chemistry/etc]" which is in fact a highly abstract concept that doesn't correspond to any actual object in the world. Technically it doesn't even have a definite value in any real system. But we take it…

For me, this is par for the course. When I propose in measuring things like Reiki, or other forms of occult energy (notedly not: em, weak, strong, gravity), I get told that there's no way to measure directly. When I propose a way to test and potentially refine, I get told it's woo-woo and ignored. I'm also a reiki master.... And the CTO of a 2 person Signals Intelligence startup. I'd like to think I'm not conflating…

Can you tell us what training/experience was required to become a Reiki master? Is there some kind of exam?

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

#300
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not completely clear whether there are any psychotherapies that are better than placebos. Though you have to be careful how you define your placebo. One approach would be a sugar pill. But the patient would know that this is not psychotherapy. So it doesn't work as a proper placebo. A slightly better example is a heartwarming chat with a high status individual who is not schooled in any psychotherapy. Say a rand…

You've linked to the dodo bird hypothesis, but the dodo bird hypothesis does NOT claim that all psychotherapy is placebo. It claims that all or nearly all established evidence-supported treatments given by trained professionals produce very similar outcomes. If you read deeper in the page you linked on the subject, it goes on to the actual conclusion that the common factors of psychotherapy - empathy, positive regard…

I was alluding to these concerns.

To be more explicit: it's a bit of an issue of definition.

I was going by the rule of thumb that whatever your homeopath or acupuncturists would also do, would count as placebo from the point of view of psychotherapy.

And, yes, those people employ many of the same common factors. And different people have different amount of skills in employing those. (Or creating different outcomes in general.)

If you want to call that placebo or not, is up to you.

There's also very interesting research into what makes effective placebos, and how eg cultural context influences that.

From what I've read (sham) surgery is more effective than an injection which is more effective than a pill. And more expensive placebos are more effective than cheaper ones.

If memory serves right, whether big or small pills have a bigger effect depended on country. (The hypothesis was that some cultures believed smaller pills are more highly concentrated, whereas others believed bigger is better.)

Post reply on HN