Skeptic » eSkeptic » May 27, 2009

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine




Positively Non-Skeptical?

In our latest issue of Skeptic magazine (Vol. 14, No. 4), we published a skeptical analysis of the self-esteem and positive-thinking movement by investigative journalist Steve Salerno (which also appeared this eSkeptic), demonstrating that it is not enough to just say positive things, you actually have to do positive things. In response, Mark Robert Waldman and Andrew Newberg have written the following critique of Salerno’s critique, arguing that there is evidence for how thoughts influence actions. Be sure to read Steve Salerno’s response to this critique.

Andrew Newberg, MD, and Mark Waldman are authors of How God Changes Your Brain, Why We Believe What We Believe, and Born to Believe. Their research has been published in dozens of peer-reviewed journals and academic texts.

Steve Salerno is the author of SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless.


Optimism is Good for Your Brain

by Mark Robert Waldman & Andrew Newberg, MD

As skeptical researchers with a penchant for thorough and accurate assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of positive thinking and optimism, we are dismayed by Salerno’s apparent lack of comprehension (and exclusion of references to back up his claims) when it comes to the hundreds of studies relating to this important psychological and neurological topic. A brief analysis of the 97 abstracts that are cited if you enter “positive thinking” (let alone the 3553 references to its companion term, optimism) as a key word in the databases of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health (www.pubmed.gov) will demonstrate that Salerno has not done his homework.

Hope, optimism, and the belief in a positive future (i.e., faith) is essential for human psychological and neurological functioning, a concept that was first addressed in the 1950s by the psychiatrist Vicktor Frankl, who was imprisoned in a Nazi death camp until the end of World War II. In his famous book, Man’s Search for Meaning, he said that the single most important thing that kept a survivor alive was faith. If a prisoner lost faith in the future, he was doomed, because the will to live seldom returned. For Frankl, faith was essential for dealing with all aspects of life: “A weak faith is weakened by predicament and catastrophes whereas a strong faith is strengthened by them.”1

item of interest…

book cover

A 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills. Includes suggestions on questions to ask, traps to avoid, examples of how the scientific method is used to test pseudoscientific and paranormal claims, and a how-to guide for developing a class in critical thinking. ORDER the book

Now, faith in an optimistic future may be a placebo, but it’s important to remember that placebos can cure, on the average, 30% of the majority of physical and emotional diseases. Even an irrational belief in a cure that has been proven not to work can significantly boost the body’s immune system when dealing with a deadly disease.2

But what about unrealistic faith or optimism? Recently, a team of National Institutes of Health researchers concluded that “a moderate optimistic illusion” appears to be neurologically essential for maintaining motivation and good mental health.3 They also found that highly optimistic people had greater activation in the same parts of the anterior cingulated, a part of the brain that plays a crucial role in controlling anxiety, depression, and rage, as well as fostering social awareness and compassion.4

Even the medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic stress the importance of optimistic thinking for maintaining optimal health. They found that positive thinking decreases stress, helps you resist catching the common cold, reduces your risk of coronary artery disease, eases breathing if you have certain respiratory diseases, and improves your coping skills during hardships.5 An optimistic attitude specifically reduces the stress-eliciting cortisol levels in your body6, and many other studies have demonstrated how optimism improves behavioral coping in a variety of physical illnesses7, and in a forty year follow-up conducted at Duke University, optimists had increased longevity when compared to pessimistic individuals.8

As reported in the November 2007 issue of Nature, if the human brain did not have a bias toward optimism, we would be prone to increased anxiety and depression.9 However, anxious individuals have a more difficult time suppressing negative thoughts10, and often get caught up in the repetitive process of rumination. This, unfortunately, strengthens the neural circuits that are generating anxiety and embedding the information into long term memory banks.

