The placebo effect has been proven in double-blind studies. I was making fun of what I often see in "new age circles"--an idea, like "support," being abstracted into equivalency between two unrelated contexts--psychological versus physical. If someone buys into that mohole idea of equivalency, that's okay, but then there's very little basis for intelligent communication, and no reason to use reason as a basis for intelligent action. As SomeNothing might say, "There's nothing to discuss here because there's no common reference, and this, like all else, is perfectly so."
If an imagined lack of psychological support is thought to be a causal agent for poor physical support thirty or forty years later for an offspring's back problems, then we can relate anything to anything (fictionally or otherwise). We can blame today's argument with a spouse on something that happened a million years ago on the planet pluto. Why not? Seriously, if the word "support" can be construed and related in this manner, then a "slip on a banana peel" can be related to a "slipped disc" forty years later. It's the same kind of reasoning.
Yes, I understand that someone might buy into that kind of thinking and feel better as a result of buying into it, but I still think it is good SNL skit material. It reminds me of the "abundance theology" stuff I occasionally encounter at the Unity Church and elsewhere. People are told that affirmations will lead them to untold riches. Rather than get a job and earn some money, people mentally repeat, "I am a rich person," over and over, which will supposedly change their mindset and lead to fame and fortune delivered mysteriously from the universe. I've never seen this happen to any of the people who diligently pursued it, but I guess anything is possible sooner or later. This sort of thinking usually reinforces the idea that there is a self who needs to get rich, and it is assumed that riches will then lead to happiness. No one is ever asked to question who it is who thinks anything is lacking. IMO this sort of approach would also make a humorous skit.
When there is no common reference, and rational thought is dismissed as inapplicable, then there's very little to discuss. It's just a matter of enjoying the ride.
If an imagined lack of psychological support is thought to be a causal agent for poor physical support thirty or forty years later for an offspring's back problems, then we can relate anything to anything (fictionally or otherwise). We can blame today's argument with a spouse on something that happened a million years ago on the planet pluto. Why not? Seriously, if the word "support" can be construed and related in this manner, then a "slip on a banana peel" can be related to a "slipped disc" forty years later. It's the same kind of reasoning.
Yes, I understand that someone might buy into that kind of thinking and feel better as a result of buying into it, but I still think it is good SNL skit material. It reminds me of the "abundance theology" stuff I occasionally encounter at the Unity Church and elsewhere. People are told that affirmations will lead them to untold riches. Rather than get a job and earn some money, people mentally repeat, "I am a rich person," over and over, which will supposedly change their mindset and lead to fame and fortune delivered mysteriously from the universe. I've never seen this happen to any of the people who diligently pursued it, but I guess anything is possible sooner or later. This sort of thinking usually reinforces the idea that there is a self who needs to get rich, and it is assumed that riches will then lead to happiness. No one is ever asked to question who it is who thinks anything is lacking. IMO this sort of approach would also make a humorous skit.
When there is no common reference, and rational thought is dismissed as inapplicable, then there's very little to discuss. It's just a matter of enjoying the ride.
