A recent paper shows that intercessory prayer really does have an empirical effect: To wit, it shuts down parts of the brain in those who listen to it. In particular, the parts responsible for critical thinking.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lol. Weren't you banned on starting these topics? Or was that a temporary deal? Just asking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think I was. On the other hand it's possible that finding a really juicy, Take That scientific result to wave in the faces of theists has temporarily paralysed those sectors of my brain responsible for memory and inhibition.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think I was. On the other hand it's possible that finding a really juicy, Take That scientific result to wave in the faces of theists has temporarily paralysed those sectors of my brain responsible for memory and inhibition.
Maybe it was just the act of thinking about it...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think you mean that God shuts down your Sinful Nature, so that you are receptive to His Will.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Heh. You would think, if it could do that, it might have just done so to Adam and Eve and avoided all the foofarah with incarnating and crucifixion and whatnot.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Adam and Eve obviously didn't have anyone praying for them. It is all so clear, if you just accept the facts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Please gentlemen, in every post you are very clearly sneering at religion and the religious. How could you let your preconceptions slant your view of this scientific evidence?
I think you are wrong, all of you, but I refuse to give you the reason why. I demand that you respect that.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Aren't we all clever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:nasally: Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmyesss.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The study doesn't surprise me at all. It's nice to see it demonstrated scientifically, but it was kind of obvious.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm surprised actually. I always thought critical thinking centers in people who prayed were *always* shut down.
:rimshot:
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...interesting. (Lisa, I'm unable to read whether you're reaction implies that this is a good thing, a bad thing or inconsequential)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Please gentlemen, in every post you are very clearly sneering at religion and the religious. How could you let your preconceptions slant your view of this scientific evidence?
I think you are wrong, all of you, but I refuse to give you the reason why. I demand that you respect that.
See, this is almost parody, but since it's not actually grounded in what was said in the disagreements you're referencing but rather the strawmen you have constructed out of those discussions...well, I suppose it's not parody, but rather just some colorful ranting on your part.
----------
Anyway, I'm about as unsurprised by these results as Lisa is, I think.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aren't we all clever.
Indeed. I'll try to boost the non-snide/snide ratio: are there any other examples of things one might expect to have similar effects on the brain? Motivational speaking, for instance. Comparative studies might be interesting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
After reading the abstract, the finding seems to be "charisma can suppress some brain function in others." Which is kind of a major theme of a lot of human history.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm surprised actually. I always thought critical thinking centers in people who prayed were *always* shut down.
:rimshot:
Would it spoil your fun to note that the study didn't test people who prayed but people who were being prayed for?
<--- Also not at all surprised.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Were they aware they were being prayed for? Because if so, "to je jedno." (It's all the same).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes.
To elaborate on my unsurprise, I wouldn't expect someone being prayed for to be actively cogitating about it any more than, say, someone getting a massage. Your little gigglefest would be justified if the study had involved people listening to the Bible being read, or preaching, or something else that at least purports to be mentally engaging, but with being prayed for I'm just not seeing it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I have my little gigglefest whether I post on hatrack or not... it just so happens I've been involved in a contentious discussion and felt like having a more public gigglefest.
Don't knock the gigglefest.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Fair enough. I still think you've got a false target here, but I believe there have been some studies showing laughter in general to be good for the health, so carry on.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: To elaborate on my unsurprise, I wouldn't expect someone being prayed for to be actively cogitating about it any more than, say, someone getting a massage.
I found it surprising that the difference can be recorded so easily. Reading the study, the baseline isn't in fact a massage. The baseline is a group of secular participants that do not believe in prayer listening to the same thing.
The relatively massive shutdown in the brain occurs when the Christian is told that they are listening to a Christian "known for their healing powers" and an increase occurs when listening to a non-Christian. These are both relative to the secular baseline.
The even sadder part is that the prayers are all spoken by 'ordinary' Christians anyways, they're just *told* that these are non-Christians, ordinary, or have healing powers and thats enough
(Edited: I misread the baseline)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ...interesting. (Lisa, I'm unable to read whether you're reaction implies that this is a good thing, a bad thing or inconsequential)
Really? I was being completely straight (so to speak). I kind of like that they did the study so that the obvious is now not just obviously, but expermentally borne out. But it isn't that big a deal to me, because like I said, it was kind of obvious.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was referring less to the study and more to the notion itself that prayer interferes with one's ability to think critically. Is prayer important to Judaism as you practice it, and does it matter one way or the other that it impede's critical thinking?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think you can generalize from charismatic faith healing to all forms of prayer. That's way too diverse a field.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Is there a lot of intercessory prayer in Judaism? That seems like more of a Christian thing to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Is there a lot of intercessory prayer in Judaism? That seems like more of a Christian thing to me.
