Using psychedelics for cultivation or any other spiritual system.

[Gerard]

22 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

There are data of alleged past lives that show physical injuries of that time appearing now as "birth marks"

 

 

This thread has gone off-topic completely but let me throw something in in relation to your comment:

 

"Only past lives?"

 

How about future ones?

 

What makes you think rebirth works only in a linear fashion or let alone you only live only life at the time.

 

Everything is possible when it comes to the complexity of the Mind and the ultimate nature of reality. Quantum Mechanics is a great tool to explain it from a rationalist perspective.

 

Taoism uses the 5 Element Model with forces that are eternal and comprehensive (they work in all different levels due to the expansive  & contracting nature of Yin & Yang).

 

 

 

 

[Lairg]

1 hour ago, Gerard said:

What makes you think rebirth works only in a linear fashion or let alone you only live only life at the time.

 

 

Quite so!

 

Human incarnations are part of cosmic parallel processing.   Parallel timelines are used to accelerate the fulfillment of the Intent of  The Source of All.

 

From what I have seen, the neighborhood's  timelines are extruded from the body of a great entity that manages time for this arm of the galaxy.   The timelines are bundled.

 

Sometimes there are improper connections between timelines.  I was shown a mature Arthurian/Grail timeline that was improperly connected to a successful Nazi timeline.  It was not good and action was being taken.

 

Some alien sources report that the Time Force that deals with such matters around this planet is now largely in the hands of humans.  Apparently the friendly aliens got fed up with dealing with our mess and trained some humans to do it.

But how complex do you want this thread to be?

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Lairg

[Shadow_self]

22 minutes ago, Lairg said:

 

 

Quite so!

 

Human incarnations are part of cosmic parallel processing.   Parallel timelines are used to accelerate the fulfillment of the Intent of  The Source of All.

 

From what I have seen, the neighborhood's  timelines are extruded from the body of a great entity that manages time for this arm of the galaxy.   The timelines are bundled.

 

Sometimes there are improper connections between timelines.  I was shown a mature Arthurian/Grail timeline that was improperly connected to a successful Nazi timeline.  It was not good and action was being taken.

 

Some alien sources report that the Time Force that deals with such matters around this planet is now largely in the hands of humans.  Apparently the friendly aliens got fed up with dealing with our mess and trained some humans to do it.

But how complex do you want this thread to be?

 

 

 

Right...time to spill...just how many of those damned mushrooms did you eat 

 

 

[Gerard]

The sky is the limit.

 

ENDLESS. No beginning, no end.

 

Ask yourself this question: 

 

What am I really?

 

Self-observation is a key element of practice. Breaking through the barriers/blockages, built by the Mind in order to protect the EGO. is the hardest aspect of this practice.

 

But even if you dissolve them all and reach the very core of your being, there is still no end. 

 

[Giles]

On 11/02/2022 at 7:09 AM, Shadow_self said:

They had no business using them then, and have no business using them now...And 70 years later they still haven't a clue and are just further digging holes.

 

 

I'm gong to choose to beg to differ:

 

 

On 11/02/2022 at 7:09 AM, Shadow_self said:

The human mind is not quantitative....regardless of how desperately they want it to be...and chasing after blips on an EEG or a bit of blood movement from an fMRI whilst using what is really a nonrepresentative measure of mental responses just does not cut it in any shape or form

 

And again, I beg to differ.

 

Neurobiofeedback is effective and it's been the subject of proper scientific research for quite a long time.

 

An introduction (from 1992):

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Giles]

On 02/08/2024 at 2:53 PM, Giles said:

I'm gong to choose to beg to differ:

 

 

Although...

 

https://www.psypost.org/therapists-report-significant-psychological-risks-in-psilocybin-assisted-treatments/

 

[Neirong]

On 02.08.2024 at 3:53 PM, Giles said:

I'm gong to choose to beg to differ:

 

I would be deeply concerned if anyone who claims to have an esoteric background advocated for any kind of psychedelics and even addictive poisonous substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is one concern about possible health consequences in the vast range - body - energy - and mind. Addictive substances erode willpower, making the mind weaker and cultivation impossible.
 

