Is skepticism unhealthy?

[saizai]

This is related to my other thread ("Placebo effect", http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63574) but somewhat different.

For this thread, please assume that the placebo effect is real; if you want to question that, do so on the thread above.

Supposing that it is - let's define this as "a positive effect experienced by a patient receiving some therapy, in addition to the therapy's physiologic or pharmacologic effect" (nocebo is a negative effect). This can occur with sugar pills (in which case there is no physiologic/pharmacologic effect, just the placebo effect) and with regular therapy also (in which case you get both).

Let us also define skepticism here as not believing something until it is proven, or a general distrust in argument from authority.

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.

Thus: nonskepticism may well be a healthier and adaptive trait.

(Er, except for the problem of making sure the skeptics are choosing which therapies are administered, so you're not only choosing sugar pills and witch doctors...)

 

[BobK]

I'm skeptical of your premise and I feel I've had above average health during the course of my life.

 

[blutoski]

This is related to my other thread ("Placebo effect", http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63574) but somewhat different.

For this thread, please assume that the placebo effect is real; if you want to question that, do so on the thread above.

Supposing that it is - let's define this as "a positive effect experienced by a patient receiving some therapy, in addition to the therapy's physiologic or pharmacologic effect" (nocebo is a negative effect). This can occur with sugar pills (in which case there is no physiologic/pharmacologic effect, just the placebo effect) and with regular therapy also (in which case you get both).

Let us also define skepticism here as not believing something until it is proven, or a general distrust in argument from authority.

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.

Thus: nonskepticism may well be a healthier and adaptive trait.

(Er, except for the problem of making sure the skeptics are choosing which therapies are administered, so you're not only choosing sugar pills and witch doctors...)

Even assuming that there is a positive effect from placebo, it does not follow that it is a medically significant effect, so it is possible that skeptics and non-skeptics would see the same medical results from different placebo-effect outcomes.

Also: the flip side is the potential elimination of the nocebo effect. For example, immunity to the ill effects of believing you've been cursed, which some skeptics chalk up to meeting a shorter end from sheer fear. Enter the world of voudou and indestructible skeptics.

Also: there's the whole issue of quackery. Skeptics would be less likely to follow dangerous quack procedures, and less likely to abandon scientifically-proven ones. Also worth another thread.

 

[saizai]

I would say that reduction of perceived pain (as opposed to "real pain", one wonders?) is certainly both within the usual placebo effect scope, and "medically significant".

Nocebo effects are certainly a valid counterpoint, but my guess is that placebos are more common when seeking treatment.

And I already agreed re quackery - hence having skeptics control which treatment gets offered.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Since I can't sleep, I found this thread interesting. As a skeptic I didn't find herbs like Valerian Root effective for my long term depression when I finally sought treatment. Placebos did not work, no matter how many I tried.

Instead, I had to learn how to manage stress, figure why I had no good relationships (worked on improving my people skills), practice techniques to overcome anxiety, and even undergo therapy and take some real meds for a while.

It was hard work, took a few years, but now I am depression free and don't feel like I'll ever be headed for a relapse. Nor do I have continue seeking and buying placebos. Some of those placebos can be darn expensive, and people will panic if their supply runs out. Why remain dependent on a placebo instead of solving the problem?

 

[Mojo]

Since I can't sleep, I found this thread interesting. As a skeptic I didn't find herbs like Valerian Root effective for my long term depression when I finally sought treatment. Placebos did not work, no matter how many I tried.

I find that the placebo effect works for me in at least one instance, although I am perfectly aware that it is placebo.

If I take a couple of paracetamol tablets for a headache, I start to feel better as soon as I swallow the things. There's no way it can get into my bloodstream that quickly. I am fully aware of this, but I still get some instant pain relief.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

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).

That said, if as a skeptic I do not believe that the medication is going to help me, and it really does not have any medicinal effect, then it isn't going to help me. Taking homeopathic remedies, for example, is not going to do me any good, because I know its just water.

But when it comes to real medication, the placebo effect enhances it for me just as much as for anybody else, as the pain medication example that Mojo cited demonstrates. There is really nothing mystical about this. It is not some strange "mind over matter" effect. It is just the simple fact that your emotional disposition has a strong influence on how you feel, as well as an influence your body's ability to heal itself.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Dave1001]

I'm skeptical of your premise and I feel I've had above average health during the course of my life.

The latter part of your statement (using anecdotal personal experience to argue against what's claimed to be a larger trend) indicates that your above average health may be explained by your poor skepticism.

 

[Cuddles]

Let us also define skepticism here as not believing something until it is proven, or a general distrust in argument from authority.

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.