We have a prayer we say during the Torah reading service praying for people who are sick to get better. And almost all of our prayers are written in plural, so that they're all communal. We have a thing called Yizkor, which could be seen as an intercessory prayer for those who have passed away.
But we don't have anything where someone stands over the person who is the subject of the intercessory prayer and prays for them. That's a Christian thing, I think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Is there a lot of intercessory prayer in Judaism? That seems like more of a Christian thing to me.
We have a prayer we say during the Torah reading service praying for people who are sick to get better. And almost all of our prayers are written in plural, so that they're all communal. We have a thing called Yizkor, which could be seen as an intercessory prayer for those who have passed away.
But we don't have anything where someone stands over the person who is the subject of the intercessory prayer and prays for them. That's a Christian thing, I think.
What about when Moses prayed for Miriam's leprosy to be lifted?
Num 12.
Or what about Elijah praying for the life of the widow's son? Or David fasting and praying with his sick son in his arms that the Lord would not kill him?
I don't really see any meaningful difference.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, it turns out that empathy across race lines is also measurable in a similar way.
quote:“Previous research shows people are less likely to feel connected to people outside their own ethnic groups, and we wanted to know why,” says Gutsell. “What we found is that there is a basic difference in the way peoples’ brains react to those from other ethnic backgrounds. Observing someone of a different race produced significantly less motor-cortex activity than observing a person of one’s own race. In other words, people were less likely to mentally simulate the actions of other-race than same-race people” The trend was even more pronounced for participants who scored high on a test measuring subtle racism, says Gutsell. “The so-called mirror-neuron-system is thought to be an important building block for empathy by allowing people to ‘mirror’ other people’s actions and emotions; our research indicates that this basic building block is less reactive to people who belong to a different race than you,” says Inzlicht.
quote:Interestingly the degree of mirroring neatly reflects the distinct Canadian context, where South-Asians’ tend to have lower status than Blacks, and where East Asians are seen as a model minority ... Since mu activity is inversely related to motor cortex activity, these findings suggest that the more participants are prejudiced, the less their motor cortex fires in response to the passive viewing of outgroup members’ actions—an effect that is magnified for disliked outgroups (South-Asians, then Blacks, followed by East Asians).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Fair enough. I still think you've got a false target here, but I believe there have been some studies showing laughter in general to be good for the health, so carry on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm in the no surprises here camp.
They found that people are less skeptical when a person of their own faith makes extraordinary claims then when a person who does not share their belief system makes similar claims. And they can measure "skepticism" in an MRI.
Wow, who could possibly have guessed.
I'm willing to bet you'd get a very similar result if you had scientists listen to an MD describe a new medical breakthrough vs. a homeopath making exactly the same claims.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm willing to bet you'd get a very similar result if you had scientists listen to an MD describe a new medical breakthrough vs. a homeopath making exactly the same claims.
I think that claim goes too far unless you are aware of a baseline test that showed the normal reaction to information from a trusted source and, from an untrusted source in situations not involving prayer.
I also bet you wouldn't exactly be right anyway, because in the case of medical information, the person listening would either be engaged with the trusted information in order to learn it, or the untrusted information in order to process it and find weaknesses in logic. Either way, I think a person is likely to be more engaged.
I am also not familiar enough with the details to know if the baseline tested active working of the reasoning centers, or a baseline for an unengaged person as well. Because it seems to me there would be more than two modes involved- a person can be engaged, unengaged, or actually tuned out completely, or engaged in some other cognitive activity entirely. That seems important to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Furthermore, the experiment was done on a number of participants from a variety of charismatic flavours of Christianity which ordinarily receive prayers from their peers.
On the other hand, the Christian with "healing powers" was introduced generically with "God has always used me to pray for persons in need – ever since I was a kid. I remember the first time I prayed for a stranger in my childhood church. He said he had never felt God’s presence before and that his pain in the knee had disappeared."
I think it's interesting that the effect extends outside one's own immediate denomination and can be so flimsy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it's interesting that the effect extends outside one's own immediate denomination and can be so flimsy.
I don't find that at all surprising given the particular denominations we are dealing with. First, these are all very closely related denominations that believe in faith healing, believe that certain individuals have a gift to heal, and believe in the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
Second, these denominations don't typically claim that spiritual gifts are exclusive to members of their denomination.