However, the other more significant concern is that meditation is so much more potent. A person relying on substances to alter his state of mind is flying a massive red flag. "I cannot meditate, I never meditated, I don't know how to meditate."

[Giles]

14 hours ago, Neirong said:

I would be deeply concerned if anyone who claims to have an esoteric background advocated for any kind of psychedelics and even addictive poisonous substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is one concern about possible health consequences in the vast range - body - energy - and mind. Addictive substances erode willpower, making the mind weaker and cultivation impossible.

 

Psilocybin isn't addictive.

 

14 hours ago, Neirong said:

However, the other more significant concern is that meditation is so much more potent. A person relying on substances to alter his state of mind is flying a massive red flag. "I cannot meditate, I never meditated, I don't know how to meditate."

 

Quite simply, untrue.

 

[Giles]

Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0407401101

 

It can be trained using a Mind Mirror/Vilistus for biofeedback:

 

 

 

[Shadow_self]

On 02/08/2024 at 1:53 PM, Giles said:

 

I'm gong to choose to beg to differ:

 

 

 

And again, I beg to differ.

 

Neurobiofeedback is effective and it's been the subject of proper scientific research for quite a long time.

 

An introduction (from 1992):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm well aware of the neurofeedback literature. 

 

I spent long enough hooking people up to neuroimaging equipment to know the ins and outs of it,  and before that, had to drove through multitudes of papers and weighting up the pros and cons of each one  with a strict critera, followed by the normal ROB2 and GRADE protocols

 

What exactly do you think this proves in relation to the human mind not being quantitative?

 

Interesting even the mainstreamers know what to make of it (shocking, normally they'd be pushing this kind of thing) 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/well/mind/neurofeedback-therapy-mental-health.html#:~:text=However%2C neurofeedback is still not,more effective than a placebo.

 

Heres the highlghts 

 

 

 

I suggest if you're going to claim the efficacy of something you should look at the overall knowledge base itself and analyse it, rather than taking others words for it (you should also look into the glaring conceptual and methodological failings)

 

Its placebo, and that totally fine, but we should be clear on that

[Giles]

The kraken wakes. 🤣

 

Quiet day at the office dear? 🤔

 

Anyway.., citing a 2½ year old newspaper article isn't actually particularly convincing.

 

Things have certainly moved on since January 2022 as well.

 

From Psychiatry Today (although it's actually dated August 2023 🤣):

 

Food and Drug Administration Clears Neurofeedback Intervention for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2023.08.8.60

 

[Shadow_self]

18 minutes ago, Giles said:

The kraken wakes. 🤣

 

Quiet day at the office dear? 🤔

 

Huh kraken, thats a new one  

 

18 minutes ago, Giles said:

Anyway.., citing a 2½ year old newspaper article isn't actually particularly convincing.

 

Things have certainly moved on since January 2022 as well.

 

From Psychiatry Today (although it's actually dated August 2023 🤣):

 

Food and Drug Administration Clears Neurofeedback Intervention for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2023.08.8.60

 

 

Before I begin my friend

 

Please dont take my words as in any way aggressive in any shape or form  any sense of frustration is at the industry, government entites and academia so we are clear. Its a touchy topic, so you may rest assured its nothing personal

 

Right, let me show you how a person who has no financial incentive and only cares about the truth but knows how to analzye these studies does it

 

So, despite the fact I only linked the  NYT article for the purposes of accesibility to the average reader, allow me to show you the most "modern take"

 

Quote

Systematic review and meta-analysis of neurofeedback and its effect on posttraumatic stress disorder (March 2024)

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1323485/full

 

 

Quote

Background: To date, only one systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has evaluated the effect of neurofeedback in PTSD, which included only four studies and found an uncertainty of the effect of EEG-NF on PTSD symptoms. This meta-analysis is an update considering that numerous studies have since been published. Additionally, more recent studies have included fMRI-NF as well as fMRI-guided or -inspired EEG NF

Methods: Systematic literature searches for RCTs were conducted in three online databases. Additional hand searches of each study identified and of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published were also undertaken. Outcomes evaluated the effect of neurofeedback vs. a control (active, sham, and waiting list) on their effects in reducing PTSD symptoms using various health instruments. Meta-analytical methods used were inverse variance random-effects models measuring both mean and standardized mean differences. Quality and certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Adverse events were also evaluated.

