You're explaining to me what a placebo is when I've made several posts that demonstrate that the placebo effect really has nothing to with what I will from now on refer to as the 'Intent Method'. Not only this but you back your assertions that actually contradict your own argument. I'm sorry to make such a point of this, but I think the Intent Method has potential and it's unfair to handicap the thread with all this unfounded stigma.
Correct. But this is almost word for word the analogy I used to show how the placebo effect does not apply to the Intent Method.Quote:
Placebo is the effect where if your expectations are high enough, you think you get the effects of something, and in certain subjects it can take a physiological effect, such as the insomnia pill. If you truly believe a pill will help you sleep, then almost any pill will have that effect. It won't cause you to go to sleep, you will cause yourself to go to sleep.
Ah, now this is interesting. I see where you are coming from here. Are you directly comparing intent to a placebo 'lucidity pill'? If so, I think that is very misleading, would you compare mantras to a placebo pill? They operate on the same basis as this concept of 'Intent'.Quote:
People see this and think "Intent is all I need? What is intent exactly?" Silverbullet would then tell them, and they would soak it up, now knowing that having this intent they can now have an easier time having LDs, and some do, due to placebo, when in fact all it is is this method saying "Do this, have intent, and lucids come easier" (as all methods say, do this, lucidity comes easier with this. That defines a method).
What's more, are the people who succeed and the people who fail differing in how they are practising the technique? Or does the difference in belief cause the differing results? Here we are coming closer to the heart of the issue. If the foundation of a technique is belief and confidence then how can you claim that there is a placebo effect at all? It may be that a successful dreamer has practised the technique correctly, or they were successful because they believed it would work. But since the technique IS belief and the placebo effect IS ALSO belief; the two seem to cancel each other out. This is an example of non-falsifiability as it is impossible to interpret whether the dependent variable (the result) is caused by the independent variable of intent or the extraneous variable of the placebo effect.
As it happens, sleep is a key factor, you do need to be asleep and dreaming, in that state you have everything you need at your disposal.Quote:
My gripe with this is that it doesn't actually do anything. It's like a method saying going to sleep is a key factor to lucid dreaming, if you all go to sleep, you have a chance of getting an LD.
Are you lucid dreaming because of the mantras, the time you spent up and performing R.Cs or are you lucid dreaming because you expected to? That is placebo effect in action, see how you backed you argument with evidence that actually contradicts you. The techniques of MILD, DILD and WBTB are actually far more prone to placebo effects than Intent which expressly tells you to believe, and most methods state you need belief anyway, how far do you think conventional methods are placebos now? Are they 'actually doing something'?Quote:
MILD and DEILD and WBTB all actually do something, like familiarizing you brain with R.C.s so you have a chance at doing them in dreams, or waking up so you fall asleep more awake right into a REM.
I apologise for always saying this but you have been guilty of a negative attitude :)Quote:
tl;dr This method does nothing and tells nothing new that we all don't already know. Even day old newbies will know that if you take a negative attitude you will fail
I'm just trying to look at this from a purely psychological perspective. If you're all going to start throwing psychology around then I'm going to have to get involved :P
Bloody hell that's a long post :lol:
