Friam

Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Classic

List

Threaded

117 messages Options

123456

glen ropella

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I can't get no peace until I get into motion

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Ron Newman

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Woo

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

Ron-

If the placebo is double blind I've heard the percentage shoots up. But the fact remains that a mere thought, or belief, is affecting something. If science were untainted that would be the basis for massive investigation.

I like your point. When I first recognized the significance of a *double* blind test, it shocked me. Now I accept it as "obvious".

I have any number of friends and acquaintances who subscribe to what is hard for me to measure as anything but "woo" in the hard sense, yet I see they derive significant value from it in a softer sense.

Naturapathy and Homeopathy
    While I accept significant (materialist?) utility to some Naturapthy, Homeopathy is beyond the pale (materialistically).   Yet many who I know who resort to both or either gain at least two benefits... one is the placebo effect.    The other is that it soothes their hypochondria... to whatever extent they might be seeking attention from others (or themselves) it offers them a (usually) benign forum to play that out in. They have something to talk about with like minded people and even "professionals" who will assure them that their symptoms are as real as the cures being offered.
    This may sound cynical, and maybe it is, but it is also pragmatic. I believe a lot of these people would be a lot more miserable *without* access to snake oil than they are with it.   Their "remedies", even without a materialist/causal embedding soothes them and allows them to relax and provide other forms of useful self care (rest, nutrition, sunshine, exercise...) which *do* have understood materialist/causal mechanisms. It always disturbs me when someone offers to "pray for me" when I have an affliction, but I do believe it helps them and am sorry I can't offer them the same...   The best I have to offer is "I'll be thinking good thoughts", or "I wish the best", etc.

Oracles
    I am almost always offended when someone starts explaining to me my own behaviour or circumstances based on the alignment of the stars (at birth) and planets (at birth, in the moment, etc.).   I also find the casting of bones, dice, coins, or fishing through tea leaves or goat entrails potentially quite disturbing as a way of trying to predict the future.
    On the other hand, I do believe there is great potential in using whatever methods or systems you have at hand to try to reflect on and meditate on the present state of your life and the implications of that for the future.
    The I Ching, for example, offers a wide range of insightful and thoughtful ways of thinking about the world and our place in it.   Whether the specific reading one gets by tossing down their great aunt's knuckle bones (or yarrow stalks or coins) is specifically relevant in any divine way is moot. The simple fact of focusing on a *single* bit of wisdom and reflecting on it's relevance to the situation at hand seems to be very useful. Not a lot unlike listening to your preacher, priest, imam or other holy man relate a parable from The Book and meditating (praying) with those ideas in mind.

QM and Emergence
It is the divide between materialism and non (I think) that keeps me fascinated.   I'm a materialist for macroscopic and near-equilibrium phenomena, but as we edge into the territory of quantum mechanics and emergent properties, I feel I have already let go of hard materialism.

I feel a bit hypocritical to make exceptions for those specific paradigms whilst poo-poo (woo woo) ing everything else.   I assume that most (nearly) all here accept that QM and Complexity both offer some mysteries to hard materialism but do not immediately take it to full-up mysticism right away?

- Steve

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You can fool all of ….").

--Barry

On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's no money in it (actually, there's a lot of money in it) but the effects - 30% efficacy I heard once - are impressive, without side effects.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on purpose. But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails. No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

glen ropella

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

Ron Newman wrote at 04/04/2013 10:57 AM:
> But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they
> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The
> question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too
> easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can
> placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.

No, I'm not missing that point at all. The primary clinical problems
are if, when, and how to _intervene_. This is the first question you
should be asking. Even in a scientific context, the first question is
about how to manipulate the system so that cause and effect can be
teased out of the noise. The point is if, when, and how to manipulate.

The question of improvement only comes after addressing the question of
manipulation.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I'm a king ??

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: Woo

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve Smith wrote at 04/04/2013 11:04 AM:
> They have something to talk about with like minded
> people and even "professionals" who will assure them that their symptoms
> are as real as the cures being offered.

