The focus of woo

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

I was going to google some studies, but I don't really like studies because one study contradicts another, and you go through a whole bunch of work to provide information that people just argue over anyway. So I will write from my heart.

The Power of Positive Thinking. Is it real? To me, positive thinking falls in with the Power of Love and the power of belief in love. I think we must have some type of belief - whether belief in oneself - belief in one's God - belief that someone loves you (and that someone can be visible or invisible...just so long as the person believes it...with belief being the operative force - some type of positive force in our lives.

There was a (cruel) study done years ago, maybe in the 50's, where babies were deliberately withheld touch and attention. They were fed and attended to, but they failed to thrive. I can't remember the results of the study, whether or not any of the babies died. However, the point here is that they did not thrive without love.

Is love woo? Well, love from our mother or partner or child isn't the same as belief in an invisible person - but love - is still in itself - an invisible emotion. Love, both loving others and having others love us - gives people a reason to go on. Withhold love, and life is meaningless. It is survival only.

When people say God is love, maybe God acts as a symbol of LOVE to them. A symbol they can hang their little hat on, believe in, and focus on. When people feel what they believe to be God, they feel a spiritual presence - whether the presence comes from within or whether it comes from without - they feel something - LOVE - BELIEF - which brings hope and allows the person to relax - to breathe - to heal.

People that do transcendental meditation for instance - have been known to lower their blood sugar, heart rate, and blood pressure. When they are doing meditation, they feel they "connect" with something more - whether or not that is true - that is what they FEEL to be true, and it offers health benefits for them.

There is that double slit experiment or whatever it is called - with electrons (?) or some kind of particles - I don't really remember it - but anyway the particles acted differently when they were being observed. I find that to be pretty wild. Can observation alone change things?

Can love change things? Can belief?

I think to close yourself off to this possibility - is closing your mind. Just like religious people do.

My bold.

Why are you referencing something you openly admit you know nothing about, and using it to support anything at all?

That seems to be the shittiest version of Quantum Woo I've ever seen.

[Fearless]

Is it worth overcomplicating this if you don't understand it?

I don't understand quantum physics much either so I certainly wouldn't use it as an argument.

I'm not entirely sure of what you are trying to convey with this thread. Maybe a few summarised points in a couple of sentences and we can work from there. Well maybe not me exactly I'm not sure I have anything to contribute yet.

[stewiegriffin81]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

Stewie, on the contrary, the study showed that "higher levels of available social support predicted better survival, even after controlling for age, functional status, dosage of chemotherapy, and cytogenetic risk group. Within social support, the availability of instrumental support showed more consistent associations with 2-year survival than the availability of emotional support".

I'm sorry, but that phrase you have quoted does not exist in the systematic review I quoted. That systematic review in fact, does not even contain the phrase "social support" in it, let alone your entire quote. I don't know what you are quoting, but you are not quoting my paper. The paper I quoted ONLY looked at the psychological coping styles of patients, and didn't look at social support at all.

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

That's what I'm saying about studies...two different people can get two different interpretations from the same study, plus - you can google a dozen studies proving your point while I can do the same.

This isn't about two different interpretations of the same thing. This is about the fact that you do not seem to have been looking at the same paper as me. Please quote the paper you got that quote from.

More importantly, please also realise that social support does not equate to positive attitude/thinking. So even if the paper you are quoting is reliable (which we cannot ascertain until you cite it for us), it doesn't actually support your claim.

Edit:

I googled your quote, and it comes from this paper:

Pinquart, et al (2007). "Social support and survival in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia.". Supportive Care in Cancer. 15, 1.

So my first question is: did you honestly somehow think this (clearly) different paper was the same one as the one I quoted, or are you actually trying to be mendacious?

My second question is: how do you justify social support as being similar, or the same as, positive thinking? I can't see any similarity whatsoever.

My third question is: Even if you do believe social support and positive thinking are somehow the same, how do you justify using the results from a study with only a mere 50 patients in it, as opposed to my paper which has 4946 patients? It is pretty clear which is the more reliable study, and I'm afraid it certainly isn't yours.

Second Edit:

I've now read the paper you quoted, and I think you'll find that some of the possible explanations discussed in the paper on how social support might increase survival disagree with your belief concerning positive thinking (my emphasis added):

"that the effect of psychosocial variables may be mediated by compliance, health behaviours, and biological pathways: Regarding compliance, help with transportation may improve access to the health care system and hence to compliance with the treatment program. With regard to health behaviour, cancer patients often show, amongst others, impaired eating habits [2]. Thus, instrumental support, such as help with shopping and cooking, may improve these habits."

