DB Markham's Homepage

2026-02-15-the-review-06

37 min read

2026-02-15 - Research

Context

We’ve been doing some work off and on to figure out what sorts of things might be worthy of a deep dive. We got started with the general idea of

angle: Microcosmic events or synecdoches megacategory: Self Optimization

Goal

I want you to only answer this question as if I were a new user and this is my first question. Don’t look at my files or chat history aside from this current session.

I’d like you to do some deep research on these attached themes in the input section for a long-form essay, maybe even book length. Research each one separately and then try to find a larger theme and that might tie them together. Once you find a larger theme, reorder them however makes the most sense to support that theme. Cover the period of the last 60 days. The number of topics vary, but it should always be less than 12. There are story ideas and angles for each one. Be sure to double check sources and arguments since there’s a lot of noise and trash online. Also be sure to provide research links for more information if I want to dive deeper. Please be sure not to include overly emotive language. If there’s contested ways of talking about the topic, do your best to steelman both sides as if you were a referee. Also, if you have access to any of my files or other history of our interactions aside from our chats today, just forget and don’t use those. I’m asking you to do this beginning with a blank slate. I’ll be looking for interesting sourced quotes, anecdotes, and infographics if available. There should be enough material on each topic at least for a 2000-word essay

Background

Success Criteria

Failure Indicators

From time-to-time, I will add in a pitch that has nothing to do with the rest of the pitches. You will need to spot these and either delete them entirely or re-frame them such that they work with the overall work.

Input

nut graph

In self-optimization’s crowded landscape—plagued by recycled tips, hustle-driven burnout, and commodified mental health fixes—beliefs spark real physiological shifts, with the placebo effect as a predictive powerhouse for bodily change. Backed by a July 2024 framework in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications on self-induced placebos via mental imagery and somatic focus, a 2025 meta-analysis in the Journal of Medical Internet Research showing digital placebos easing anxiety, and 2023 bioRxiv preprints on enactive biological regulation through constraint satisfaction, this theme spotlights macro trends via one microcosm: an inert pill symbolizing how expectations reshape pain, immunity, and healing sans external aids, empowering agency against systemic hurdles without shame-inducing narratives. Skeptics counter that placebos are unreliable, fleeting illusions risking delayed real care, but this falters against mounting evidence of measurable, sustainable brain-body responses in open-label trials, proving they enhance—not replace—rigorous treatments for lasting impact.

closing argument

Sidestep hustle culture’s exhaustion and toxic positivity’s hollow cheer by embracing belief-driven change through slow, science-backed narrative tweaks: journal tiny wins from expecting calm in breathwork, tracking subtle stress drops over weeks per open-label placebo research stressing honesty and kindness; like nurturing a garden over aggressive pruning, weave audio musings into commutes to heighten body awareness, stacking evidence of adaptability for robust resilience, turning self-optimization into a gentle, clinically grounded workbook ritual that reveals big-picture growth from one focused habit.

Output

Expecting Better: How the Science of Belief Challenges the Self-Optimization Industry

Research Briefing — February 2026

Angle: Microcosmic events / synecdoches Megacategory: Self-Optimization Unifying theme: The placebo effect as a synecdoche for the untapped predictive machinery of the human body — and why a $1.8 trillion wellness industry keeps selling solutions to problems your nervous system already knows how to address.

Overview and Unifying Thesis

Across a dozen parallel research threads — open-label placebo trials, digital therapeutics, predictive processing neuroscience, interoception, enactive biology, and the cultural critique of hustle-driven wellness — a single through-line emerges: the brain’s expectation-generation system is not a quirk or a confound to be controlled for in clinical trials. It is a primary physiological mechanism, measurable in neural firing patterns, immune markers, and endocrine output. The inert pill — the placebo — is this essay collection’s microcosm. It does nothing pharmacologically. It does everything informationally. It tells the brain what to expect, and the brain, being a prediction machine, obliges.

This briefing organizes the research into nine topic areas, reordered to build an argument from biology upward through neuroscience, clinical evidence, cultural critique, and practical application. Each section contains enough sourced material for a standalone 2,000-word essay while contributing to the larger arc.

Period covered: Mid-December 2024 through mid-February 2026 (with foundational work from 2023–2024 where necessary for context).

Topic 1: The Prediction Machine — Bayesian Brains and the Biology of Expectation

Core argument

The brain does not passively receive sensory input. It actively generates predictions about what it will experience, then updates those predictions based on incoming data. Placebo effects are not bugs in this system — they are features. When a person expects pain relief, the brain literally pre-generates the neurochemistry of pain relief.

Key sources

Rodrigues, B., Raghuraman, N., Shafir, R., Wang, Y., et al. “Placebo and nocebo effects.” Pain, 2025. This review frames placebo and nocebo effects explicitly within Bayesian predictive coding, arguing that “learning, and Bayesian predictive coding may help” explain how expectation precision modulates pain and other outcomes. The paper connects agency and expectation precision as twin drivers of placebo magnitude.

