It's just a coincidence!!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

You can apply the same logic to any type of medical practice. Why single out Carl Jung -- why not Dr. Linda?

I'm quite sure Dr. Linda relies on placebo controlled, double-blind studies in evaluating which treatments "work"--not anecdotes.

If she doesn't, then I'd be just as critical of her claims.

 

[fls]

Not useless if the patient improved, which this link says she did: " . . . Jung's patient had -- until the appearance of the beetle -- shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable."

Now, from your point of view, I'm sure it is impossible to show "excessive rationality", but evidently the patient believed something was wrong or she wouldn't have been seeing Jung in the first place.

Well, as much as it is a problem to trust the evaluation of someone who is highly invested in the success of the idea, I have no problem conceding that it was useful in helping the patient. Because the usefulness was not specific to Synchronicity. Any device could have been equally useful, since the inspiration came from Jung, not from the ability of Synchronicity to specify anything (mostly because it can't). Palm reading or phrenology could have also led to the same result.

Linda

 

[-Fran-]

Not useless if the patient improved, which this link says she did: " . . . Jung's patient had -- until the appearance of the beetle -- shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, her demeanor improved and their sessions together grew more profitable."

Now, from your point of view, I'm sure it is impossible to show "excessive rationality", but evidently the patient believed something was wrong or she wouldn't have been seeing Jung in the first place.

And how do you know she wasn't so intimidated by a man that manipulated her that way that she would have dared say nothing else after Jung had declared her better? "You are now as irrational as me, aren't you feeling much better? Well? Well?"

There is really no objective way here to determine if she really got better or not (from what, by the way?) and if she did, what caused her to get better.

 

[Rodney]

I'm quite sure Dr. Linda relies on placebo controlled, double-blind studies in evaluating which treatments "work"--not anecdotes.

If she doesn't, then I'd be just as critical of her claims.

You seem to be under the illusion that there always is a steel wall between treatments that work and those that don't. In the real world, the wall is often made of paper-maché. Even where a treatment has clearly been demonstrated to be efficacious, it may be that, in a given instance, the patient would have gotten better even with no treatment or a placebo treatment.

 

[Rodney]

And how do you know she wasn't so intimidated by a man that manipulated her that way that she would have dared say nothing else after Jung had declared her better? "You are now as irrational as me, aren't you feeling much better? Well? Well?"

So, what happened here, Fran -- did Jung put a gun to her head and say: "You vill be my patient, Fraulein, and you vill get better, vhether you like it or not?"

There is really no objective way here to determine if she really got better or not (from what, by the way?) and if she did, what caused her to get better.

See my preceding post.

 

[blobru]

Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that Cayce recommended almonds to prevent cancer, not to treat it. Would you agree that was an appropriate recommendation?

Hey Rodney, sorry to be so long getting back to you.
To me, Cayce's advice is a random recommendation that subsequent science has shown to be potentially helpful. It scares me however that Cayce based his medical advice on dreams and not knowledge. Cayce's "dream-knowledge" was brazenly unreliable. For example, he counsels smoking pure tobacco cigarettes is harmless to your health. His most famous bit of dream-knowledge of course was that the continent of Atlantis would resurface in 1969. Last I checked, well... I wouldn't book that dream vacation just yet.

As for Jung and Synchronicity, I don't doubt that some of his patients felt happier after their sessions with him. Just as I don't doubt that many believers feel better after going to church. But a client's emotional state says nothing about the truth of a doctrine. Telling someone what they want to hear is not the same as telling them the truth.

 

[Rodney]

Hey Rodney, sorry to be so long getting back to you.
To me, Cayce's advice is a random recommendation that subsequent science has shown to be potentially helpful. It scares me however that Cayce based his medical advice on dreams and not knowledge.

Cayce went into a trance, which is not the same thing as a dream. And what makes you think what he said about almonds while in a trance was random?

Cayce's "dream-knowledge" was brazenly unreliable. For example, he counsels smoking pure tobacco cigarettes is harmless to your health. His most famous bit of dream-knowledge of course was that the continent of Atlantis would resurface in 1969. Last I checked, well... I wouldn't book that dream vacation just yet.

His basic advice about pure tobacco cigarettes is that they made sense for some people. I know that contradicts today's medical wisdom, but there are cigarette smokers who live long, productive lives, while some who discontinue smoking don't do well. As far as Cayce's predictions, they are probably the weakest reason to believe that he had psychic powers.

As for Jung and Synchronicity, I don't doubt that some of his patients felt happier after their sessions with him. Just as I don't doubt that many believers feel better after going to church. But a client's emotional state says nothing about the truth of a doctrine. Telling someone what they want to hear is not the same as telling them the truth.

Yes, but: (1) I think there is evidence for synchronicity and (2) Again, the placebo effect applies to all medical practitioners, and not just to Jungian therapists.

 

[blobru]

Cayce went into a trance, which is not the same thing as a dream. And what makes you think what he said about almonds while in a trance was random?