This seems spot on to me. In a similar vein, I know so many people who
express their desire to "take a class on X". My techie friends are
always saying, things like that, with some variation like "buy a book on
X". Some of them even teach classes ... on photoshop, or micro$oft
office, etc.

I always ask them why they feel the need to take a class? Just jump in
and start doing it. Why not just buy a guitar and start banging on it?
Why do you feel the need to "take a class"? They always answer with
weird (to me) justificationism and excuses. "I'm not disciplined
enough." "I wouldn't know where to start." Etc.

I don't have the energy. But my speculation is that there's a high
correlation between the people who feel they need to "take a class" and
the people who respond well to people in white jackets with name tags.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Throw the switches, prime the charge,

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Bruce Sherwood

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

Actually, I think there is active scientific research trying to understand the placebo effect, because the effect and its benefits have been well documented. As Feynman points out, better understanding could lead to improved placebo effect.

Bruce

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

If the placebo is double blind I've heard the percentage shoots up. But the fact remains that a mere thought, or belief, is affecting something. If science were untainted that would be the basis for massive investigation.

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by glen ropella

I've restricted my participation in this discussion because I started a new schedule of medications yesterday and I wasn't sure whence my enthusiasm came. That's sort of a transcebo effect, everything I take appears to have subtle side effects, but appearances can be deceiving, and you often see what you look for.

-- rec --

Ron Newman

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

I get your point, Doug. I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes when once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently of chemtrails.

I'm reminded of something Joseph Campbell said - who looked as deeply into the beliefs of human beings across history as anyone. He said that the closer you get to something of distilled wisdom, the more crazies there are standing around. I try to keep that in mind when I'm tempted to throw something out while teasing the "signal from the noise".

I once knew an anesthesiologist who patented a device and started a company around it. The thing located nerves accurately for surgeons. As an anecdotal aside, he told me that the places where nerves crossed each other tended to correlate with acupuncture points. One possibility.

Regarding placebo, if we were talking about solar power, 30% efficiency would be a great starting point.

Ron

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on purpose. But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails. No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug

Steve Smith

Re: Woo

In reply to this post by glen ropella

Glen -

> I always ask them why they feel the need to take a class? Just jump in
> and start doing it. Why not just buy a guitar and start banging on it?
> Why do you feel the need to "take a class"? They always answer with
> weird (to me) justificationism and excuses. "I'm not disciplined
> enough." "I wouldn't know where to start." Etc.
>
> I don't have the energy. But my speculation is that there's a high
> correlation between the people who feel they need to "take a class" and
> the people who respond well to people in white jackets with name tags.
>

I share your speculation about this correlation and could probably
broaden it. I also suspect we can get Doug (and others) to dogpile on
to this with us.

Of course, having lots of people who agree with me is not exactly
evidence of any kind of objective accuracy. Anecdotally, it looks to
me as if there is a negative correlation between "popularity" and
"reality".

While we are "tribe" animals technically, our time evolving (at least
socially) amongst pack animals (wolves cum dogs) and herd animals
(migrating with the caribou, bison, etc.) we adopted some pretty strong
habits and assumptions about "the wisdom of crowds". I think there *is*
something to this, but it also seems to be thoughtlessly overused.

There is also a variant called "we should write a grant for that!". I
have written (and received grants) but I also know that the best stuff
often gets done on my own time/nickel/motivation.

Having someone else pay me to pursue my curiosity or convictions is a
very convenient thing, but if I restricted myself to only doing things
that I could "buy a book", "take a class", or "get a grant" for, my life
would be significantly impoverished.

Nevertheless, I still collect books, occasionally take classes and seek
funding for my pet projects.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Roger Critchlow wrote at 04/04/2013 11:37 AM:
> you often see what you look for.

I'll raise you and assert that you _always_ see what you look for ...

which takes me back to Kauffman's paper and his failure to cite Robert
Rosen's treatment of anticipatory systems (aka final cause). Our
expectations are a kind of forcing structure or, at least, a box of
constraints upon our dynamics.

