Is skepticism unhealthy?

Saizai, I agree with Cuddles and Titan.

It would seem to me that people who are not satisfied until they get real results from real treatments would end up being healthier than those who merely feel something worked.

The placebo effect may work to mask issues that should probably be dealt with, in my opinion. A skeptic receiving some treatment that doesn't do the job (perhaps due to some variation in personal body chemistry, or whatever) and pointing out that it's not working is more likely to get something that actually works for them, and end up being healthier in the long run.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
I can second what Mojo said. I notice the same effect myself. I think a big part of the placebo effect is just the emotional relief that comes from actually doing something about the problem. This does not just apply to illness or discomfort either. Having a problem and not being able to do anything about it is extremely stressful and frustrating. When you feel like you are actually doing something to actively deal with the problem, that feels good, even if the actual effects of what you are doing are not going to manifest until later (if at all).

Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Every time I finally fill out the damned Tax Return, I feel better, even though I just spent 5 months of the year working free for Gordon Brown.
 
Overman said:
I am skeptical of the claim that skeptics recieve no placebo effects.
Click to expand...

As a kid, I had a wart on my hand. My mom told me clear nail polish would "smother" it. I painted it on the wart for a week, and it fell off. My Dad explained the placebo effect to me. The next time I got a wart, clear nail polish did not work. My skepticism ruined the placebo effect.
 
russingram said:
As a kid, I had a wart on my hand. My mom told me clear nail polish would "smother" it. I painted it on the wart for a week, and it fell off. My Dad explained the placebo effect to me. The next time I got a wart, clear nail polish did not work. My skepticism ruined the placebo effect.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a rather devastating anecdote for us.:(
 
Warts are unpredictable. Especially in kids, the warts vary dramatically in severity and duration. Covering a wart has been found to help destroy it.

It may be that your first wart was successfully treated, and of short duration, and your second was not treated long enough and it dug in.
 
Doesn't the placebo effect only account for subjective reporting on hard-to-quantitatiely-measure things like pain? It's certainly not going to treat cancer, the flu, or HIV or broken bones, or other things of the sort. As long as you live healty either way and don't get depressed, it shouldn't really matter healthwise if you benifit from the placebo effect; it just might be more comfortable to you. At least for serious illnesses and problems.

this is all IIRC. so correct me if I'm wrong.
 
saizai said:
Skeptics, one could reasonably conclude, should be less likely to experience placebo effect in most cases.

Therefore, compared to non-skeptics, skeptics should get less of an effect from ALL treatments they get, because they lack the trust that generates placebo effect.
Click to expand...

Well, there have been studies that show religious belief is linked to greater longevity, which has several possible explanations- the studies are flawed (I've not looked at any of them in detail to be able to defend them); the well-being associated with religious belief is good for you; God takes care of his believers (or perhaps is not keen on them and would like to postpone their joining him).

If the studies are valid, they would suggest some beneficial effect of mind over body.

As for me, I'd love to have faith in the medical profession and benefit from all that bedside manner and whitecoat effect. Unfortunately I trained with large numbers of them and spending time in the company of medical students is not likely to leave you with a misty-eyed or romantic view of them.
 
saizai said:
Skeptics, one could reasonably conclude, should be less likely to experience placebo effect in most cases.
Click to expand...
I don't see why. Skeptics understand the scientific method and as such tend to trust doctors who have passed degrees requiring at least knowledge of this. In other words, skeptics are, if anything, better patients than others (aside from consistently requiring a second opinion, off course).
 
Last edited:
Here's another to stir into the mix;

J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Mar-Apr;19(2):103-9.
Religious attendance: more cost-effective than lipitor?
Hall DE.
 
DanishDynamite said:
I don't see why. Skeptics understand the scientific method and as such tend to trust doctors who have passed dergrees requireing at least knowledge of this. In other words, skeptics are, if anything, better patients than others (aside from consistently requiring a second opinion, off course).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I think I can have a sensible discussion with a doctor as an equal and will bow to their greater knowledge of the specifics of their field, but I can't award them the added aura that the old-style doctor-patient relationship afforded them. I think this is reasonable and is a world away from the knee-jerk anti-medical prejudice voiced by the woo-natics that we see parading their nonsense across the world's internet discussion forums.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I'm not sure. I think I can have a sensible discussion with a doctor as an equal and will bow to their greater knowledge of the specifics of their field, but I can't award them the added aura that the old-style doctor-patient relationship afforded them. I think this is reasonable and is a world away from the knee-jerk anti-medical prejudice voiced by the woo-natics that we see parading their nonsense across the world's internet discussion forums.
Click to expand...
My point was that a skeptic would generally view a doctor's opinion as having worth. They would not feel that since he/she is a doctor, they should be extra wary/distrustful of his/her opinions.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Here's another to stir into the mix;

J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Mar-Apr;19(2):103-9.
Religious attendance: more cost-effective than lipitor?
Hall DE.
Click to expand...

This one has been reviewed a few times. Its major flaw is that it doesn't measure the effect of religious adherence so much as church attendance. The authors themselves admit they are surprised to find this large gap between people who worship in churches versus those who worship at home.

What goes utterly unaddressed is that there's an obvious 'common cause' factor: people who are too sick to leave the home die earlier. That this study 'discovered' this suggests that they are wasting their funding.



This is just a version of the 'pet' studies that show that people with pets have fewer or less severe health problems. Duh: when you become severely ill or disabled, you can't take care of a pet. Likewise, when you get ill, you can't hike off to church anymore. Thus, the statistical distinction.

Notice that this study was not a longitudinal study: it does not suggest that a lifetime of church attendance will increase your lifespan, which is what the conclusion implies.
 
blutoski said:
Notice that this study was not a longitudinal study: it does not suggest that a lifetime of church attendance will increase your lifespan, which is what the conclusion implies.
Click to expand...

Also, that they are retrospective studies, which suffer from the causality concern. A controlled study would be more convincing.

It also conflicts with parallel research that concludes religious adherence is correlated with shorter lifespan and poorer health, on both individual and population bases. See current issue of Skeptic: "Are Religious Societies Healthier?"
 
I thought the difference between private prayer and attendance at public services interesting. As the researcher points out, if you're too sick for public services you might not have a long life.
 
Jeff Corey said:
I thought the difference between private prayer and attendance at public services interesting. As the researcher points out, if you're too sick for public services you might not have a long life.
Click to expand...

That's why I was disappointed. There are many studies already done that have this problem, their critiques are widely available, yet this researcher made no effort to mitigate them? He's just screwing his financial supporters, hoping they will be satisfied with the results. I'd be interested to read the rejection letters he received from his earlier submissions.
 
DanishDynamite said:
In other words, skeptics are, if anything, better patients than others (aside from consistently requiring a second opinion, off course).
Click to expand...

That also makes them better patients. (better != easy)

If one doctor errs, they have a good chance of finding out. And if both doctors agree, they will be even happier to follow the suggested treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom