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

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

#311

Post by blast » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #78

blast wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two different kinds of empiricism, and they're in tension with each other. One kind is where specialists measure things and publish the measurements in journals. The other is where individuals try things for themselves and decide for themselves what they experienced.

Every new paradigm shift had to start with just one individual (or a situation with a core group).

I think I agree (assuming I understand your meaning). Individual experimentation and experience is the leading edge. Only much later does it get codified into institutionalized forms. This in fact is the history of what we call science, but somehow we've dropped the "find out for yourself" aspect and returned to something that uncomfortably resembles the priesthood that the original scientists were deviating against.

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

#312

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 6:47 AM UTC

sfj wrote: post #75

marcus_holmes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been through psychotherapy, I can affirm it works. Spending an hour a week with someone patiently listening without judgement while I tell them everything that's been going on in my head. And sure enough, my emotional problems start to recede and I start to be more engaged with life, less depressed, and more able to function. I don't know if I'd call that placebo, though. I used to thing it was magic; I talk,…

It never worked for me. I always got the impression the therapist was blowing smoke up my ass. I also have a hard time rectifying the idea that you can pay someone to listen to you, and at the same time try and hold the belief they really care about and like you. If they care, why are they accepting money just to listen to you? To accept the premise of psychotherapy, and what they tell you in sessions, namely that th…

I found the payment liberating. I don't have to be nice to this person. I don't have to let them talk half the time, or consider their feelings. I can spend the entire hour talking about me. Because I pay them money.

My therapist was fantastic. I wouldn't say she cared about me, but she definitely cared about her craft. She wanted the best for me, partly because that is what motivates her to do this.

Almost exactly like seeing any other health professional. My doctor doesn't "care about me". They care about being a good doctor, and helping me recover from whatever ailment I have is what good doctors do.

I'm not a mental health professional, but it sounds like you needed your therapist to "care about you" in order to accept their help, which is something you might want to talk to them about.

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

#313

Post by henearkr » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

heisenzombie wrote: post #117

henearkr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your concern disappears if your method is to compare, on one hand, difference between treatment and nothing, and on the other hand, difference between placebo and nothing. To only compare treatment and placebo directly is of course a methodological error. PS: By the way, I'd advocate to scrutinize the biological bases of the placebo effect, in order to 1/ use it instead of trying to ignore it 2/ predict accurately it…

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.

If we can verify that (I really hope so) it would be great news. Because the tests would be much simpler, and maybe costs and duration would become 1/10 of what they are today or even much less. The double-blind requirements are really a pain.

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

#314

Post by henearkr » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

fooblat wrote: post #157

heisenzombie wrote: post #117

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?

To compare placebo vs nothing (i.e. no placebo), you don't need the double-blind requirement. Because the group receiving nothing is not receiving the placebo, and thus does not (and should not) benefit from any illusion of having being treated.

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

#315

Post by M2Ys4U » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

nprateem wrote: post #150

M2Ys4U wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yeah it seems you can't do a "fake acupunture" study, but that's not its fault. Actually you can. More specifically, you can place needles randomly/arbitrarily rather than looking at "energy lines" or "chi" or whatever utter bollocks proponents of acupuncture spout. Turns out, it performs at the same level as placebo. Just like "real" acupuncture.

> "energy lines" or "chi" or whatever utter bollocks proponents of acupuncture spout. I do love an open mind. Here's a simple and fun way to perhaps convince yourself that this 'utter bollocks' has something to it. Learn tantric sex. Seriously. It's insightful when you realise you can use your mind to control your sexual energy and last far longer than when you don't 'move your chi along energy lines'.

>I do love an open mind.

As do I, but one's mind shouldn't be so open that the brain falls out.

>Here's a simple and fun way to perhaps convince yourself that this 'utter bollocks' has something to it.

No. The way to decide whether there's something in it is to perform a robust clinical study.

People have, and the results have shown that, in layman's terms, it's utter bollocks.