Optimism is also related to the neurological mechanism known as the placebo effect. If you strongly believe in something — in other words, if you have enough faith in your self — you will stimulate both your immune system and your motivational system into action.11

Skeptics might argue that maintaining an illusory optimism is problematic, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Researchers at the University of California found that people who have self-enhancing illusions exhibit lower cardiovascular responses to stress, more rapid cardiovascular recovery, and lower baseline cortisol levels.12 In fact, an unrealistically optimistic belief about the future appears to be health protective, even when dealing with a disease as serious as AIDS.13 And in an article just published in March, 2009 issue of Behavioral Cognitive Psychotherapy14, researchers expected to find qualities of unrealistic optimism in patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Instead they found the opposite, and thus the lack of positive thinking contributed to their overestimation of perceived threats in the world.

item of interest…

book cover

The exciting and counter-intuitive idea that a diverse, independent group will usually come up with better answers than a single expert. Brilliantly explained and flawlessly supported. ORDER the book

In another study, optimism added months, and even years to patients suffering from diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis.15 It will even increase your resistance to common colds and flu viruses, but it also bias you toward under-estimating the severity of your symptoms.16 Other studies, however, have pointed out that unrealistic optimism adds a decreased perception of risk.17 Optimism does cause people to underestimate their risk of getting divorced and to overestimate their prospects for success in the marketplace, and these are important implications to consider, especially when it comes to health-related concerns. For example, optimistic smokers underestimate their chances of getting ill.18 So the question we must face is this: Are we using our optimistic beliefs to maintain a destructive behavior or belief? If so, then a healthy dollop of reality-testing should be added to your recipe for health.

Optimism is also associated with a less realistic view of the world.19 But then again, so is pessimism.20

Pessimism, however, has few benefits, and it leaves the person more at risk to depression, anxiety, sleeping problems, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and impaired social functioning.21 In a thirty year longitudinal study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, pessimism was significantly associated with a shorter life-span and poorer mental functioning.22

Andrew Newberg, MD, and Mark Waldman are authors of How God Changes Your Brain, Why We Believe What We Believe, and Born to Believe. Their research has been published in dozens of peer-reviewed journals and academic texts.

READ Steve Salerno’s response below.

References
  1. ^ Frankl V. Man’s Search for Meaning. Washington Square Press, 1959.
  2. ^ See Newberg and Waldman, Born to Believe, for an in-depth look at the placebo effect and the power that beliefs have on physiological health.
  3. ^ Sharot T, Riccardi AM, Raio CM, Phelps EA. Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature. 2007 Nov 1;450(7166):102–5.
  4. ^ Newberg and Waldman, How God Changes Your Brain. Ballantine, 2009.
  5. ^ www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009

    Kung S, Rummans TA, Colligan RC, Clark MM, Sloan JA, Novotny PJ, Huntington JL. Association of optimism-pessimism with quality of life in patients with head and neck and thyroid cancers. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Dec;81(12):1545–52.

  6. ^ Evans P, Forte D, Jacobs C, Fredhoi C, Aitchison E, Hucklebridge F, Clow A. Cortisol secretory activity in older people in relation to positive and negative well-being. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007 Sep-Nov;32(8-10):922–30.

    Schlotz W, Schulz P, Hellhammer J, Stone AA, Hellhammer DH. Trait anxiety moderates the impact of performance pressure on salivary cortisol in everyday life. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2006 May;31(4):459–72.

    Lai JC, Evans PD, Ng SH, Chong AM, Siu OT, Chan CL, Ho SM, Ho RT, Chan P, Chan CC.Optimism, positive affectivity, and salivary cortisol. Br J Health Psychol. 2005 Nov;10(Pt 4):467–84.

  7. ^ Treharne GJ, Lyons AC, Booth DA, Kitas GD. Psychological well-being across 1 year with rheumatoid arthritis: coping resources as buffers of perceived stress. Br J Health Psychol. 2007 Sep;12(Pt 3):323–45.

    Steptoe A, Marmo M, Wardle J. Positive affect and psychosocial processes related to health.Br J Psychol. 2007 Jun 27.