I guess the "sleeping prophet" is a misnomer -- the "trancey prophet"? Yeah, things said in a trance may not be quite the same as 'random', I don't know -- more likely based on 'subconscious' association. But I wouldn't trust the medical advice of someone in a trance anymore than I would a random stranger. If I say, "I've got a pain in my hip", and a total stranger says, "You should eat lots of beets", I'm not going to ask, "Did that come to you in a trance?" I'm going to ask, "Are you a doctor, and could I see some credentials, please?"

His basic advice about pure tobacco cigarettes is that they made sense for some people. I know that contradicts today's medical wisdom, but there are cigarette smokers who live long, productive lives, while some who discontinue smoking don't do well. As far as Cayce's predictions, they are probably the weakest reason to believe that he had psychic powers.

Well, I think it's fairly well established that cigarette smoking increases everyone's risk of certain illnesses. Some may beat the odds, but that doesn't mean cigarette smoking was a sensible and healthy choice (not dying from something doesn't mean your health wasn't impaired by it). And as for Cayce's predictions, they are the strongest reason to believe he possessed no divinatory powers in a trance or otherwise.

Yes, but: (1) I think there is evidence for synchronicity and (2) Again, the placebo effect applies to all medical practitioners, and not just to Jungian therapists.

(1) No evidence that isn't explained by statistical chance and human confabulation.
(2) True, which is why reputable treatments require sound experimental and/or theoretical bases.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, what happened here, Fran -- did Jung put a gun to her head and say: "You vill be my patient, Fraulein, and you vill get better, vhether you like it or not?"

I think the point was rather that we only have Jung's word for it that she was ill and that she got better.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, but: (1) I think there is evidence for synchronicity and (2) Again, the placebo effect applies to all medical practitioners, and not just to Jungian therapists.

I have to assume that you know that medical treatments (drugs anyway) have to pass rigorous safety and efficacy testing--double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials--before the FDA approves them. In other words, before medical practitioners can use them, there is reason to believe that they at least CAN do what we want them to.

I don't know as much about outcome measures--but I do know that there are at least some attempts to collect those data in medical settings. You're right that there is some "try and see" with some drug therapies, but again, at least they have a reason to think that the drugs can accomplish what they're meant to.

If you have a headache, then you burn a chicken feather and the headache goes away within a half-hour or so, would you say that burning the chicken feather "worked"?

You're right, if you have a headache, and you take an NSAID and the headache goes away within a half-hour, there is no proof that the drug "worked". But with the extensive double-blind, placebo controlled testing on the drug, and the utter lack of testing on the burning of chicken feathers, when I have a headache, which treatment is more reasonable to try?

 

[Rodney]

I guess the "sleeping prophet" is a misnomer -- the "trancey prophet"? Yeah, things said in a trance may not be quite the same as 'random', I don't know -- more likely based on 'subconscious' association. But I wouldn't trust the medical advice of someone in a trance anymore than I would a random stranger. If I say, "I've got a pain in my hip", and a total stranger says, "You should eat lots of beets", I'm not going to ask, "Did that come to you in a trance?" I'm going to ask, "Are you a doctor, and could I see some credentials, please?"

Fine, but Cayce's batting average on his medical diagnoses while in trance was about 85%, according to a study done by his sons. Randi and others have attempted to knock down this number, but unsuccessfully in my opinion.

Well, I think it's fairly well established that cigarette smoking increases everyone's risk of certain illnesses. Some may beat the odds, but that doesn't mean cigarette smoking was a sensible and healthy choice (not dying from something doesn't mean your health wasn't impaired by it).

But you always have to consider what the result would have been if the person had given up cigarettes.

And as for Cayce's predictions, they are the strongest reason to believe he possessed no divinatory powers in a trance or otherwise.

Cayce did have some accurate predictions, but -- if there is such a thing as free will -- predictions won't always be accurate.

(1) No evidence that isn't explained by statistical chance and human confabulation.

Do you have a model that proves this?

(2) True, which is why reputable treatments require sound experimental and/or theoretical bases.

But the line between reputable and unproven treatments can be very hazy.

 

[blobru]

Fine, but Cayce's batting average on his medical diagnoses while in trance was about 85%, according to a study done by his sons. Randi and others have attempted to knock down this number, but unsuccessfully in my opinion.

I haven't seen the study, or Randi's reply. As it was done by Cayce's sons, there may have been just a wee bit of bias in what was counted as a "hit", I suspect.

But you always have to consider what the result would have been if the person had given up cigarettes.

No one could ever know that, unless they could unerringly predict the future. Cayce couldn't.

Cayce did have some accurate predictions, but -- if there is such a thing as free will -- predictions won't always be accurate.

Even if there is free will, it would have no effect on a geologic event like Atlantis rising out of the ocean.

Do you have a model that proves this?

