Nocebo and evolution

[ipeleng]

Can someone explain to me why would we evolve the nocebo effect in evolution. and please don't give me the typical evolution answer without any evidence. i would like something in the DNA that relates to the nocebo effect before saying something you don't know or guess. thank you

[CharonY]

I do not think that the molecular basis are actually known and hence, the study of the evolutionary background would be a bit premature.

[Ophiolite]

Can someone explain to me why would we evolve the nocebo effect in evolution. and please don't give me the typical evolution answer without any evidence. i would like something in the DNA that relates to the nocebo effect before saying something you don't know or guess. thank you

In discarding the "typical evolution answer " you appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

In adding the codicil, "without any evidence" you are in danger of being mistaken for (or identified as) a creationist.

 

The vast majority of "typical evolution answers" I have seen came with extensive evidence, implicit or explicit.

 

But let's start with our DNA. Would you accept that our DNA is responsible for our basic neurological structure? If so, would you further accept that there is abundant evidence for the placebo effect arising from our psychology, which is in turn a reflection of that neurological structure amended by enfvironment? And do you find it to be a leap to far that expectation can produce results, by the same mechanism, for negative results as for positive?

 

The above statements are not based on either ignorance, nor guesses. I hope that helps.

[ipeleng]

In discarding the "typical evolution answer " you appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

In adding the codicil, "without any evidence" you are in danger of being mistaken for (or identified as) a creationist.

 

The vast majority of "typical evolution answers" I have seen came with extensive evidence, implicit or explicit.

 

But let's start with our DNA. Would you accept that our DNA is responsible for our basic neurological structure? If so, would you further accept that there is abundant evidence for the placebo effect arising from our psychology, which is in turn a reflection of that neurological structure amended by enfvironment? And do you find it to be a leap to far that expectation can produce results, by the same mechanism, for negative results as for positive?

 

The above statements are not based on either ignorance, nor guesses. I hope that helps.

Sorry normally when i ask question about evolution people normally say something that's completely off topic trying to prove evolution like i questioned if its true or not. I just think why would it matter if i believe in creationism or evolution. i think of scince a curiosity, so even if am a creationist i does not mean thats i am questioning what you believe because it DOES NOT MATTER. I might just curious of how the theory of evolution comes to things that change it. i do the same thing else. Just saying to me basically science is questioning and if my questioning a thero gets people mad but doing it on god people dont care. that kind's that kind of impression that people care so much about evolution thats its become a religion not i theory. Its just a an idea justs like newton's laws, and einstein's theory of relativity.

Just saying just because you might not how to answer the question does not mean evolution is false

[Ophiolite]

OK. So do you understand and accept my concise answer to your question? If not, what doubts remain and what is the source of these doubts?

 

 

On the side issues when you write "please don't give me the usual evolution answers without evidence" then you are implying that you have very serious reservations about the validity of evolutionary theory. That does matter in my response because a creationist will need much more evidence and argument to even consider that there may be something in my explanation. I have assumed your words were a rather careless throw-away line and have therfore given you very condensed argument. The evidence for this argument is likely to be known, in a general way, by anyone who understands a little about evolution. Which returns us neatly to my opening questions.

[kindheart]

Nocebo effects are entirely psychogenic: they are generated by individuals' brains in response to beliefs that harmless substances / treatments are actually harmful. Because of these beliefs, brains respond as though the substance truly is harmful, sending pain signals and immune reactions to the body.

 

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be problematic for evolutionary theory.

[ipeleng]

Ok didn't want this to turn into an argument about evolution i just wanted an answer to full my curiosity on the topic/idea i really hate when a simple question turns into an argument.

Edited October 21, 2013 by ipeleng

[iNow]

People have ensured valid understanding and correction of common misrepresentations and it is odd to label those actions as some sort of argument. Is your math teacher "arguing" with you when they correct wrong answers on your exam? No, of course not, and it's no different here.

[Ringer]

Getting an answer to a question that you don't understand isn't very helpful to you. What the posters are doing is making sure you understand your own question so you can better understand the answer. Being negative about that help doesn't encourage further help.

[Endy0816]

I really haven't seen much out there in terms of actual research as to the "why" it exists.

 

I suspect evolution just found it to be of value at some point. Cause a physiological change based on perception, positive or negative.

 

You see me react badly to an unknown plant and your brain is likely to treat it as poisonous regardless. It could just be me that had an allergic reaction, but with limited knowledge it is more advantageous to err on the side of caution.

 

Quite a few cases in history where we've managed to determine beneficial practices without knowledge of the underlying causes.

[Moontanman]

If I understand it correctly fear of snakes would be a nocebo effect. Most humans who are unfamiliar with snakes assume they are all dangerous because a few are. In nature this is a good thing because mistaking a deadly snake for a harmless one will result in your death so fear of snakes, harmless or not is a positive evolutionary effect from the stand point of survival...

[iNow]

I suspect evolution just found it to be of value at some point. Cause a physiological change based on perception, positive or negative.