Results: A total of 17 studies were identified evaluating a total of 628 patients. There were 10 studies used in the meta-analysis. Results from all studies identified favored neurofeedback’s effect on reducing PTSD symptoms including BDI pretest–posttest [mean difference (MD): 8.30 (95% CI: 3.09 to 13.52; P = 0.002; I² = 0%)]; BDI pretest–follow-up (MD: 8.75 (95% CI: 3.53 to 13.97; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%); CAPS-5 pretest–posttest [MD: 7.01 (95% CI: 1.36 to 12.66; P = 0.02; I² = 86%)]; CAPS-5 pretest–follow-up (MD: 10 (95% CI: 1.29 to 21.29; P = 0.006; I² = 77%); PCL-5 pretest–posttest (MD: 7.14 (95% CI: 3.08 to 11.2; P = 0.0006; I² = 0%); PCL-5 pretest–follow-up (MD: 14.95 (95% CI: 7.95 to 21.96; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%). Other studies reported improvements using various other instruments. GRADE assessments of CAPS, PCL, and BDI demonstrated a moderate/high level in the quality of the evidence that NF has a positive clinical effect.

Conclusion: Based on newer published studies and the outcomes measured, NF has demonstrated a clinically meaningful effect size, with an increased effect size at follow-up. This clinically meaningful effect appears to be driven by newer fMRI-guided NF and deeper brain derivates of it.

 

 

So They say its effective in this, but when you look a little deeper thats not the case, is it

 

For a start, lets take a look at the Risk of bias assessment

 

 

Pay specific attention to the blinding of participants and personell, it is basically nonexisitent

 

And if you didnt know, one of the reasons for employing blinding is to control for placebo, which none, except for one of the studies did

 

They also are not up to par on other metrics either, see the graph here

 

 

 

Now that we've already establised these studies cant account for placebo, and this is the latest data, you can safely say the most up to date data STILL doesnt show it what it claims to show 

 

It didnt even pass the basic litmus test...and this is supposed to be gold standard RCT systematic review/ meta analysis stuff (several other metrics are also questionable) 

 

However, theres a far more nefarious detail here

 

Quote

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

 

JV was employed by Medical Device Consultants of Ridgewood, LLC. MM was employed by EMB Statistical Solutions, LLC.

The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 

The authors declare that this study received funding from GrayMatters Health. The funder was involved in the interpretation of data as it related to the descriptions of the types of neurofeedback systems available. The funder was also involved in the decision to submit for publication. The funder did edit a draft of the manuscript as it related to the description of the types of neurofeedback systems available.

 

 

So who exactly are GrayMatters Health?

 

https://www.graymatters-health.com/

 

Quote

GrayMatters Health is leading a transformation by empowering mental healthcare professionals with a neuroscience-based technology that augments standard-of-care therapies to improve patient outcomes and patient lives. This is all based on the world’s first digital biomarker of brain activity associated with mental health disorders.

Prism for PTSD is the first self-neuromodulation device to receive FDA clearance as a prescribed adjunct treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The procedure is a new concept –  digitizing brain activity associated with PTSD, giving patients an active role in learning to control brain biomarker activity and improve their symptoms.