    Martínez-Correa A, Reyes del Paso GA, García-León A, González-Jareño MI. [Relationship between dispositional optimism/pessimism and stress coping strategies] Psicothema. 2006 Feb;18(1):66–72.

    Nes LS, Segerstrom SC. Dispositional optimism and coping: a meta-analytic review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(3):235–51.

    Schou I, Ekeberg Ø, Ruland CM. The mediating role of appraisal and coping in the relationship between optimism-pessimism and quality of life. Psychooncology. 2005 Sep;14(9):718–27.

  8. ^ Brummett BH, Helms MJ, Dahlstrom WG, Siegler IC. Prediction of all-cause mortality by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Optimism-Pessimism Scale scores: study of a college sample during a 40-year follow-up period. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Dec;81(12):1541–4.
  9. ^ Sharot T, Riccardi AM, Raio CM, Phelps EA. Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature. 2007 Nov 1;450(7166):102–5.
  10. ^ Gillath O, Bunge SA, Shaver PR, Wendelken C, Mikulincer M. Attachment-style differences in the ability to suppress negative thoughts: exploring the neural correlates. Neuroimage. 2005 Dec;28(4):835–47.
  11. ^ Furukawa TA, Watanabe N, Omori IM, Churchill R. Can pill placebo augment cognitive-behavior therapy for panic disorder? BMC Psychiatry. 2007 Dec 20;7:73. See also: Harrington, A. (Ed.) The Placebo Effect. Harvard University Press, 1999.
  12. ^ Taylor SE, Lerner JS, Sherman DK, Sage RM, McDowell NK. Are self-enhancing cognitions associated with healthy or unhealthy biological profiles? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Oct;85(4):605–15.
  13. ^ Taylor SE, Kemeny ME, Reed GM, Bower JE, Gruenewald TL. Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):99–109.
  14. ^ Inversion of the “unrealistic optimism” bias contributes to overestimation of threat in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Moritz S, Jelinek L. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2009 Mar;37(2):179–93.
  15. ^ Fournier M, De Ridder D, Bensing J. Optimism and adaptation to chronic disease: The role of optimism in relation to self-care options of type 1 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Br J Health Psychol. 2002 Nov;7(Part 4):409–432.
  16. ^ Cohen S, Alper CM, Doyle WJ, Treanor JJ, Turner RB. Positive emotional style predicts resistance to illness after experimental exposure to rhinovirus or influenza a virus. Psychosom Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;68(6):809–15.
  17. ^ Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. J Behav Med. 1982 Dec;5(4):441–60.
  18. ^ Dillard AJ, McCaul KD, Klein WM. Unrealistic optimism in smokers: implications for smoking myth endorsement and self-protective motivation. J Health Commun. 2006;11 Suppl 1:93–102.
  19. ^ Groot W, van den Brink HM. Optimism, pessimism and the compensating income variation of cardiovascular disease: a two-tiered quality of life stochastic frontier model. Soc Sci Med. 2007 Oct;65(7):1479–89.
  20. ^ Weber H, Vollmann M, Renner B. The spirited, the observant, and the disheartened: social concepts of optimism, realism, and pessimism. J Pers. 2007 Feb;75(1):169–97.
  21. ^ van der Velden PG, Kleber RJ, Fournier M, Grievink L, Drogendijk A, Gersons BP. The association between dispositional optimism and mental health problems among disaster victims and a comparison group: A prospective study. J Affect Disord. 2007 Sep;102(1–3):35–45.

    Pinquart M, Fröhlich C, Silbereisen RK. Optimism, pessimism, and change of psychological well-being in cancer patients. Psychol Health Med. 2007 Aug;12(4):421–32.

  22. ^ Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP.Optimists vs pessimists: survival rate among medical patients over a 30-year period. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 Feb;75(2):140-3. Erratum in: Mayo Clin Proc 2000 Mar;75(3):318.

    Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP. Optimism-pessimism assessed in the 1960s and self-reported health status 30 years later. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Aug;77(8):748–53.