Botvinik-Nezer, R., Geuter, S., Lindquist, M.A., et al. “Expectation generation and its effect on subsequent pain and visual perception.” PLoS Computational Biology, 2025. Demonstrates that placebo treatment alters not just pain perception but basic visual processing, “consistent with Bayesian predictive processing accounts.” This is notable because it extends placebo beyond the subjective domain of self-reported pain into measurable perceptual shifts.

Villiger, D. “An integrative model of psychotherapeutic interventions based on a predictive processing framework.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 2025. Applies predictive processing to psychotherapy broadly, arguing that therapeutic change occurs when priors (deep expectations) are updated — and that placebo effects represent a “proof of concept” for this mechanism.

Mangalam, M. “The myth of the Bayesian brain.” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2025. A dissenting view. Mangalam argues that the Bayesian framework is overapplied and that phenomena like the placebo effect have been co-opted as evidence for predictive coding when they may be better explained by simpler mechanisms. This paper is important for steelmanning the skeptical position: not everyone in neuroscience accepts that the brain is a Bayesian prediction engine, and some researchers consider this framing unfalsifiable.

Kang, B., Yoon, D.E., Ryu, Y., Lee, I.S., Chae, Y. “Beyond Needling: Integrating a Bayesian Brain Model into Acupuncture Treatment.” Brain Sciences, 2025. Relevant for the practical angle — this paper argues that acupuncture’s effects are partially or largely driven by expectation-updating mechanisms, and that understanding acupuncture through a predictive processing lens explains why different people respond so differently to the same treatment.

Steelmanning the debate

For the Bayesian brain: The predictive processing framework elegantly unifies placebo, nocebo, conditioning, and contextual healing under a single computational account. It explains individual differences (different people have different priors), why open-label placebos work (the narrative creates the prediction even without deception), and why placebo effects are stronger in clinical settings (richer contextual information feeds the prediction engine).

Against: Mangalam (2025) and others argue this framework risks becoming unfalsifiable — every result can be reinterpreted as “prediction updating.” If the placebo works, it confirms predictive coding; if it does not, the priors were too strong. Some researchers prefer simpler conditioning accounts that don’t require a grand unified theory of brain function.

Topic 2: From Autopoiesis to Agency — The Enactive Biology of Self-Regulation

Core argument

The placebo effect presupposes a particular kind of biological system — one that can change its own internal regulation in response to information. The enactive biology tradition, particularly the work of Tom Froese and colleagues, provides a theoretical foundation: living systems are not merely homeostatic machines that return to a setpoint. They are “self-optimizing” systems that actively generate and satisfy constraints. This matters for the larger thesis because it establishes that belief-driven physiological change is not a weird exception to how biology works — it is what biology does.

Key sources

Froese, T., Weber, N., Shpurov, I., Ikegami, T. “From autopoiesis to self-optimization: Toward an enactive model of biological regulation.” Biosystems, 2023 (originally bioRxiv preprint, DOI: 10.1101/2023.02.05.527213). The paper that the nut graph references. Froese et al. argue that classical autopoietic theory (the idea that living systems maintain themselves) is too static. They propose a model in which organisms actively optimize their own regulatory dynamics through constraint satisfaction — a process that is computational in nature but not centrally controlled. The placebo effect, in this framing, is the organism re-optimizing its internal constraints based on new informational inputs (the pill, the ritual, the narrative).

Froese, T. “Irruption theory: A novel conceptualization of the enactive account of motivated activity.” Entropy, 2023. Extends the above into the domain of motivation and agency. Froese argues that the gap between “the organism regulates itself” and “the organism acts on the world” can be bridged by understanding how constraint satisfaction at the biological level generates motivated behavior at the psychological level. For the essay, this provides the philosophical backbone: placebos work because they alter the informational landscape within which the organism is already continuously self-optimizing.

Froese, T. “Irruption and absorption: A ‘black-box’ framework for how mind and matter make a difference to each other.” Entropy, 2024. A follow-up that addresses the “hard problem” of how mental states (like expectations) can cause physical changes. Froese proposes that this is possible because mind and matter are not separate substances but different aspects of the same self-organizing process. This is important for addressing the persistent skeptical challenge: “How can just thinking about something change your immune system?”

Steelmanning the debate

For the enactive view: It provides a principled biological reason why placebos should work. If organisms are continuously self-optimizing through constraint satisfaction, then any informational input that alters the constraint landscape will produce physiological change. This is not mysticism — it is information theory applied to biology.