 

Oh,  FDA approved, how convienent eh?  WAIT A SECOND

 

OH LOOK AT THAT, HERE THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURE AN EVIDENCE BASE FOR THEIR TREATMENT BY PAYING RESEARCHERS TO DO A REVIEW THAT ON A SURFACE LEVEL LOOKS FINE, BUT FALLS APART UNDER SCRUTINY

 

AND LOOK AT THAT, THE SAME COMPANY MENTIONED IN YOUR ARTICLE TOO...AHH HOW CONVIENENT RIGHT? 

 

Discussing the same thing, off the same poor shoddy research that doesnt even account for the same limitations that have been existing in this same field since research started being done on the topic

 

Because they know that when the non funded research is done, and done properly including double blind, then the results are always clear, its the placebo effect

 

But its a nice profit stream, so it wont be stopping any time soon

 

Academia, private corporations and the FDA have been in bed together for a long time my friend, you just arent privvy to it, and thats fine, most outsiders are not. I liken it to cerberus, a three headed dog

 

I spent well over a decade carving out a career in this area of research (Psychiatric illness with a neurosceintific approach), Only to walk away from it all, because I couldn' t stomach the ethics of what was happening behind closed doors. I could barely even stomach teaching anymore and had to switch disciplines, and I even ended up walking away from that too, disgusted at what "the science" has in store the public

 

And let me be even clearer, now that the SSRI sham is almost up, and psychedelics are about to take center stage, you're about to see all new kinds of disgusting

 

As if chemically removing someones sexual functionality wasnt enough... (And yes, its often permanent, far more than reported) 

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/fda-sued-by-scientist-urging-sexual-side-effects-warning-widely-used-depression-2024-05-20/

 

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/doctors-warning-antidepressants-can-permanently-destroy-your-sex-life/

 

I mean this in the most respectful way, but you are talking to someone who knows a lot about this field, more than most people, and unlike the other people more concerned with employment, status, prestige and income, I couldnt care less about any of it

 

Im just telling the truth. Believe me when I tell you, I take no joy or glee in telling you this. It's cost me more than just a career. 

 

But some things, like moral values and truth are more important

[snowymountains]

@Shadow_self not specifically for neurofeedback, that I don't know much about, blind studies are rarely used in non-medical/non-pharma therapies because it's easy for the subject to understand which therapy they are receiving, so they won't be blind in reality, unlike when e.g. they swallow a pill. That's why they're often called RCT, with "blind" being absent from the acronym.

 

Also keep in mind that in general e.g. talk therapies may perform as placebo does, but the effects may be long lasting, and hence superior, so unlike pharmaceutical treatments, placebo in some cases is not an appropriate benchmark.

Also, do not underestimate leveraging placebo itself as a therapeutic mean.

 

Not specific to neurofeedback but to address the absence of blind studies and how placebo fits into the picture.

Specifically to neurofeedback, no clue really, don't know much about it, but I do know some very well educated and trained people who integrate use of neurofeedback and I'm sure their decision is an informed one.

Edited August 26 by snowymountains

[Giles]

8 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

Huh kraken, thats a new one  

 

That's actually a back-handed compliment, my friend.

 

8 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

Before I begin my friend

 

Please dont take my words as in any way aggressive in any shape or form  any sense of frustration is at the industry, government entites and academia so we are clear. Its a touchy topic, so you may rest assured its nothing personal

 

OK. I'll take you very seriously on this one.

 

Firstly, from what you've stated, it actually appears to be deeply personal for you. You've battled the establishment and lost your career over these sorts of issues.

 

Secondly, it's not quite so personal for me and, from my perspective, it's crystal clear that you're speaking your truth and, moreover, it also appears to me that you're doing doing so in a remarkably emotionally literate manner.

 

Thirdly, we're probably comparing apples and oranges here because my primary interest (and expertise) as far as neurofeedback is concerned relates to its use as an adjunct to psychospriritual development in the field of (humanistic) psychotherapy (i.e. health) rather than its use in the field of (mechanistic) psychology/psychiatry (i.e. psychopathology).

 

Fourthly, like you, I'm seriously unimpressed by the use of the chemical cosh, in all its varieties.

 

Perhaps we can make a new start?