Salerno’s Response

Sometimes when I receive criticism I’m left wondering: Did they actually read the piece? This is such a case.

For the record, I have never argued that optimism has no legitimate role in life. I argue that the frenzied overselling of optimism as a blanket prescription for all that ails us is one of the more subtly destructive forces in American culture. Just as scholastic self-esteem gurus were dead-wrong when they led us to believe that so-called “bolt-on” self-esteem automatically yields academic excellence, there’s no question that today’s gurus of optimism have led the nation down the primrose path in declaring that an upbeat attitude is its own foolproof reward. My real quibble, then, is with undue optimism about optimism — “the notion that the riddle of success is more easily solved by attitude than aptitude,” as I wrote near the top of the story. I was primarily indicting the commodification of optimism, and I stand by that assessment. (The gurus are right about one thing, however. Optimism does produce a great deal of wealth: their own.)

item of interest…

book cover

Are you addicted to self-help books? Do you require “empowerment” to reverse your “victimhood”? If so, relax — you’re far from alone. The Self-Help and Actualization Movement (the titular SHAM) is, according to Salerno, an $8-billion-a-year industry that depends on legions of repeat customers. ORDER the book

Authors Waldman and Newberg, meanwhile, offer us an object lesson in how a few scraps of “emerging science,” as it’s called in those smarmy TV ads for dubious new health-care products, become conventional wisdom. They write, for example, that “medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic stress the importance of optimistic thinking for maintaining optimal health. They found that positive thinking decreases stress, helps you resist catching the common cold, reduces your risk of coronary artery disease, eases breathing if you have certain respiratory diseases, and improves your coping skills during hardships.” That’s one seriously overstated mouthful, because the Mayo researchers “found” no such thing; if you go to the Mayo site, you’ll see that they speculate that positive thinking may pay these dividends … and even those tentative declarations are made based on “some” (cherry-picked?) studies. Not coincidentally, this is the same strategy elevated to an art form by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in touting its pet nostrums.

The authors also rely on the common ploy of argument-by-poetry, framing philosophy as truth. This is most clear in the several quotes from Victor Frankl. Much like the transcendent line, “All men are created equal,” the Frankl quotes sound terrific but enjoy no scientific standing.

As for the charge that I haven’t done my homework: Although my piece may not be annotated in strict academic style, I wonder how the authors overlooked the references to the work of Roy Baumeister, Charles Elliott, Charles Sykes, Jean Twenge, etc. — people who clearly have done their homework. But that’s not even the main point. Cleverly, the authors have embraced another staple New Age tactic by inverting the scientific method: telling me it’s my job to prove that optimism is ineffective, when in fact it’s their job, as members of the movement making all these claims, to conclusively demonstrate the efficacy of optimism, hope, PMA, etc.

We still have no way of knowing whether optimistic people actually do better at life or whether they just feel better about the same old crappy life (and therefore are less motivated to change anything). Do they end up like those American students, steeped in self-esteem, who got the worst grades in international testing but had the highest subjective self-assessments?

item of interest…

book cover

Sociologist Joel Best dissects the dangerous hula hoops of business, medicine, science and education in this exposition on institutional fads. According to Best, American attitudes toward progress (colored by optimism, competitiveness, a belief in positive change and a fear of being seen as old-fashioned) serve as kindling to the fire of the next big cure, technological revolution, business management secret or teaching method…
ORDER the book

To paraphrase the famous line from the movie, “Show us the money.”

Overall, the authors represent a blended (and, as I see it, disingenuous) “compromise” between science and spirituality that, on closer inspection, necessarily calls for throwing science out the window. Waldman and Newberg are authors of a new book, How God Changes Your Brain, whose very premise and central concept — God — cannot, by their own admission, be proved. In their book, Waldman and Newberg write, “Having an accurate perception of reality is not one of the brain’s strong points.” And: “The human brain seems to have difficulty separating fantasies from facts.” Fair enough … but is that where a true scientist should leave things? Do we then embrace the fantasies? Isn’t it the scientist’s job to weed out the real from the unreal; to wean people off the unreal; and to encourage people to work within the realm of the real, even if reality is less comfortable than fantasy? Otherwise what is the purpose of skepticism to begin with?