While possible, it's important to note that there is not necessarily a direct evolutionary value for every individual trait that has evolved. Some traits and characteristics are merely side effects or unintended consequences of OTHER traits and characteristics that were selected for, and I suspect that might apply here.

[Endy0816]

While possible, it's important to note that there is not necessarily a direct evolutionary value for every individual trait that has evolved. Some traits and characteristics are merely side effects or unintended consequences of OTHER traits and characteristics that were selected for, and I suspect that might apply here.

 

 

I mainly just don't see what the other trait(s) might be. Somewhat relates back to the existence of it's nicer twin, the placebo effect.

 

If you've got some ideas I'd love to hear. Seems a fairly important area of evolution that has been overlooked. Most of the focus is on drug trials and how the effects can impact results. Placebos outscoring actual medicine

[iNow]

I mainly just don't see what the other trait(s) might be. <snip> If you've got some ideas I'd love to hear.

Well, the effect is psychogenic, so the point is that evolution likely selected for the ability of psychological phenomenon to have an impact on our physiolgocal selves. The nocebo/placebo effects are likely to be merely side effects of that type of selection.

 

By example, imagine we hear a sound. The perception is entirely psychological, yet our bodies release adrenaline and increase heart rate and prepare for battle if we cannot quite quickly identify the source of that sound. Our thoughts impacted our bodies. What I'm saying is that it was likely something like this that was selected for as it allowed for predictive responses to threat situations and that is more likely to be something that led to evolutionary advantage/selection.

 

My point was just that not all traits and characteristics require an evolutionary explanation as it very well could have been something ELSE that was selected for. It's sort of the same reason men have nipples. Men weren't selected to have nipples, they are a byproduct of something else that was selected for.

 

Another example is belief in god(s) and the human tendency toward religion. It was group cohesion and shared norms and a desire to explain and understood cause and effect that likely led those tendencies, not that belief in god(s) or predilection for religion were themselves somehow advantageous and selected for.

[ipeleng]

I just want to say this i just would like someones idea on how we could of evolved this and why and answers it like i did not believe in god or evolution. That how i like to be answered.

Ok i have to say this. please dont take this in the wrong way but form i can see, when i google placebo and evolution together i get simple and backed up answers but when i google nocebo and evolution i get nothing that i can get from a google on placebo. And this is just an observation i am making but it seems like evolution has became a religion as because i see it so hard for people come up with new ideas that are incompatible with evolution(same thing with creationism) but thats a religion anyway. in science don't you try and prove your own theories wrong and if you find something you refine your theory or prove another theory to explain you old one. E.g. the theory of relativity.

Thats my observation.

[Endy0816]

I thought iNow's response was good. You really have to take your answers as you get them online.

 

 

Drugs that block cholecystokinin, will have some impact on the effect. Effectively blocking an increased sensitivity to pain.

 

Also acts as a hunger suppressant. Might be a clue there.

 

ie. "Don't look for food if in potential danger."

 

More to it than that though. How evolution got from hunger to pain sensitivity is beyond me.

 

 

I just don't see Big Pharma as being interested in funding the research. Nor do I see private grants being awarded to study something so variable and potentially injurious.

 

"Let's give them sugar pills and tell them they'll feel better."

 

is easier to swallow than the reverse. I'm sure in time the research will be done, just hasn't happened yet.

 

 

They still make additions to evolutionary theory. Improved understanding of epigenetic mechanisms being one example.

 

You view something as dogma and it will be dogma.

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

I think the OP has already been robustly answered, but I do want to share this short and reasonably well done video about the nocebo effect without creating an entirely new thread to do so. Cheers.

 

[overtone]

 

 

And this is just an observation i am making but it seems like evolution has became a religion as because i see it so hard for people come up with new ideas that are incompatible with evolution

The fact that people have a difficult time coming up with reasonable hypotheses for the nocebo effect that conflict with well established evolutionary theory is an observation. The fact that none of the speculative and hypothetical explanations for the nocebo effect in general have yet found robust empirical support, sufficient to select from among them a best supported and therefore most likely one, is an observation. The fact that therefore none of the several speculative and hypothetical evolutionary theory based explanations for the nocebo effect in general have been adopted by a consensus of researchers in the field is a credit to those researchers - they are withholding judgment until they get better support, a feature of scientific research and explanation that most people regard as a virtue, maybe the virtue, of the scientific approach.

 

Where in that do you see a resemblance to religion?

[Moontanman]

I just want to say this i just would like someones idea on how we could of evolved this and why and answers it like i did not believe in god or evolution. That how i like to be answered.

Ok i have to say this. please dont take this in the wrong way but form i can see, when i google placebo and evolution together i get simple and backed up answers but when i google nocebo and evolution i get nothing that i can get from a google on placebo. And this is just an observation i am making but it seems like evolution has became a religion as because i see it so hard for people come up with new ideas that are incompatible with evolution(same thing with creationism) but thats a religion anyway. in science don't you try and prove your own theories wrong and if you find something you refine your theory or prove another theory to explain you old one. E.g. the theory of relativity.

Thats my observation.

 

 

I think I answered your question in post #11