 

All the Best to you, my friend,

 

Giles _/|\_

 

[snowymountains]

44 minutes ago, Giles said:

Thirdly, we're probably comparing apples and oranges here because my primary interest (and expertise) as far as neurofeedback is concerned relates to its use as an adjunct to psychospriritual development in the field of (humanistic) psychotherapy (i.e. health) rather than its use in the field of (mechanistic) psychology/psychiatry (i.e. psychopathology).

 

 

He's basically right to point out the absence of blind studies, it's just that studies are non-blinded across the board ( because they can't be, someone can just Google in-between sessions and understand what treatment they receive ), and thus evidence basis is sub par compared to what they call evidence-based other fields.

But this is not specific to neurofeedback, it's a broader issue.

 

Interesting you want to integrate it in this way, curious to hear why.

Without having ever trained in neurofeedback, my thoughts were in the opposite direction, that it may be used as an adjunct to "evidence-based" ( hate this term but different discussion) modalities, which in turn though mostly go hand in hand with a diagnosis/psychopathology.

My assumption was that someone will anyhow feel ( may be projecting here, I'd feel ) like a "patient" during neurofeedback anyhow and it seems too intervention-y as it involves equipment. It's a form of operant conditioning anyhow.

Edited August 26 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

9 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Academia, private corporations and the FDA have been in bed together for a long time my friend, you just arent privvy to it, and thats fine, most outsiders are not. I liken it to cerberus, a three headed dog

 

 

That's a wider issue, easy like ABC, pathologise everything, no insurance coverage without a DSM code and of course if (when?) in the future the DSM is 1000000 pages long, every single person on the planet will be under some pathology and thus may get a prescription. Maybe dogs will get prescriptions too, if that becomes reality ( there's a very real risk it will ).

 

Your points are all valid but they're broader than neurofeedback.

 

So what's worse specifically for neurofeedback? - genuine question, and well intended.

[Giles]

I'm wondering if we (those of us with an interest in neurobiofeedback) would like to migrate to a thread that's specifically for the purpose of discussing that topic (because this thread's title is specifically about the use of psychedelics for cultivation)?

 

[snowymountains]

16 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Its placebo, and that totally fine, but we should be clear on that

 

In general ( can't really comment on neurofeedback in specific) placebo and operant conditioning are different things, that may have the same degree of effectiveness when used as treatments though.

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Giles said:

I'm wondering if we (those of us with an interest in neurobiofeedback) would like to migrate to a thread that's specifically for the purpose of discussing that topic (because this thread's title is specifically about the use of psychedelics for cultivation)?

 

 

Sure , one of us may link that recent paper on psychedelics, holding an unfavourable view of psychedelics, before were out 😁.

Didn't bookmark unfortunately but will try to Google to find it again in the evening.

[Shadow_self]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

@Shadow_self not specifically for neurofeedback, that I don't know much about, blind studies are rarely used in non-medical/non-pharma therapies because it's easy for the subject to understand which therapy they are receiving, so they won't be blind in reality, unlike when e.g. they swallow a pill. That's why they're often called RCT, with "blind" being absent from the acronym.

 

Thats not entirely true 

 

Blinding is common in behavioural research.

 

They struggle with double blinding specifically in psychotherapy, but ill discuss that below

 

It is a little more complex to blind, but is rarely if ever beyond the ability of the research team. Its often counterintuitive to their agenda in many cases though

 

It is not done by terrible researchers who are more interested in publishing multiple papers than actually doing high quality research. This is a byproduct of the "publish or perish culture" in academia

 

This is an interesting little study

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.644825/full

 

Heres a list of factors often used to boost placebo

 

 

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Also keep in mind that in general e.g. talk therapies may perform as placebo does, but the effects may be long lasting,

and hence superior, so unlike pharmaceutical treatments, placebo in some cases is not an appropriate benchmark.

 

Placebo is often not controlled for properly in any of the bodies of evidence supporting them.