One final point. What I find amusing about the so-called “studies” of the role of mental outlook in health care is this: If a positive attitude is so decisive in health-care outcomes, then why not do a real controlled study wherein the control group tries to heal itself through PMA alone? Say, let’s have two groups of grievously ill heart patients, both with 95 percent blockage of the coronary arteries. Group 1 undergoes heart bypass plus blood thinners, etc. Group 2 forgoes all medical intervention and tries to get better just by visualizing the unclogging of their arteries. (If you like, we can even compose Group 1 from a bunch of pessimistic curmudgeons.)

Report back and tell me how it goes.


upcoming lectures at Caltech…

Michael Dowd
Thank God for Evolution

with Michael Dowd

Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Baxter Lecture Hall (map)

The Reverend Michael Dowd is one of the most inspiring speakers in America today. His lecture/sermon is based on his bestselling book, Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, which has been endorsed by 5 Nobel Prize-winning scientists and dozens of other scientific and religious luminaries across the spectrum. Since April 2002, he and his wife, Connie Barlow, an acclaimed science writer, have lived permanently on the road sharing a sacred view of evolution with religious and secular audiences of all ages, as America’s evolutionary evangelists…

READ more about this lecture >

READ about our other upcoming lectures >

Robert Wright
The Evolution of God

with Robert Wright

SPECIAL DAY AND TIME:
Thurs., June 11, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Baxter Lecture Hall (map)

In this sweeping story that takes us from the Stone Age to the Information Age, bestselling author Robert Wright unveils an astonishing discovery: there is a hidden pattern that the great monotheistic faiths have followed as they have evolved. Through the prisms of archaeology, theology, and evolutionary psychology, Wright’s findings overturn basic assumptions about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and are sure to cause controversy…

READ more about this lecture >

READ about our other upcoming lectures >


skepticblog.org website banner

Atheists & Genesis Revisited Hits the Small Screen

In this week’s SkepticBlog, Michael Shermer shares two videos. The first is from the ABC Australia TV series Compass; Shermer was interviewed for a show called “The Atheists” while he was in Sydney last summer. The second is based on the Coda from his book, Why Darwin Matters entitled “Genesis Revisited.” The voice in the video is a computer generated voice called “Daniel” from RealSpeak.

READ the post
and comment on it at Skepticblog.org >

While you’re there be sure to read the blog posts of the other Skepticbloggers: Brian Dunning, Kirsten Sanford, Mark Edward, Phil Plait, Ryan Johnson, Steven Novella, and Yau-Man Chan.

15 Comments »

15 Comments

  1. Dave says:

    I’m not surprised by findings that a degree of illusory optimism about one’s future is beneficial to health and happiness, or that such optimism embraces a wide range of religious beliefs in its scope. However, an implication I find both bemusing and absurd is that if you want to be happy and healthy, get a religion (or an illusion)! I request the right to be an anti-statistic. I have explored the attendant probabilities for years, and can’t see any value in innoculating myself with doses of illusory optimism which I would know in advance were illusory, nor can I envisage any personal cognitive mechanism for doing so satisfactorily. I’m over 70 now. Luckily, I’m pretty fit and healthy, and my probabilisitic assessment is that no immaterial emanation of myself will survive my material demise, and that when this occurs I will, sadly, have no opportunity of ever meeting again those I love and cherish. The people I know would not, I think, regard me as pessimistic. I’m grateful for the opportunities I’ve had. I absolutely applaud those thousands of fellow humans who are dedicated to the exploration of new knowledge about who and what we are, however provisional it may be, and if this is as good as it gets by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil, I won’t be complaining. If the light of truth is somewhat cold and uncomfortable, well, so be it. I have no particular cosmic entitlement to be coddled by false illusions which will see me out.

