why do we need two words for placebo effect when it’s just positive placebo and negative placebo, i know i know, the word placebo has an ingrained positive aspect in its root… but it’s not like the english language ever gives a fuck about the roots of a word, it bastardises all words equally! why make an exception now?? why not just call it negative placebo!
It’s not about positive/negative. Those have specific meanings in research, and it’s not “good vs. bad” like in colloquial speech.
Placebo/nocebo are both positives, but the difference is about whether the imagined effect is beneficial or adverse. Imagining a beneficial effect is a positive, and imagining an adverse effect is also a positive.
“Negative” would imply they’re imagining that something isn’t there. For instance, if clinicians could verify that a physiological change took place, but due to the subject’s expectations they don’t notice any change in symptoms. Like, “I thought it was a placebo so I don’t feel any better.” I don’t think there’s a word for that because it’s not typically how trials are designed.
It’s because Placebo and Nocebo are not meant for english, but for clear medical communication, same reason Latin is used in the medical field, instead of plain English/Spanish/Canadian/etc. Both words are Latin, Placebo is I shall please and Nocebo is I will harm, and a doctor looking at those two words will, without a shadow of a doubt, know what has occured, if anything, to a patient
In double-blind studies, the test administrators are made unaware which sample is real vs. placebo
This cartoon shows the real reason why that is the gold standard.
We need to go deeper.
Also, the nocebo effect is real.
Placebo Blocker
deeply meaningless rant:
why do we need two words for placebo effect when it’s just positive placebo and negative placebo, i know i know, the word placebo has an ingrained positive aspect in its root… but it’s not like the english language ever gives a fuck about the roots of a word, it bastardises all words equally! why make an exception now?? why not just call it negative placebo!
It’s not about positive/negative. Those have specific meanings in research, and it’s not “good vs. bad” like in colloquial speech.
Placebo/nocebo are both positives, but the difference is about whether the imagined effect is beneficial or adverse. Imagining a beneficial effect is a positive, and imagining an adverse effect is also a positive.
“Negative” would imply they’re imagining that something isn’t there. For instance, if clinicians could verify that a physiological change took place, but due to the subject’s expectations they don’t notice any change in symptoms. Like, “I thought it was a placebo so I don’t feel any better.” I don’t think there’s a word for that because it’s not typically how trials are designed.
It’s because Placebo and Nocebo are not meant for english, but for clear medical communication, same reason Latin is used in the medical field, instead of plain English/Spanish/Canadian/etc. Both words are Latin, Placebo is
I shall pleaseand Nocebo isI will harm, and a doctor looking at those two words will, without a shadow of a doubt, know what has occured, if anything, to a patientMedical is mostly greek not latin.
the whole point is nothing has occured though, or rather nothing medically solvable
No, the whole point is things occurred, but were not caused by a drug, but by the brain. It’s still equally as valid.
Double plus good idea.
There’s probably a mirror somewhere, with a person behind thinking “Please, let those be from the control group and not our students!”