The fans of "woo" I _like_ tend to have big boxes within which they can
wiggle a lot. They do not build prisons from their expectations. Many
hard core materialists (e.g. the New Atheists) and many consipiracy nuts
have such tightly wound expectations, such convictions, that they are no
longer open enough to wiggle.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I have gazed beyond today

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Woo

In reply to this post by glen ropella

I think the distinction is about *confirmation bias*?

If you assume that placebo effects are in some way *bad* and that we
need to seek ways to predict their effect waning or seek to determine
when and how to "burst the placebo bubble" most gently then that is what
we will find... examples of where placebo effects diminish and local
minima where bursting will do least harm. We won't find the cases where
placebo is sufficient for relief/recovery nor will we find ways to
*maximize* it's effects.

Of course, the opposite is true. If we seek *only* to maximize placebo
effects, we can easily fall into the trap of believing that placebo is
always a good thing, etc. and overlook the larger context where it might
not always be so (allowing gangrene to set in while rinsing the wound
with holy water).

There is no lack of work having been done clinically and scientifically
around the "placebo effect", though I'm sure it's application and
refinement in more esoteric circumstances has no limit.

I think the "woo" question is significantly about *human bias* in the
scientific community. We *know* there is bias in the "woo" community
but just repeatedly pointing that out is not the same as looking in a
mirror for where the scientific community has conspired with itself to
fashion and wear blinders.

- Steve

> Ron Newman wrote at 04/04/2013 10:57 AM:
>> But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they
>> believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The
>> question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too
>> easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can
>> placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.
> No, I'm not missing that point at all. The primary clinical problems
> are if, when, and how to _intervene_. This is the first question you
> should be asking. Even in a scientific context, the first question is
> about how to manipulate the system so that cause and effect can be
> teased out of the noise. The point is if, when, and how to manipulate.
>
> The question of improvement only comes after addressing the question of
> manipulation.
>

Bruce Sherwood

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by glen ropella

There have also been scientific studies involving something called that "nocebo" effect, in which expectations of harm are self-fulfilling. I apologize that I can't at the moment find references to the following two examples.

People who felt themselves sensitive or insensitive to cell phone radiation were put in a functional MRI machine with a cell phone near the head that could be turned on or off. The insensitives when told the phone was turned on showed no change in brain function, but the sensitives showed activity in the brain locations associated with real pain. Although in fact the cell phone was never turned on, the sensitives apparently experienced real pain. The pain is real, but not caused by cell phone radiation -- "nocebo".

An experiment was performed on the efficacy of prayer for those in need. People were recruited to pray for hospital patients, with various conditions of the study. The only effect that was found was that if patients were told that they were being prayed for, those patients did worse, presumably because they thought that if people were going to the trouble of praying for them, they must be in worse shape than they had thought. Again, "nocebo".

Bruce

glen ropella

Re: Woo

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Interesting. I suppose I'm guilty of dysrhetorica, here. My intention
in describing my friend who is now receiving acupuncture was to orient
the conversation towards _action_ and away from thoughts about Truth. I
tend to try telling stories of my actual experience with actual people
and events as a way of orienting the conversation away from ideology
toward methodology.

To me, this is in the same vein as Bruce's Feynman quote. Feynman
suggests several experiments that might be performed, particular ways to
intervene in the miracles to see if/whether their outcome can be
manipulated.

But my rhetoric bit me in the @ss. By using biased phrases like "burst
my placebo effect bubble", I defeated my own rhetorical purpose. What I
should have said would be more like:

Should I have intervened in my friend's therapy? If so, when? If so,
how? For example, from my own tiny research, I also read what Ron's
friend claimed, that acupuncture points are correlated with some
neuronal structures. If the answer to when to intervene is
"immediately", then I should have immediately told my friend a) about my
skepticism and b) of this confirmatory correlation between acupuncture
points and neuronal maps.

If the beneficial effect is psychosomatic, then telling her about the
correlation would give her more power (even if insignificant) to improve
whatever mechanism she's already using. And expressing my skepticism
might give her reason to do more research on her own. It might also
provide a thicker skin for future skeptics who may be less friendly than
me. On the other hand, she may choose to hear my words in such a way as
to limit or eliminate the beneficial effect.