  2. Dan McLeod says:

    No comment on the above, but I just joined/subscribed and placed an order. Just before I checked out I was invited to purchase Martin Gardener’s “The New Age”, but neglected to order it. When I returned to your site I could not find it. How can I order it now?
    Thanks,
    dan

  3. Ron Edge says:

    I have been a Skeptic for many tears, having inherited Martin Gardner’s issues. Scot Morris forwarded the “optimism” article. Here is my reply
    In 1972, I took my son to see Dachau, the Nazi Cocentration camp. While there we noticed a group of people talking to a catholic priest. We wandered over to discover this guy had been imprisoned in Dachau. He said, you had to remember it was not only Jews that were there, but gypsies, and others, including catholic priests who disagreed with Hitler. Once a year he gave a memorial service there. It was a very interesting discussion about the miserable life in the camp, but what got me was what he said about how to stay alive. It was not faith or optimism, but a sense of humour. I would not have put that first, but after what he said, I fully agree with him. How could you laugh in a situation where people died every day for the slightest reason? Yet if you could not make fun about it, you were lost. It is such a simple thing, but I have seen this in many other places. In Russia, during communism, I noticed there were the funniest jokes-you may have seen the same yourself. I should point out I am a Unitarian-not a Catholic. My son converted to Catholicism-but as I always say, what can a Unitarian son do to rebel against his father? Nevertheless, we get on well. Best wishes-Ron

  4. Graeme Moyse says:

    I have long had a difficulty with any “ism”, and that includes skepticism. Afterall, what would be the outcome if Skeptics were skeptical of skepticism – I capitalise the term to denote the categorical way in which the relevant mental activity is applied?

    Having read Salerno in the initial eSkeptic item, Newberg & Waldman’s response, and Salerno subsequent commentary, I am more inclined to consider favourably the overall thrust of Newberg & Waldman than that of Salerno. In saying as much, I concede that this is necessarily the outcome of a heuristic approach, rather than a detailed sentential and semantic analysis. In both cases there appears to be valid points – both with regard to substantive content and rational process. However Salerno seems (to me) to be much more prone to a rhetorical style that closely echoes that of those he criticises, and in that sense is more political than scientific.

    Style is not however everything. And just as I recognise the validity of some of Salerno’s points, I don’t doubt that a reading of the full content of Newberg & Waldman’s writing would reveal matters that were at best dubious, and quite likely simply incorrect. However to advance the line, as Salerno does, that because Newberg & Waldman present questionable (or even demonstrably wrong) positions on one subject, means that they are necessarily wrong – or should even be doubted, on another.

    Consider this: Skeptics believe they are right!

    • Graeme Moyse says:

      Gosh!! I should have taken time to proof-read … my disquiet is not with Salerno’s self-proclaimed “overall thrust”, namely the inappropriate marketing of optimism, but with some of his ‘debating’ style. Indeed, I would assert, that it is the very concern to ‘win the debate’ that has introduced the reflexivity through which the exercise of science in the pursuit of knowledge, has all-too-often been traduced into Science … an expression of political pursuits, the outcomes of which we are all well-advised to be more than a little incredulous.

    • mike glogan says:

      Thank you for writing this. You’ve written what I was feeling more aptly then I would have.

      Much of what I have read from the “skeptics” point of view, as I browse this website’s articles, appears to me as failed existentialism.

      So far as I have read here, BELIEFS abound. Some people believe something and then others believe that they are wrong. The word “belief” necessitates some leap of faith, some jump from the world of incomplete experience and observation to accepting some piece of working knowledge as if it were real or true. What bothers me more than unqualified/unquantified beliefs, are peoples attachments to them. Why bother, when experience and observation may very well change one’s working knowledge of some thing? When belief does fail to change in the presence of new and conflicting experiences and observations it becomes dangerous.