 

Its a matter consistently called out in the field, but never actually addressed, for the same reason mentioned above

 

One cannot  really double blind practically, but its not hard to blind the patient, and thats rarely done.  (Thats also  not the case for neurofeedback)

 

Most often, baby is thrown out with the bathwater, which I take issue with

 

Curiously, interesting things happen when placebo elements are introduced

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7912085/

 

Quote

This study demonstrates that placebo effects are not short-lived and continue to be present after the debriefing.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032720326938

 

Quote

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that a placebo can motivate patients with depression to practice a relaxation technique more frequently and more efficiently. Moreover, CBT plus placebo was more efficient to reduce symptoms of depression (as indexed by the reduction of BDI-II scores and the decrease in severity categories of depression). The used placebo approach leveraged CBT effects in patients with depression.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-022-04206-4

 

And you see this starting to emerge. Placebo boosts talk therapy effects.

 

But thats only part of the story in reality

 

The bigger part, and why i posted that nice little study above, is to pose a question to you

 

How many studies account for boosted placebo effects via the variables mentioned in that chart i posted?

 

The answer? Practically, none (I mean its very rare)

 

So you end up in a situation where in many cases you cannot identify the degree to which the therapy vs the factors above are influencing the result

 

This is psychology/psychiatry in a nutshell.  A Complete Mess

 

Its rife with so many terrible  studies and white noise, it makes it impossible to discern what is really helpful. This is also where the opportunity lies for those who wish to take advantage of that ambiguity

 

And oh boy, do they take full advantage

 

Thats before we discuss the lack of any true unification amongst the subsections, the replication problem and the lack of conceptual and methodological alignment

 

And heres the kicker. Im putting this in caps so it stands out

 

IM NOT AGAINST TALK THERAPY OR NEUROFEEDBACK. I ACTUALLY WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM IN MANY CASES (SHOCKING)

 

I have serious issues with the shoddy research being done to push them as a medical intervention, and also, the fact that because so many of the true casual mechanics go overlooked, they put people in a chronic state of disempowerment and dependance, and that also has it often combined with more pills and things that equally, dont do what they are stated to

 

And then, we arrive at the current mess we are in: Pathologizing the entire human condition as a means to create profit streams, and in many cases actually causing serious harm

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Also, do not underestimate leveraging placebo itself as a therapeutic mean.

 

I dont understestimate the placebo as a therapeutic means. Quite the opposite in fact  

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Not specific to neurofeedback but to address the absence of blind studies and how placebo fits into the picture.

 

Specifically to neurofeedback, no clue really, don't know much about it,

 

Placebo in neurofeedback is easily achieved, because the unique feature is one that can be manipulated as such

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

but I do know some very well educated and trained people who integrate use of neurofeedback and I'm sure their decision is an informed one.

 

Educated and trained? 

 

If they cannot explain that the evidence base on neurofeedback in psychopathology is flawed, I'd  personally question the importance of that

 

I dont hold any weight to the words "educated and trained" to be honest. I did in my younger years. Times the best teacher though

 

I am more  interested in a persons discernment faculties and willingness to separate themselves from that which will further their own personal ambitions. Its rare but glaringly obvious when you see it in an individual

 

Theres at least one other person on this board who works at a world class medical institution, and we often discuss the levels of complete absurdity on display. I dont know if you are  privvy to this?  ( if not, its understandable) , but I am, and have been for a long time

 

if you want to delve into talk therapy/neurofeedback maybe open a thread on that? Ill happily post in that, but lets not hijack this thread by crossing wires yes?  

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Giles said:

 

That's actually a back-handed compliment, my friend.

 

I suppose ive been called worse  

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

 

OK. I'll take you very seriously on this one.

 

Firstly, from what you've stated, it actually appears to be deeply personal for you. You've battled the establishment and lost your career over these sorts of issues.

 

I just walked away. I wouldnt fight a losing battle to be honest.