I don't really care whether acupuncture is _truly_ false, truly True, or
anywhere in between. What I want to know is what I can _do_ to make me
(and my friends) more likely to achieve my (their) objectives.

I know intellectually, however, that I appreciate it when my friends
provide alternatives to various modules in my world view. So, it's
difficult and interesting to apply the Golden Rule to my actions with my
friend. Did I keep my mouth shut because I somehow sensed she would be
detrimentally affected by any action I might have taken? Or is it
perhaps that even though I _think_ I like for my friends to treat my own
views with skepticism, perhaps I really do _not_. I.e. I was obeying
the Golden Rule and treating her as I (viscerally, not intellectually)
want to be treated?

Steve Smith wrote at 04/04/2013 11:49 AM:

> I think the distinction is about *confirmation bias*?
>
> If you assume that placebo effects are in some way *bad* and that we
> need to seek ways to predict their effect waning or seek to determine
> when and how to "burst the placebo bubble" most gently then that is what
> we will find... examples of where placebo effects diminish and local
> minima where bursting will do least harm. We won't find the cases where
> placebo is sufficient for relief/recovery nor will we find ways to
> *maximize* it's effects.
>
> Of course, the opposite is true. If we seek *only* to maximize placebo
> effects, we can easily fall into the trap of believing that placebo is
> always a good thing, etc. and overlook the larger context where it might
> not always be so (allowing gangrene to set in while rinsing the wound
> with holy water).
>
> There is no lack of work having been done clinically and scientifically
> around the "placebo effect", though I'm sure it's application and
> refinement in more esoteric circumstances has no limit.
>
> I think the "woo" question is significantly about *human bias* in the
> scientific community. We *know* there is bias in the "woo" community
> but just repeatedly pointing that out is not the same as looking in a
> mirror for where the scientific community has conspired with itself to
> fashion and wear blinders.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Robot Lords of Tokyo, SMILE TASTE KITTENS!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

All this contrasery over the sigh.
I think sigh and sighing is a good thing it can lead to interesting
conversations. :P

On 4/4/13, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I get your point, Doug. I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes when
> once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently of
> chemtrails.
>
> I'm reminded of something Joseph Campbell said - who looked as deeply into
> the beliefs of human beings across history as anyone. He said that the
> closer you get to something of distilled wisdom, the more crazies there are
> standing around. I try to keep that in mind when I'm tempted to throw
> something out while teasing the "signal from the noise".
>
> I once knew an anesthesiologist who patented a device and started a company
> around it. The thing located nerves accurately for surgeons. As an
> anecdotal aside, he told me that the places where nerves crossed each other
> tended to correlate with acupuncture points. One possibility.
>
> Regarding placebo, if we were talking about solar power, 30% efficiency
> would be a great starting point.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Newman, Founder
> MyIdeatree.com <http://www.ideatree.us/>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how
>> about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant
>> segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are
>> poisoning us, on purpose. But only on those days that the jets leave con
>> ... er ... chemtrails. No proof necessary, just *look* at those
>> chemtrails.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>>
>>
>

Steve Smith

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Ron Newman

Ron -

> I get your point, Doug. I had to suppress the desire to roll my eyes
> when once I met someone who looked up at the sky and spoke confidently
> of chemtrails.
I generally feel the same way, and this is usually abutted with
something about crop circles and maybe a reference to the grassy knoll.

I *did* get caught off guard recently when reading about technological
"remedies" to global warming via releasing sulfur compounds into the
upper atmosphere... someone "suggested" that the (govt, corp, etc.) was
*already* doing it by introducing said chemistry into jet fuel. I was
briefly a "true believer". It still seems like too much to put past
everyone (jet fuel providers, mechanics, EPA, etc.) but for at least a
second I was ready to believe that large scale atmospheric manipulation
was already underway.

I think it is the "confidence" coming from someone who normally
(usually) has no interest in anything technical or analytical claiming
they "know for a fact" something that at best they "have on good authority".

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug,

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my jaw hanging open. What do you say when somebody your sort of like, touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but ….”

I guess, “You’re nuts!”