Now you'll notice that these possible explanations for social support and survival have absolutely nothing to do with positive thinking whatsoever. It would not be surprising at all to find that survival is increased for those who have help to get food and to get to the hospital.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

I actually watched a cartoon by "Dr. Quantum" - that was my background in quantum physics - and in that cartoon, the particles changed when observed - that's how I came to that...I can't compete in Quantum physics discussions - I thought however that it was interesting and relevant that particles changed when observed - but - if they don't in other experiments or if I don't understand the experiment - then - it is what it is....I was just going by that cartoon to be honest.

Well, at least you admitted that you were arguing from cartoon.

Argumentum ad animation?

Scooby Doo is the better cartoon. And it didn't even pretend to give its viewers an understanding of quantum mechanics.

[Fearless]

It did have a talking dog though.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Fearless

It did have a talking dog though.

Which was more believable than requiring kids to accept the explanations of ghosts and ghouls. Scooby even acted like a big floppy Great Dane. He didn't really talk, just made mostly vague noises that could be readily construed as his voicing an opinion. It's not like he presented reasoned fucking arguments.

And the bad guy (I really don't like that way of putting it, but I've been at a Promptu Lunch, so deal with it) always turned out to be the grumpy non-supernatural motherfucker with a distinctly pedestrian agenda resting upon people being convinced by woo.

Scooby and Shaggy were the wooists. The Jock was occasionally subject to being all woo-fearful, but the Hippy and the Cowardly Animal were the ones who really got all scared by ghosts and allowed that to dictate their behaviour.

Oh, fuck it. I am not embarking on an analysis of Scooby Doo cartoons with regard to social stereotypes in the perspective of the .. anything. It's not funny enough for me to bother.

[bruce1937]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chick

or squished.


I'm feeling sentimentally wooified today.

Say you are in a room, a hospital room, and everyone has their head bowed with only good thoughts to the person in the hosp bed...praying for that recovery...all that positive energy focused on the patient, can't hurt.

I have read in several books of a study conducted in the USA into the effectiveness of prayer to help patients recover. It found that if the patient did not know of the prayers, there was no effect at all, if however the patient did know of the prayers the patient had worse medical outcomes. I am sorry I forget which books I read of these tests but I am sure If you google it there should be no trouble finding it.

[robertkd]

maybe consider some light entertainment

[stewiegriffin81]

Originally Posted by bruce1937

I have read in several books of a study conducted in the USA into the effectiveness of prayer to help patients recover. It found that if the patient did not know of the prayers, there was no effect at all, if however the patient did know of the prayers the patient had worse medical outcomes. I am sorry I forget which books I read of these tests but I am sure If you google it there should be no trouble finding it.

Yes, that would be the STEP study

Benson et al (2006). "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer." American Heart Journal. 151, 4.

And yes, Dixie may have a difficult time reconciling her belief with this study!

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by bruce1937

I have read in several books of a study conducted in the USA into the effectiveness of prayer to help patients recover. It found that if the patient did not know of the prayers, there was no effect at all, if however the patient did know of the prayers the patient had worse medical outcomes. I am sorry I forget which books I read of these tests but I am sure If you google it there should be no trouble finding it.

Performance anxiety perhaps (with apologies to RD)??? see below....

There are several studies in respect of these types of experiments....

The third party studies discussed here have all been performed using Christian prayers. Some have reported null results, some have reported correlations between prayer and health, and some have reported contradictory results in which beneficiaries of prayer had worsened health outcomes. The parameters used within the study designs have varied, for instance, daily or weekly prayers, whether to provide patient photographs, with full or partial names, measuring levels of belief in prayer, and whether patients underwent surgery.

Questions have been raised about pretty much every experimental trial, the one I guess you are referring to (reporting statistically poorer outcomes for patients who knew they were receiving prayers), is the 2006 STEP study, aka "The Great Prayer Experiment"....

Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, 'It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?'" Study co-author Jeffery Dusek stated that: "Each study builds on others, and STEP advanced the design beyond what had been previously done. The findings, however, could well be due to the study limitations."[23] Team leader Benson stated that STEP was not the last word on the effects of intercessory prayer and that questions raised by the study will require additional answers.

I'd still be putting my hopes in science and medicine, rather that woo...

EDIT: stewie beat me to it...