Against: The enactive framework is highly theoretical and not yet directly testable at the cellular level. Critics from within computational neuroscience argue that predictive processing and free energy minimization provide a more mathematically tractable account of the same phenomena without requiring the philosophical commitments of enactivism. The connection between Froese’s models and actual clinical placebo research remains largely metaphorical.

Topic 3: Self-Induced Placebos — Mental Imagery, Somatic Focus, and the DIY Turn

Core argument

The most provocative development in placebo science is the idea that you do not need a pill at all. The Pagnini framework proposes that individuals can generate placebo-like responses through deliberate psychological practices — mental imagery, somatic focusing, and narrative reframing. This is the bridge from laboratory finding to self-optimization practice.

Key sources

Pagnini, F., Barbiani, D., Grosso, F., Cavalera, C., et al. “Enacting the mind/body connection: the role of self-induced placebo mechanisms.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03492-6

This is the foundational paper from the nut graph. Pagnini et al. propose a framework in which self-induced placebo effects operate through three channels: (1) deliberate mental imagery (visualizing the desired physiological state), (2) somatic focusing (directing attention to bodily sensations in a non-anxious way), and (3) narrative reframing (changing the story you tell yourself about your body’s capacity). The paper draws on evidence from guided imagery studies, mindfulness research, and biofeedback literature to argue that these mechanisms are not merely psychological — they drive measurable changes in autonomic nervous system activity, cortisol levels, and immune markers.

Key passage for quotation: The paper argues that self-induced placebo mechanisms represent “deliberate psychological mechanisms” that operate “at both a cognitive and sensorial level,” where “attention-driven somatic focus may shape” physiological outcomes without requiring external intervention.

Grosso, F. “Integrating psychological and mental health perspectives in disease management: improving patient well-being.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2025. A follow-up in the same journal extending the self-induced placebo framework into chronic disease management. Argues that the distinction between “real treatment” and “placebo” is less useful than the distinction between “passive receipt of care” and “active engagement with one’s own regulatory systems.”

Schaefer, M., Liedtke, C., Enge, S. “Roles of administration route, expectation, and belief in placebos in a randomized controlled trial with open-label placebos.” Scientific Reports, 2025. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27622-5

This paper disentangles the contributions of administration route (pill vs. other), conscious expectation (“I think this will help”), and deeper belief (“I believe the body can heal itself”) to placebo responses. The finding: belief and expectation are partially independent predictors, and belief may be the more durable factor. This has implications for the self-induced placebo concept because it suggests that the narrative you carry about your own body’s capacity matters more than any specific ritual or technique.

Steelmanning the debate

For self-induced placebos: The evidence from guided imagery, biofeedback, and mindfulness research already demonstrates that deliberate psychological practices produce measurable physiological changes. Pagnini’s contribution is to recognize that these are placebo-like mechanisms — they work through expectation and attention, not through any specific pharmacological or mechanical pathway. This reframing empowers individuals by recognizing a capacity they already have.

Against: The self-induced placebo concept risks blurring the line between evidence-based practice and wishful thinking. If “just believing” can produce physiological change, this could be co-opted by pseudoscientific wellness influencers to sell crystals, manifestation courses, and other products that exploit placebo mechanisms without acknowledging their limitations. There is also the risk that people with serious medical conditions will delay evidence-based treatment in favor of “self-induced healing.”

Topic 4: Open-Label Placebos — Healing Without Deception

Core argument

The most counterintuitive finding in modern placebo science is that telling people they are receiving a placebo does not eliminate the effect. Open-label placebo (OLP) trials — where participants knowingly take inert pills with full disclosure — consistently produce clinically meaningful outcomes across conditions. This demolishes the folk assumption that placebos “only work if you’re tricked.”

Key sources

Fendel, J.C., Tiersch, C., Sölder, P., Gaab, J., Schmidt, S. “Effects of open-label placebos across populations and outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Scientific Reports, 2025. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-… (search Scientific Reports for Fendel 2025)

The most comprehensive meta-analysis of OLP trials to date. Updates two previous systematic reviews and finds statistically significant effects across pain, IBS, cancer-related fatigue, allergic rhinitis, and emotional distress. Notes that most OLP studies use a rationale inspired by Ted Kaptchuk’s 2010 protocol, which includes telling participants: “(1) the placebo effect is powerful, (2) the body is automatically responding” to the treatment ritual. This narrative framing — not deception — appears to be the active ingredient.

Kleine-Borgmann, J., Schmidt, K., Ludwig, L., et al. “Open-Label Placebos as Adjunct for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA Network Open, 2025. A landmark RCT published in one of medicine’s most prominent open-access journals. Three months of OLP treatment reduced headache days and migraine days in participants who knew they were taking sugar pills. The study’s importance lies in its venue (JAMA) and its rigor — this is not a small pilot; it is a properly powered, preregistered, multi-site trial.