 

I have a friend who works in the field for nearly 20 years now, and is without a promotion, as he refuses to churn out nonsense. Yet his colleagues all have done so, some of whom have reached he rank of professor,  and bucketloads of consultancy and funding

 

He remains at a basic level, but wont budge on his ethics

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Secondly, it's not quite so personal for me and, from my perspective, it's crystal clear that you're speaking your truth and, moreover, it also appears to me that you're doing doing so in a remarkably emotionally literate manner.

 

Ive just seen some very nasty things. Some well intentioned people, but some very nefarious ones too

 

Allow me to recount a story

 

I was being considered for a high paying role in academic integrity at one point, as I've always championed it to students and staff. Weirdly, I  have an ability to spot plagiarism without the need for a virtual means (I have an almost fully eiditic memory, it only fails in very specific conditions) so i could recall the patterns in circa 500 students papers if need be

 

When i told the hiring committee I was more concerned about the behaviour of the academics, and Id be coming down hard on them. The board went completely silent, and chose an entirely underqualified candidate who only mentioned pursing students further, and in their outlined document for their plan going forward, academics behavior and research integrity on behalf of faculty was not mentioned, once.

 

It speaks to exactly the point im making. These are not honest people, and the cracks are starting to show

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

 

Its got to the point where the corrupt is the norm, and the honest true workers are slim to none (Thats not an exaggeration) 

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Thirdly, we're probably comparing apples and oranges here because my primary interest (and expertise) as far as neurofeedback is concerned relates to its use as an adjunct to psychospriritual development in the field of (humanistic) psychotherapy (i.e. health) rather than its use in the field of (mechanistic) psychology/psychiatry (i.e. psychopathology).

 

I would say to you,  the mechanic of why this is so useful in my opinion boils down to this

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03492-6#Sec6

 

Quote

Placebo effects are important scientific and medical phenomena and hold significant potential for improving people’s lives, but they have been rarely considered as something that patients “can do by themselves”. This framework emphasizes the role of the individual, actively and autonomously engaged in the process of shaping their health. Should it be correct, it can therefore lead to a paradigm shift, with a novel way of thinking about placebo effects, free from hardly negligible ethical constraints. Demonstrating the potential for the conscious mind to modulate placebo effects can lead to the development of new protocols to further enhance active medical treatments. 

 

If you consider what I said about disempowering patients, now you get to see the result of why I have an issue with the "science" of it. They are doing this on purpose

 

I dont think the  "placebo"  is something to be snuffed at, at all. Completely the opposite in fact.  It is the answer to many of the so called "issues" in psychopathology. We've just given the term a bad rap and wrongly so

 

We could discuss the mechanic of this if you wish? , but it involves moving outside the realms of "science" into contemplative/meditative practice (which doesnt seem to be a problem for you given what you've mentioned

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Fourthly, like you, I'm seriously unimpressed by the use of the chemical cosh, in all its varieties.

 

Im glad to hear that  Its a hard thing to see past

 

1 hour ago, Giles said:

Perhaps we can make a new start?

 

Sure  

1 hour ago, Giles said:

All the Best to you, my friend,

 

Giles _/|\_

 

 

Likewise _/|\_

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, Shadow_self said:

Blinding is common in behavioural research.

 

In pure research yes, in behavioural therapy where sessions > 1 it's difficult.

 

4 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

And you see this starting to emerge. Placebo boosts talk therapy effects.

 

Exactly, that's eg the whole basis of non-state models for hypnotherapy.

 

I'm not quoting you more about the quality of research, agreed it's low.

 

8 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

And then, we arrive at the current mess we are in: Pathologizing the entire human condition as a means to create profit streams, and in many cases actually causing serious harm

 

I'd go even further beyond the profits of pharma, that evidence based protocols imply structured sessions, which may not suit every client/person/patient. And this is not a statement against CBT, it's actually fantastic ❤️, it's about eg the misuse of what "evidence-based" means in national healthcare.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

If they cannot explain that the evidence base on neurofeedback in psychopathology is flawed, I'd  personally question the importance of that

 

I haven't asked them as I'm not doing neurofeedback, but I do trust their judgement.