      I felt that views were well expressed Salerno until his final paragraph where he hangs himself on his own logic. His implicit view point in the final placebo scenario is loaded with unqualified/unquantified BELIEF and cultural hypnosis.

      Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe Waldman and Newberg are “right”. They simply seem less attached to their belief.

      Final note: It is not logically flawed to BELIEVE another’s BELIEFS are wrong?

  5. Pete says:

    This is not intended in a massively pedantic way or anything, but I am genuinely curious as to where the above authors got the figure
    “placebos can cure, on the average, 30% of the majority of physical and emotional diseases”

    I have never heard this figure before and I was just wondering if anyone could post a reference to a study or something about it? Thanks

    • Liz says:

      “placebos can cure, on the average, 30% of the majority of physical and emotional diseases” What bothers me is not so much the figure (30%), but the mushiness of the statement. Seriously, what do they mean by “cure”? Because many physical and emotional diseases basically go away all by themselves without any intervention. Alleviation of symptoms maybe? For how long? And what do they mean by 30% of the majority? If the majority is 60%, would that mean that placebos cure around 20%? –on average? What does “on the average” mean?

      Mushy indeed.

      Mushy indeed.

  6. jbrydle says:

    Yes Liz, precisely. The 30% figure is based on a study (don’t have a link, sorry) that showed that using nothing but placebo, approximately 30% of the studied ailments (sorry again! can’t be more specific) went away. That’s the raw numbers, it is not compared to no treatment.

    The 30% figure is often bandied about as if it were all due to some amazing placebo effect, but as we all know, most diseases go away completely on their own thanks to our natural immune system.

    The placebo effect is real, but not nearly as powerful as the 30% makes it sound.

  7. jbrydle says:

    “The powerful placebo”, Henry Beecher, 1955
    http://tinyurl.com/nfow2k

    And this, from a 1997 paper critical of Beecher:
    “In 1955, Henry K. Beecher published the classic work entitled “The Powerful Placebo.” Since that time, 40 years ago, the placebo effect has been considered a scientific fact. Beecher was the first scientist to quantify the placebo effect. He claimed that in 15 trials with different diseases, 35% of 1082 patients were satisfactorily relieved by a placebo alone. This publication is still the most frequently cited placebo reference. Recently Beecher’s article was reanalyzed with surprising results: In contrast to his claim, no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited by him. There were many other factors that could account for the reported improvements in patients in these trials, but most likely there was no placebo effect whatsoever. False impressions of placebo effects can be produced in various ways. Spontaneous improvement, fluctuation of symptoms, regression to the mean, additional treatment, conditional switching of placebo treatment, scaling bias, irrelevant response variables, answers of politeness, experimental subordination, conditioned answers, neurotic or psychotic misjudgment, psychosomatic phenomena, misquotation, etc. These factors are still prevalent in modern placebo literature. The placebo topic seems to invite sloppy methodological thinking. Therefore awareness of Beecher’s mistakes and misinterpretations is essential for an appropriate interpretation of current placebo literature.”
    http://tinyurl.com/m9sqvx

  8. Epictetus says:

    Psychiatric drug trials, particularly in depression, are notoriously plagued by high placebo response rates, typically in the neighbourhood of 50%. Active drug achieves a 60% response rate, meaning it overpowers placebo by 10%.

    In other words, you need to treat 10 people with active antidepressants to be reasonably sure that one person who responds is responding due to some unique action of the medication, rather than non-specific factors which could just as well be attributed to placebo.

    The following very depressing review of available evidence suggests that if investigators use active placebos (placebos which induce side effects similar to antidepressants but not thought to have an impact on depression, e.g. atropine, or other anticholinergics) instead of inert placebos, the differences remain in favour of active drug, but only very slightly, on the order of 0.17 to 0.39 standard deviations:

    http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003012.html

  9. kennwrite says:

    I am glad that Steve Salerno offered a rebuttal. Certainly there’s room for optimistic thinking, but not when it interferes with pursuit of the benefits of science such as medical healing over faith healing. Hope, optimism, and the belief in a positive future won’t help much when this type of thinking obscures preventative thinking that can aid the body’s health through vitamins, exams to prevent cardiovascular problems, and exercise to maintain sound physical health.

