Seems likely to be a placebo. You have a vested interest in it working, admit its not based on any sort of science, and one of the setup steps is to overcome distraction (which is the problem that’s trying to be solved).
> Seems likely to be a placebo. You have a vested interest in it working, admit its not based on any sort of science, and one of the setup steps is to overcome distraction (which is the problem that’s trying to be solved).
Fundamentally, if it works for the OP, who the hell cares?
And how would you even double-blind test this anyway?
> And how would you even double-blind test this anyway?
Get lights that either start fast and slow down or blink at speeds that randomly change then use serial numbers to track which lights are which, but send them out at random to test subjects?
you would blind the participants to the effect you are looking to measure. If they don’t know what to expect or what conditions there are, they can still get a placebo effect from random patterns.
> you would blind the participants to the effect you are looking to measure. If they don’t know what to expect or what conditions there are, they can still get a placebo effect from random patterns.
Maybe. Generally you'd do a manipulation check at the end to ensure that people couldn't identify what condition they were in.
Additionally, that's single blind rather than double blind.
The researchers can be blinded by not experiencing the intervention and handing out identical looking devices. You’re right that you would need a manipulation check at the end but this experiment is totally design-able properly.
I still think that the manipulation check would reveal failures of blinding, but yeah it is doable (but we needed a while to come up with a reasonable design).
And more generally, my philosophy (as someone with a PhD in the placebo effect) is that harnessing any expectancy/placebo effects in one's personal life is totally reasonable, and if it works for people and there's low risk of harm then more power to them.
We shouldn't gatekeep potentially useful personal treatments based on the gold standard. It's kinda the medical equivalent of YAGNI, I suppose.
Not to be too confrontational, but why did you feel the need to point this out? When someone has a solution that works for them, why possibly ruin it for them by pointing out placebo?
Mind you, pointing out placebo could be useful if the OP made the claim that their solution could cure a disease or something (such claims could discourage someone from getting effective treatment).
> When someone has a solution that works for them, why possibly ruin it for them by pointing out placebo?
You are likely aware of this already, but for others readers, it's important to know that placebos are still effective even when you know they are placebo. The term is "open-label placebo".
the first time I tried antidepressants I had this effect. I even knew about the placebo effect, and I knew they take multiple weeks to do anything. but yet the day after I took the first pill I started wondering if things were getting better and I was trying to deny it, but it felt like a change. (spoiler: it had the opposite effect and once they took effect I could barely get out of bed lol). It was just incredible knowing that it was placebo but still feeling the effect.
I wouldn't be surprised if you felt better even before you took your first dose; I can imagine you started feeling better just having a prescription in hand.
Imagine what it must have been like for "primitive" civilizations: "Oh my son, your hurt back has gone on far too long. I'm taking you to the tribal elder who will prescribe a remedy and do a spell. Once he finishes, all your pain will be a distant memory". And it works (for some duration).
Because it's a discussion about science and their comment is totally valid.
One of the biggest parts of placebo is going through the motions, whether you believe it or not. The original commentor appears to be aware that their approach may not have any scientific basis so mentioning the potential of placebo is fine.
I find music distracting when I work because I listen to it too actively, but I can imagine that a subtle regular pulse or beat might help. It would beed to be quiet and plain enough that it would not dominate my attention.
Even music without lyrics is distracting to me, but lyrics (if in a language I understand) definitely make it much worse.
Oddly enough, non-musical sounds (like birds or cars) don't affect me at all. I think it's the complex pattern-matching in music that is a problem for me. Of course, that's also what makes it so delightful to listen to.
For me it's more that the language processing centre in my brain is strongly single-threaded. Some non-verbal sounds do engage it, but there's a complexity threshold. Magpies chattering to each other do. Some classical music does, but not all by any means.
YES, it can be the placebo effect, but still placebo can works wonders ; )
I detailed better aspects on questions above, also not doing it commercially or claiming it can be helpful for anyone other than me.
In placebo, one needs to trust it will work (or see a figure of authority to believe it does), in my case I wasn't expecting much and got not far from it on v.1 (software), but by v.3 (hardware) I was surprised and used to it.
Yes, it could be the placebo effect, but placebo works wonders ; )
I detailed better aspects on a question above,
Placebo need you to trust it works (or see a figure of authority to believe it does), in my case I expect nothing and got not much on v.1 (software) by v.3 (hardware) it is surprising.
I believe there is research into rapid eye blinking followed by slow blinking causing the brain to "calm", so perhaps an external source has a similar effect?
I didn't look too much into it but I too have seen something long time past about patterns with light from a TV on some of those documentaries from the 80's, basically about people trying advertising with subjective flashes to induce a certain mood.