This is a very narrow slice of Christianity and should not be considered representative of broader Christianity. Based on previous discussions, I gather you have little appreciation for the differences between different Christian denomination and that seems to be skewing your interpretation of this study.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Based on previous discussions, I gather that you have a vested interest in emphasizing the differences between different Christian denominations and that seems to be skewing your interpretation of this study
In any case, I find it puzzling that you seem to be simultaneously contending that the result is generalizable to scientists *in general* listening to medical doctors, but *not* to other Christian denominations.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Members of many Christian denominations would be just as skeptical of charismatic faith healers as non-religious people would be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I find that doubtful.
In general "Your faith healing is a scam and your potentially foreign god is a delusion" >> "Gee, I think you misinterpreted your Bible"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I find that doubtful.
In general "Your faith healing is a scam and your potentially foreign god is a delusion" >> "Gee, I think you misinterpreted your Bible"
That doesn't make you any less wrong.
I believe that faith, and prayer, can help a person heal. Yet I don't believe snake oil salespeople who would claim to be able to heal me though prayer because God finds them special.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Members of many Christian denominations would be just as skeptical of charismatic faith healers as non-religious people would be.
You betcha.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I believe that faith, and prayer, can help a person heal.
Yet you presumably don't believe that this effect would show up in a double-blind study. So what exactly does your belief mean? What is the real-world consequence of your belief, what do you expect to happen differently because this is true?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Based on previous discussions, I gather that you have a vested interest in emphasizing the differences between different Christian denominations and that seems to be skewing your interpretation of this study
In any case, I find it puzzling that you seem to be simultaneously contending that the result is generalizable to scientists *in general* listening to medical doctors, but *not* to other Christian denominations.
Mucus, you are missing my points. This study finds that a particular group of Chrisitan's that have a strong belief in faith healing suspend skepticism when presented with a faith healer. This is consistent with what is widely known about previous biases and skepticism, as is noted in the study. The study suggests that religious people suspend their skepticism when presented with a claim that matches their preconceived religious biases. Its a fairly small leap to my speculation that the same thing would apply to secular people with secular biases.
Your contention that Christians who do not believe in faith healing would respond in the same way as Christians who do is unsupported by this study and the interpretation given by the authors and shows that you either don't understand the implications of the study or don't appreciate that Christianity encompasses very diverse range of belief systems.
One weakness that limits the broad interpretation of this study is that they did not test the baseline case I suggested above. Most people even scientists suspend skepticism, to at least some degree, when they are dealing with a trusted source. Nearly all people are more likely to trust a source that is speaking in a style used by those recognized as authorities in their culture.
I don't think there is any question that the typical scientist will be less skeptical of a medical claim put forth by a respected doctor than one put forth by say a newspaper or a TV advertisement. Consider for example this incredible claim of finger tip regeneration. I first heard of this when it was presented in a scientific meeting by a respected senior scientist. The audience was surprisingly unskeptical and in fact, far less skeptical than they should have been considering that this work has not passed peer review. I can guarantee you that the same group would have been far more skeptical seeing the cbs news report than seeing the same claims made in a scientific context. So I don't think I'm stretching things at all when I speculate that similar trends would be observed for scientists looking at claims from a respected MD vs a proponents of alternative medicine. The only question is whether or not the effect would be as large as it was in the religious example and since the study did not include this baseline control, we have no idea what the answer would be to that question.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I believe that faith, and prayer, can help a person heal.
Yet you presumably don't believe that this effect would show up in a double-blind study. So what exactly does your belief mean? What is the real-world consequence of your belief, what do you expect to happen differently because this is true?
This effect is well known to show up in double blind studies. We call it the placebo effect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no? A double-blind study is explicitly designed to account for the placebo effect. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems oddly counterproductive for a religious person to compare religious faith to a placebo.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
King of Men, you account for the placebo affect by determining exactly what role it had to play. You don't eliminate the placebo effect though. People get sugar pills and feel better even in those studies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, I understand that. What I mean by "show up in a double-blind study" is that the non-control group should show a larger effect than the control group. The control group is only getting the placebo effect. To say that faith and prayer works because it has the same effect as sugar pills strikes me as rather dis-ingenuous, and presumably not what Kwea meant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, You are of course aware that many such studies have been done and the difficulties in doing such studies in a reliable way.
I should add that I think these studies are far from conclusive nonetheless its rather silly to claim no such data exist when I was able to locate 3 such double blind studies in under a minute.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: KOM, You are of course aware that many such studies have been done and the difficulties in doing such studies in a reliable way.
I presume you are also aware of these studies
Ok, so now the claim is not that this is placebo? I just want to be clear: We are now arguing about measureable effects in excess of placebo. Right?
To answer your question, I was indeed aware of your studies, and they all have methodology issues.
The control group was on average two years older than the non-control, and the six (correlated) variables reported as significant were cherry-picked from twenty-nine measured.