Skepticism does not mean disbelieving everything and appeal to authority does not apply if that authority should be trusted. If a doctor tells me that a drug will relieve pain I will believe them because it is their job to know things like that and I expect them to know what they are talking about. If talking about quack treatments then you may be right, but if you are talking about real medical treatments then skeptics have no less reason to believe it works than anyone else. In fact, since most pseudohealth people claim that real medicine doesn't work as well as quacks, by your argument they should be less healthy than skeptics since there will be less of an effect from real treatments.

As an additional point, skeptics are likely to go to real doctors, so if they are ill they are much more likely to be cured than a woo believer who goes to a sCAM treatment and therefore skeptics should be much healthier.

 

[Overman]

I am skeptical of the claim that skeptics recieve no placebo effects.

 

[0oTITANo0]

Totally wrong. First, skeptics head straight for treatment that works resulting is less total time being ill. Second, as skeptics seek the most competent medical practicioners they can be quite confident that they are getting the best care modern medicine can provide them. Secure in their knowledge that their physicians are the best available, Skeptics don't hope they will get better, they know they will resulting in reduced or eliminated anxiety and fear and therefore reduced stress which allows the body to recover faster than the faithful.

 

[0oTITANo0]

sazai, you have repeatedly demonstrated a misunderstanding of what Skepticism is. You seem to hold the opinion that Skeptics distrust everyone and everything at all turns. You confuse skepticism for paranoia. Skeptics try to form opinions based on evidence. You regularly characterized skeptics as people who dogmatically believe certain things to not be true. What we believe is based on evidence. There is a phenomenal amount of evidence that modern medicine works. While some disease is incurable and degenerative, much ill health is not. Skeptics in general trust modern medicine because it has a very successful track record.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I find that the placebo effect works for me in at least one instance, although I am perfectly aware that it is placebo.

If I take a couple of paracetamol tablets for a headache, I start to feel better as soon as I swallow the things. There's no way it can get into my bloodstream that quickly. I am fully aware of this, but I still get some instant pain relief.

Could that be a classically conditioned release of endorphin with the conditioned stimulus being the pill?

 

[saizai]

Titan & Cuddles - Skeptics can certainly believe in modern medicine, but need still be distrustful of argument from authority even from MDs.

After all, MDs promote quackery too y'know.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, faith in modern medicine sounds like a great placebo to me - and the medicine works too!

 

[Steven Howard]

Supposing that it is - let's define this as "a positive effect experienced by a patient receiving some therapy, in addition to the therapy's physiologic or pharmacologic effect" (nocebo is a negative effect). This can occur with sugar pills (in which case there is no physiologic/pharmacologic effect, just the placebo effect) and with regular therapy also (in which case you get both).

Let us also define skepticism here as not believing something until it is proven, or a general distrust in argument from authority.

Skeptics, one could reasonably conclude, should be less likely to experience placebo effect in most cases.

I don't agree that this is a reasonable conclusion. You need to show your work here.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Since I can't sleep, I found this thread interesting. As a skeptic I didn't find herbs like Valerian Root effective for my long term depression when I finally sought treatment. Placebos did not work, no matter how many I tried.

Instead, I had to learn how to manage stress, figure why I had no good relationships (worked on improving my people skills), practice techniques to overcome anxiety, and even undergo therapy and take some real meds for a while.

It was hard work, took a few years, but now I am depression free and don't feel like I'll ever be headed for a relapse. Nor do I have continue seeking and buying placebos. Some of those placebos can be darn expensive, and people will panic if their supply runs out. Why remain dependent on a placebo instead of solving the problem?

Eos, might I ask who recommended valerian as a cure for depression? It does have some use as a sedative but I'd be rather concerned if a professional was advising people to use it as an antidepressant.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Skepticism does not mean disbelieving everything ..

Organized skepticism, or the skeptical movement, is different from just skepticism, ya know?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

After all, MDs promote quackery too y'know.

Oh, we know there are bad eggs, but they are far and few between compared to the quacks that are 100% quacks. If my doctor started going on and on about cranial massage as a treatment for anything pre-cancerous, then I'd roll my eyes and find a good doctor, and report the bad one doctor. At least with MDs there is a body governing them that you can complain to.

Eos, might I ask who recommended valerian as a cure for depression?

Just word of mouth among peers. People are always happy to share anecdotes. Thing is, my depression was severe and long term, so the Valerian had no noticeable effect. It may work as a placebo for a brief case of the blues, but I'd still recommend seeing a doc for advice.

 

[0oTITANo0]

Titan & Cuddles - Skeptics can certainly believe in modern medicine, but need still be distrustful of argument from authority even from MDs.

After all, MDs promote quackery too y'know.

Not my MDs to my knowledge. I am confident that they are competent physicians. It is up to the individual to decide if they trust their physician or not. I dropped a doctor in the past becasue I did not feel that he was taking some of my medical concerns seriously.

Regardless, the comment does not support your argument that skeptics are likely to be unhealthy because they are paranoid.