Proof of placebo effect ?

[Chuck]

Yes,I agree it tends to cause confusion. Some people get the idea that somehow we must prove there is a placebo effect in a given situation! In other words, they try to shift the burden of proof rather than getting the point that person making the claim is the one with the burden of proof.

It isn't unreasonable for a layperson to ask for "proof" of something like the placebo effect. It is in our nature to trust our perceptions. Since our perceptions are effective functionally, it flies in the face of experience to assert that they are actually disconnected from reality in any way. We're all prone to saying or thinking things like, "I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it's true." Anything that brings our perceptions into question tends to be rejected, so asking for "proof" is a natural response.

Think about it in a more general context. If we've had first-hand experience with something, repeatedly, over a period of years, and someone suggests that our experiences are totally disconnected from reality, how will we react? It is likely that we will first react badly, but if we're on our best behavior we'll be polite and simply ask them to prove their claim(s). Isn't that what you'd do?

Anyone who has studied psychology has learned about placebo, experimenter bias, self-fulfilling prophesy, and so on. Anyone who has studied neuropsychology has learned of the disconnects between the senses and the sensing. Even so, it all tends to be seen as theory until one is bitten a few times. After a few decades in research environments I'm convinced that nobody every fully internalizes the full extent of the disconnects. If we did, I'm not sure we could function.

Pat, I've seen scattered comments involving "the burden of proof," and they leave me scratching my head. This thread started with a request for proof of the placebo effect. That certainly isn't an unreasonable question considering how few people are familiar with such things. There is no "burden" unless one decides to respond to a question that asks for proof. By responding to the post I took on the burden, of my own free will, and I believe that the links I posted were sufficient to fully answer the original question. Asking the question certainly didn't impose any burden on the person doing the asking.

The other context where some seem to want to assign a burden to others is that in which someone reports having heard differences when changing cables (or other components). Such claims are often greeted by demands for proof and assignment of burden. All such claims stand or fall entirely on the credibility of the claimant. Unless the claimant is lying then it is a given that they did indeed hear what they claim to have heard. If they are not lying then they are simply stating a fact. Certainly the act of recounting a personal experience does NOT incur any burden (yet that is the claim some seem to be making). The proper way to address such claims is to investigate the cause of the differences, but the person recounting a factual account of personal experience should not be expected to have an interest in such an investigation. He has real-world experience and feels no need for further investigation. Those who want to question his experience have many valid questions to raise, but by raising them they themselves open an investigation. In so doing, THEY assume a role that includes burdens and proofs. That some who do this will then turn around and try to dump the burden of proof of their claims onto someone who has only recounted an experience is, at the very least, non-productive. It also irritates those who have done nothing more than shared a very real personal experience.

There also seems to be a tendency (at least at the extremes) to jump to invalid conclusions based on little or no information. If anyone says that they've used a speaker wire that made an audible difference there are a few here who will insist that it is purely a function of their imagination. This assumption is made without bothering to find out any of the details needed to draw such a conclusion. Several years ago I played around with a loudspeaker wire construction that made obvious differences in the "sound quality." Subjectively, the sound was "less harsh" at all times, and one might say that at times "it lacked air" or "sparkle." Most consumer-audiophiles experiencing the same thing will think that the guys here who say that all wire sounds the same are dead wrong, and they would in fact be correct. At this point many of the regulars here are probably ready to tell me that what I heard was a the result of a "placebo effect." (However, Mtrycrafts and a few others know better, because they've heard this story before. )

What surprised me about the wire was that the difference was NOT subtle. It was slap-in-the-face obvious. How many times have you heard golden-ears make that same claim? How many times have you seen others tell them that they were imagining things? How many of the people reading this are certain that I too was imagining things? In point of fact, I haven't provided enough information for anyone to have a clue what might have been going on, and anyone who has already reached some conclusion, given only the information provided, is guilty of jumping to premature conclusions based on FAR too little information.

The difference the wire made was so obvious that it shocked me. I contacted the guy who designed my loudspeakers (and the wire formulation I was playing around with), to get his take on what I was hearing. If I'd done the same thing here there would have been demands for a DBT, and I'd have had to respond that if you could hear the magnitude of the difference you would realize that there is no need for a DBT. Fortunately, I wasn't dealing with an extremist, and I wasn't treated like a fool. Instead, I was asked if I'd measured the frequency response of the speakers using the wire. I actually responded that I hadn't bothered, because the high-frequency response was obviously rolled off, to the point that I didn't need measurements to confirm. When it was suggested that the loudspeaker output was probably down at least 3dB by 14kHz. with the wire configuration I was using, I was extremely skeptical, so ultimately I did measure the system response using the wire. Sure enough, the response was down almost exactly 3dB at 14k. That is enough for almost anyone to hea, and I don't think we need a DBT to prove it. Anyone who does think we need a DBT to prove that -3dB at 14k is audible can assume the burden of proof, if they are so inclined, but I am content to take it as a given.

For those who are (rightly) skeptical of any and all audio claims I'll provide a brief discussion of why the wire made such a huge difference in the loudspeakers response. This is typical of the kind of information that was missing earlier when some were ready to say this was another "placebo effect." The loudspeakers were electrostatic, driven directly by the amplifier (no passive crossover), and the wire had a resistance of 1/2 ohm. Since the guys who jump to conclusions so quickly seem to think they know it all I'll leave it to them to explore the mechanisms further. Just take a look at the way serial resistance affects the transformer/panel Q.

Don't know whether or not I've made the point I was trying to make here. To summarize, the burden of proof is something someone accepts, not something that is assigned or that one takes on by asking a question or citing some personal experience. I really don't understand the way some here try to assign this burden to others. There is a big difference between asking for confirmation and demanding proof, and some here don't seem to understand that difference.

"Placebo" is an unfortunate term, at least in this context. At this point it seems that a better term would be "bias." Someone reports a personal experience, that of hearing a difference after changing speaker wire. The difference WAS heard, and the only valid question involves the cause of the difference. It may have been the result of biased perception, but that is not a given. To assume so exposes an opposite (but equal) bias. We are all biased, this way and that, and it's not the kind of thing that is easy (or natural) to control.

Subjective reports aren't really any more suspect than the subjective analysis of objective measurements. "Proof," in the context of science, involves formalization, and verification of the formalization through experimentation. Before it can be taken seriously, such work requires independent validation and verification (IV&V). Our biases affect the way we read our instruments with our eyes just as surely as they affect everything else. Seems to me that this means that the burden of proof can NEVER reside with an individual. How would that work? Such demands seem senseless to me. More like a pissing-contest than a search for truth. The proper question seems to be "Where's the IV&V?"

Without IV&V we're talking cold fusion, but where is the logic in demanding "proof" from some audiophile-consumer who has no interest in proving anything, other than his honesty (and the truth of his claims, which are in fact true). Here people seem to prefer to argue, but results can only come from cooperation.