This paper was inspired by the one above, and failed to replicate its results. In particular, it states "Our findings support Byrd's conclusions [emphasis added] despite the fact that we could not document an effect of prayer using his scoring method." In other words, when they use the original method, they see no effect. When they adjust the method... lo and behold, an effect at P=.04. (Which, incidentally, would be laughed out of court in physics - we require three sigma just to be 'evidence for'. This could only be published as 'search for'.)
40 patients, total. The figure of merit was changed after the data were unblinded.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: It seems oddly counterproductive for a religious person to compare religious faith to a placebo.
Let me explain. There is actually a fair bit of evidence that religious people are healthier, live longer and recover from illness more quickly than non-religious people. The difficulty is in determining why. Religious people are more likely to have a supportive social network and stable family life. Religious people are less likely to engage in unhealthy living habits (substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, bad sleeping and eating habits). And religion, like a placebo, gives people hope that they will recover. Those factors are all known to result in better health and faster healing so its very difficult to determine whether or not there is an added supernatural component involved.
Third party double blind studies, like the ones I reference above, are an attempt to get at that "supernatural" aspect but I find them rather unsatisfying as a religious person.
I can't speak for all religious people, but I would expect prayer by a disinterest stranger on my behalf without my knowledge to be far less effective than the prayers I offer and the prayers offered by my loved ones who also extend their love and support. I can't come up with any way to separate that from a placebo effect in a double blind study which is why I made the original quip.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In other words, when they use the original method, they see no effect. When they adjust the method... lo and behold, an effect at P=.04. (Which, incidentally, would be laughed out of court in physics - we require three sigma just to be 'evidence for'. This could only be published as 'search for'.)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. P = 0.05 a pretty standard threshold for significance in the life sciences where natural variability is far greater than in physics. Its just not a fair comparison since the in the physical sciences, measurement error is the primary contributor to variability in most measurements whereas in the life sciences, population variability is generally far far greater than measurement error so sigma doesn't even have the same meaning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Generally "We're doing it wrong in the way that's standard in our field" is not a good defense against the charge "You're doing it wrong". Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Generally "We're doing it wrong in the way that's standard in our field" is not a good defense against the charge "You're doing it wrong".
That's not the argument. If you don't understand the difference, you aren't much of a scientist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, ok, less snark. If the problem is population variability, the answer isn't to take a worse P-bound; quite the opposite! Rather you should do the same analysis with a non-Gaussian (thick-tailed) distribution. Instead the life sciences accept that one in twenty results will be due to chance - even on the assumption of normal distribution! (In other words, that's probably an underestimate.) With the amount of stuff that gets published, that is hundreds of results every year. This is not good.
Another point is this: It seems I cannot discuss statistics with you without being called a bad scientist. I would really appreciate if you would stop that. People who have to compartmentalise their lives just to do ordinary work should not throw stones.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:People who have to compartmentalise their lives just to do ordinary work should not throw stones.
What????
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, at least I hope you compartmentalise. I would hate to think you apply the same standards to your work and your church.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, at least I hope you compartmentalise. I would hate to think you apply the same standards to your work and your church.
I hate to think you might apply the same approach to your wife as you do to your work.
I approach my work, my religion and my relationships with dedication, sincerity and rigor. But I'm smart enough to know what tools to use in which situations. A chain saw is a terrific tool, but not one I'm going to use to repair a watch. If that's compartmentalization, then I'm all for compartmentalization.
I don't use my religion ot figure out the age of rocks and I don't use science to determine what is moral. That's wisdom and maturity, not compartmentalization.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I am once again reminded of why I generally avoid joining any religious discussion where you are involved. Its like arguing with a two year old.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And are you usually reduced to name-calling, when you argue with two-year-olds?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Rabbit,
quote:I can't speak for all religious people, but I would expect prayer by a disinterest stranger on my behalf without my knowledge to be far less effective than the prayers I offer and the prayers offered by my loved ones who also extend their love and support. I can't come up with any way to separate that from a placebo effect in a double blind study which is why I made the original quip.
I understand. I just don't think the implications are something someone devoted to a religious life would wish to pursue. The placebo effect occurs in a variety of contexts besides the religious. You wouldn't, I think, want to say that sugar pills had any kind of religious significance. But, objectively speaking, what makes that placebo effect different than the placebo effect in intercessory prayer?
Along these lines, I understand the placebo effect to be a pretty well measured phenomenon. It seems like you could compare different studies measuring the placebo effect to see if the effect of intercessory prayer was significantly greater.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I understand the placebo effect to be a pretty well measured phenomenon.
Well-studied =! well-measured
The difficulty of measuring or predicting the placebo effect is greater than you seem to think.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)