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick. To nobody's great surprise, I guess.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my jaw hanging open. What do you say when somebody your sort of like, touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but ….”

I guess, “You’re nuts!”

N

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on purpose. But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails. No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:
> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").
A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I can't get no peace until I get into motion

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-672-8213" value="+15056728213" target="_blank">505-672-8213 - Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Nick Thompson

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Yes but …..

I didn’t believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either. “You aren’t telling me that a president that was going to win an election in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?” I just could not believe that they could be so stupid. I fell for Colin Powell’s thing at the UN; my wife didn’t buy it for a moment. I have to say, that in most contexts, I believe in gullibility. I think a little bit of gullibility is the best program for getting on in life. But I have been known to carry it too far.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick. To nobody's great surprise, I guess.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I guess, “You’re nuts!”

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-672-8213" target="_blank">505-672-8213 - Mobile

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Steve Smith

Re: Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Nick -

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who take Gullibility to excess and those who take Skepticism to excess.

I happen to be of the third kind, one who tends to take *both* to excess... I'm not sure if that helps me get on the world, but I'm not sure I have a choice anymore than the hardline Gulls or hardline Skepts do here. In deference to Glen's "twitch", I guess I twitch both ways.

Just don't tell me you look it up every time someone tells you "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary!

- Steve

Yes but …..

I didn’t believe Watergate the first few times I heard about it, either. “You aren’t telling me that a president that was going to win an election in a walk actually sent Burglars into the Democratic Headquarters?” I just could not believe that they could be so stupid. I fell for Colin Powell’s thing at the UN; my wife didn’t buy it for a moment. I have to say, that in most contexts, I believe in gullibility. I think a little bit of gullibility is the best program for getting on in life. But I have been known to carry it too far.

Nick

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

There are a surprising number of them on facebook, Nick. To nobody's great surprise, I guess.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

Somebody laid the chemtrails thing on me the other day … an otherwise perfectly sensible neighbor … and I was left standing in the street with my jaw hanging open. What do you say when somebody your sort of like, touches you on the upper arm, points skyward and says, “Call me nuts, but ….”

I guess, “You’re nuts!”

N

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 12:14 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending

Well shoot, as long as we're talking about irrational belief sets, how about if we throw chemtrails into the mix. There is a not insignificant segment of the US population who fervently believe that "they" are poisoning us, on purpose. But only on those days that the jets leave con ... er ... chemtrails. No proof necessary, just *look* at those chemtrails.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ron Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:

But you're missing the point.: *something* is working for them if they believe it is, and is not for you or anyone who doesn't believe it is. The question is how does it work? No, that's not good enough, because it too easily leads back to premature assumptions. The question is: how can placebo be improved. Not set aside but improved.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Barry MacKichan wrote at 04/04/2013 10:29 AM:

> I've heard it is very effective, but only for a time until the
> patient discovers it is a placebo. Call it the Lincoln effect ("You
> can fool all of ….").

A friend of mine announced that she's now getting acupuncture for her
chronic back and neck pain. There's a zealot in our local CfI
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) group who continuously and loudly
shouts about acupuncture being as quackish as homeopathy. (Seriously...
is there anything as quackish as homeopathy?) The tiny amount of time
I've spent looking into acupuncture indicates that it's mostly nonsense
with some slight possibility of truth in regard to certain _pressure_
points and nerve clusters. But nothing that an evidence-based masseuse
couldn't achieve more effectively.

But I kept my mouth shut and let her talk about how well it's worked so
far. My dad also used acupuncture for a racquetball associated injury.
He claimed it worked very well... [ahem] ... even better than his
chiropractor. I didn't want to introduce any doubt that might interfere
with her placebo effect.

Interestingly, I was trying to apply the Golden Rule in a post-hoc
analysis of my lack of action. Would I want someone to burst my placebo
effect bubble? If so, when? Immediately? Or perhaps after some window
of time as the placebo effect decays and it bumps up against the hard
biophysical/physiological limits?

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella

I can't get no peace until I get into motion

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Ron Newman, Founder
MyIdeatree.com
The World Happiness Meter

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505-672-8213" target="_blank">505-672-8213 - Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

123456