Synchronicity predicts that the universe / collective unconscious creates more personally significant, highly unlikely events than can be explained by chance alone, right? There are large-scale working models which test, and debunk, this everyday [and night].



Cool telephone poles.

But the line between reputable and unproven treatments can be very hazy.

Not really: reputable = proven ("proven" in the older sense of "well-tested").

 

[fls]

I haven't seen the study, or Randi's reply. As it was done by Cayce's sons, there may have been just a wee bit of bias in what was counted as a "hit", I suspect.

This particular study was discussed here with Rodney. Any one of the following (let alone all three) would invalidate the results - the outcomes were unknown in half the cases, there was no confirmation of the reported outcomes, it was uncontrolled. It is a nice demonstration of what Rodney's opinion is worth that he considers pointing out these fatal flaws unpersuasive.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

This particular study was discussed here with Rodney. Any one of the following (let alone all three) would invalidate the results - the outcomes were unknown in half the cases, there was no confirmation of the reported outcomes, it was uncontrolled. It is a nice demonstration of what Rodney's opinion is worth that he considers pointing out these fatal flaws unpersuasive.

Linda

Cayce's sons appear to have done as objective an analysis as they could of their father's medical accuracy, and found about an 85% accuracy rate. No, that's not definitive proof that his accuracy rate was 85%, but it's far different than a finding that his accuracy rate was only 25%. Further, there is overwhelming evidence that Cayce helped many people who had been let down by the conventional medicine of his time. And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how Cayce latched on to almonds as a cancer preventative.

 

[fls]

Cayce's sons appear to have done as objective an analysis as they could of their father's medical accuracy, and found about an 85% accuracy rate.

Bolding mine. It may be that they were incapable of doing a better job, but the job that they did do was woefully inadequate.

No, that's not definitive proof that his accuracy rate was 85%, but it's far different than a finding that his accuracy rate was only 25%.

Not really. One could not use that study to demonstrate that Cayce's accuracy rate was any different from 25% (or any other number you choose to select).

Further, there is overwhelming evidence that Cayce helped many people who had been let down by the conventional medicine of his time.

There's nothing wonderful about that. We already know that we can easily alter subjective perceptions.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how Cayce latched on to almonds as a cancer preventative.

Why? It seemed to have been a habit of his to propose various foods as preventatives or curatives. Why not almonds? He could even stumble upon something useful in the process. Too bad there's no way of picking that out beforehand from the thousands of things he suggested.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Bolding mine. It may be that they were incapable of doing a better job, but the job that they did do was woefully inadequate.
Linda

So what should they have done?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So what should they have done?

The point isn't so much what they should have done as much as it is that you shouldn't continue to cite the 85% hit rate based on it.

BTW, this is getting to be a complete derail. You brought up Edgar Cayce in response to my mentioning Carroll's essay on coincidence--which is the topic.

Edgar Cayce discussion belongs on a different thread.

 

[blobru]

Synchronicity predicts that the universe / collective unconscious creates more personally significant, highly unlikely events than can be explained by chance alone, right? There are large-scale working models which test, and debunk, this everyday [and night].

(learned this trick from calebprime (quote myself).)

Just to elaborate and refocus -- the large-scale working models which debunk synchronicity that I refer to are of course casinos and lotteries.
If synchonicity is true, then people should beat the impersonal odds more than you would expect by chance. I mean, winning a lottery is at least as significant and unlikely an event as a bug that reminds Jung of a scarab flying into his office. It would sure be a great way for the collective unconscious to express its solicitude. But it doesn't happen. There are as many winners as you would expect by chance, no more. So either synchronicity is passing up a terrific opportunity to communicate that there's more to coincidence than just coincidence, or it doesn't exist. The latter seems far, far more likely to me.

*p.s.* happy birthday, Fran! Can you use that cleaver to cut cake?

 

[-Fran-]

So, what happened here, Fran -- did Jung put a gun to her head and say: "You vill be my patient, Fraulein, and you vill get better, vhether you like it or not?"

Sans the gun... that wouldn't be all that unthinkable. No, that was a bit exaggerated, as I am sure you know, but both Freud and Jung does come across as quite manipulative in their books, that's my impression. They were so full of their own ideas that they were quite willing to bend their patiens minds to fit them. I don't think they realized that they did that, since they saw the results of their manipulations as evidence to support their ideas.

But my point was, in any case, that yes, there is not much here to really objectively confirm if there was indeed a real problem and if it was indeed solved by the method Jung describes. And there are many unconfirmed possibilities as to what it could have really been about. Some mentioned some posibilities, I mentioned one more.

The anecdote is, therefore, regardless of my personal feelings about the method in itself, quite useless for what we are discussing here.

 

[-Fran-]

*p.s.* happy birthday, Fran! Can you use that cleaver to cut cake?

Thanks blobru And my cleaver can cut anything! Except the fog surrounding an irrational mind (Disclaimer: I meant that jokingly and generally, and it wasn't directed to anyone in particular! )