 

Depends what you mean too, ie why is neurofeedback research worse than eg CBT research?

 

Also some things work even though an evidence basis is difficult to form, eg one cannot gather evidence when there's no protocol as is the case for some modalities ( eg recently I had brought this up here for Gestalt ).

 

Agreed on state of dependence not being healthy and any tool/modality/technique should strive in the opposite direction. But is it the tool that created the dependency or its misuse?

 

12 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Theres at least one other person on this board who works at a world class medical institution, and we often discuss the levels of complete absurdity on display. I dont know if you are  privvy to this?  ( if not, its understandable) , but I am, and have been for a long time

 

I also had worked in a world class institution, not as a psy, in a previous life. I've seen complete BS going from a shoddy paper to public display during 5 mins during BBC's newstime (only for a decade+ later for someone to publish the obvious, that the result was wrong).

 

I'm not defending the average research quality here. Without also implying that everyone is doing low quality research.

 

19 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

if you want to delve into talk therapy/neurofeedback maybe open a thread on that? Ill happily post in that, but lets not hijack this thread by crossing wires yes?  

 

Agreed let's continue it there.

My main question is why would it be any worse than other forms of operant conditioning, I don't see an obvious reason - but again, neurofeedback is not an area I know.

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

That's a wider issue, easy like ABC, pathologise everything, no insurance coverage without a DSM code and of course if (when?) in the future the DSM is 1000000 pages long, every single person on the planet will be under some pathology and thus may get a prescription. Maybe dogs will get prescriptions too, if that becomes reality ( there's a very real risk it will ).

 

Your points are all valid but they're broader than neurofeedback.

 

So what's worse specifically for neurofeedback? - genuine question, and well intended.

 

You're spot on, nothing at all worse. Only the obscuraction of a mechanic

 

38 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

In general ( can't really comment on neurofeedback in specific) placebo and operant conditioning are different things, that may have the same degree of effectiveness when used as treatments though.

 

Interesting. It  seems you are intent on fast forwarding the point I made about discussing some of the mechanics mentioned above

 

https://academic.oup.com/book/54240/chapter/422453171

 

Quote

There is some promising initial research supporting the role of operant conditioning.21 It seems that reinforcement of responding to a placebo together with the punishment of reacting in the opposite direction may induce the placebo effect.42 There is also evidence for placebo-like effects induced by operant conditioning.43,44 This may represent an important area of focus and opportunity, particularly in Pain and Analgesia, given the well-established role of operant conditioning in that field.45

 

Theres something very very important here that I hope you'll see

 

Discussion as to the less observable mechanics will involve moving beyond science im afraid

[snowymountains]

10 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

You're spot on, nothing at all worse. Only the obscuraction of a mechanic

 

 

Interesting. It  seems you are intent on fast forwarding the point I made about discussing some of the mechanics mentioned above

 

https://academic.oup.com/book/54240/chapter/422453171

 

 

Theres something very very important here that I hope you'll see

 

Discussion as to the less observable mechanics will involve moving beyond science im afraid

 

Made a new thread dedicated to neurofeedback, I also touch upon what you mention at the end of your post there. I see what you mean and yes the two are not separate universes, induction of placebo can be done in many ways.

The reverse is also true, during induction of placebo someone may use a bit of operand conditioning.

 

( Chronic) Pain is also very interesting for both placebo and operant conditioning. It's possible to entirely switch it off ( consistent with gate theory on pain ) - didn't touch upon that in the new thread.

Maybe even neurofeedback techniques could be used for pain. I don't see an obvious reason as to why not and after all an imaginary dial is often used in pain control techniques (which does operant conditioning).

Edited August 26 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

11 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Discussion as to the less observable mechanics will involve moving beyond science im afraid

 

If I got what you say right, it is within the domain of science 

Gate theory+placebo+operant conditioning can mute pain, no additional mechanics needed. But let's continue in the other thread.