    I love the article in the current skeptic issue about Benny Hinn. I watched his show on TV several times with my mother before she died. She went with her friend Dory to one of his massively attended shows. Dory had a rare crippling disease that left her little to no use of her left arm or fingers. Benny Hinn’s miraculous cure, where he casts out the demon and subsequently knocks his “patient” off her feet into the arms of caretakers afterward did nothing to cure her ailing arm. She died of other ailments a few years ago. My mom was an avid believer nonetheless, as was her friend Dory. Benny Hinn is energetic, full of optimism, hope, but, alas, totally ineffective as a healer. Too bad. He seems like such a nice old silver-haired genteleman, a bit French, Armenian, Greek, suave, kindly, and scary when it comes to faith healing, which, when taken with a dose of reality, is a complete crock.

  10. Cornelia Taylor says:

    I really liked Mr. Salerno’s acidic remarks! I am more inclined toward his views but I enjoyed the tone of his response!

    I found a misspelling:
    “They also found that highly optimistic people had greater activation in the same parts of the anterior cingulated, a part of the brain that plays a crucial role in controlling anxiety, depression, and rage, as well as fostering social awareness and compassion.”
    The “anterior cingulated” should be “anterior cingulate (gyrus)”.

  11. Stephen Huff says:

    I was watching CSpan Book TV, and saw Dr. Newberg on his book about how God changes your brain. I decided to look him up on the web and get the sceptical opinion of his work.

    I am interested because I am an agnostic minister of an agnostic church which preaches the Placebo effect. You can download details here

    http://www.4shared.com/file/68219198/77015be8/Church.html

    I have this to say. Get Thee to a Church. I believe in separation of Church and State. If the Church is destroyed, the State becomes the Church and all the dangerous, fanatic, true believers, espouse the State ideology as religion. See Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia as examples.

    In the US today, the 7 deadly sins of Catholicism are being replaced with new deadly sins of liberalism. Second hand smoke, not hugging your children enough, hugging your children too much, not recycling, etc. They are struggling to control education and suppress any non-state actors in the education field to be able to better indoctrinate our children in their religious values.

    Society needs a wisdom authority separate from and independent of the State. Preferably more than one. So get thee to a Church. Find one that teaches values you agree with.

    I found the normal hype here. People denying the existence of a placebo effect. Others pointing out that it is a significant problem in medical trials.

    I find it amusing that Newberg’s “God” book is mostly concerned with the brain effects of meditations from Buddhism an agnostic religion which basically ignores the entire question of the existence of God.

    I preach a sermon once a week on my blog at MySpace. Search for my name if you want to read past sermons.

  12. Matthew Leitch says:

    This is a very interesting exchange and I want to add to it an important insight coming from studies of bias in forecasts about the future.

    The key point is that in addition to being, perhaps, biased towards a positive or negative forecast, we are also at risk of being biased towards and over- or under-confident forecasts. By that I mean that, asked to give a range for our forecasts that will capture 80% of the probability, we can give ranges that are too narrow or too wide.

    In practice we tend to be a bit positive and fairly consistently too narrow.

    The long list of ‘optimism is good for your health’ studies are, typically, reliant on questionnaires that study only one dimension of bias, ignoring the open/closed mindedness dimension.

    However, this is a crucial second dimension. I write about this in an article called “Optimism, pessimism, and open-minded optimism” available here http://www.managedluck.co.uk/objectivist/index.shtml

    I argue for trying to reduce our biases.

    (Incidentally, I don’t think the one-dimensional approach of the questionnaires is the only problem with them.)

Patreon: a new way to support the things skeptic creates

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.