Borg, F., Gedin, F., Franzén, E., Grooten, W.J.A. “A systematic review and meta-analysis of open label placebo effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain.” Scientific Reports, 2025. Analyzes OLP effects on both pain and physical function in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Finds significant effects on pain and suggestive (though smaller) effects on function. Important because it tests OLP in a population where objective physical measurements (grip strength, range of motion) complement self-report.

Flávio-Reis, V.H.P., Pessoa-Gonçalves, Y.M., et al. “Open label placebo for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Pain Management, 2025. Focuses specifically on chronic low back pain — the world’s leading cause of disability. Finds OLP effects but raises methodological concerns about potential “overestimation” due to participant expectation effects even within the OLP paradigm.

Frey Nascimento, A., Bakis, B., Gaab, J., et al. “Talking placebo: a qualitative study of patients’ attitudes toward open-label placebo implementation into clinical practice.” Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2025. A qualitative study exploring how patients actually feel about knowingly taking placebos. Finds a mix of openness and skepticism, with a key finding: patients who had previously experienced a positive response to conventional treatment were more receptive to OLP, suggesting that experiential learning (classical conditioning) plays a role alongside narrative.

Mun, C.J., Contreras, E., Xiao, Y., Eckert, R., et al. “Combining mindfulness intervention and open-label placebo treatment for chronic pain: a protocol for a feasibility study.” Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 2025. Proposes combining OLP with mindfulness — essentially stacking two expectation-driven interventions. This represents the frontier of the field: not just testing OLP in isolation, but asking whether layering placebo-enhancing practices amplifies the effect. This connects directly to the nut graph’s closing argument about stacking evidence of adaptability.

The ethics question

Hardman, D. & Miller, F. “A worthwhile wager: the ethics of open-label placebo treatment in clinical practice.” Journal of Medical Ethics, 2025. Argues that OLP treatment is ethically acceptable as an adjunct (not replacement) for evidence-based care. The “wager” framing is useful: given that OLP is low-cost, low-risk, and has accumulating evidence of benefit, the expected value of offering it alongside conventional treatment is positive.

Richard, M., Bernstein, M., Gaab, J., Elger, B. “A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.” Scientific Reports, 2025. Identifies unresolved ethical concerns including: informed consent (do patients truly understand what they are consenting to?), potential for trivialization of their condition, and the risk that OLP could be used to justify reduced access to conventional care.

Steelmanning the debate

For OLP: The evidence is now meta-analytic and published in top-tier journals. OLP works. It works transparently. It respects patient autonomy because there is no deception. And it offers a low-cost adjunct to conventional treatment for conditions where current options are limited (chronic pain, IBS, fatigue).

Against: OLP skeptics raise several points that deserve honest engagement. First, most OLP trials have relatively small sample sizes and short follow-up periods; we do not yet know whether effects endure beyond 3–6 months. Second, the very rationale used in OLP trials (“the placebo effect is powerful, your body responds automatically”) may itself create expectancy that inflates measured effects — this is the Flávio-Reis concern about overestimation. Third, the clinical significance of OLP effects is often modest: statistically significant is not the same as transformative. Fourth, there is a real risk that enthusiasm for OLP could be weaponized by insurers or health systems to justify withdrawing access to active treatments: “Why pay for an expensive drug when a sugar pill works almost as well?”

Topic 5: Digital Placebos — When Screens Become Medicine

Core argument

The placebo effect is not confined to pills and injections. A growing body of research demonstrates that digital interventions — apps, VR environments, chatbots — can generate placebo responses even when participants know the intervention has no pharmacologically active component. This matters because the digital wellness market is exploding, and much of what it sells may work primarily through placebo mechanisms that are currently unacknowledged.

Key sources

Hosono, T., Tsutsumi, R., Niwa, Y., Kondoh, M. “Magnitude of the Digital Placebo Effect and Its Moderators on Generalized Anxiety Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2025. The meta-analysis cited in the nut graph. Hosono et al. find that digital placebo conditions (sham apps, inactive digital interventions) produce significant reductions in generalized anxiety symptoms. Critically, they identify moderators: the “digital placebo” effect is larger when the sham app is more elaborate (better UI, more features), when participants believe the app was developed by a reputable institution, and when the delivery modality matches the active condition (e.g., app vs. app, not app vs. VR).

This finding has uncomfortable implications for the wellness app industry: if a sham app with good design reduces anxiety, how much of the effect of “real” wellness apps is attributable to the app’s active content versus the placebo response generated by the act of using a health app?

Stalujanis, E., Neufeld, J., Stalder, M.G., et al. “Induction of efficacy expectancies in an ambulatory smartphone-based digital placebo mental health intervention: randomized controlled trial.” JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. An earlier study that demonstrated it was possible to deliberately induce placebo expectancies via smartphone, with measurable effects on depressive and anxiety symptoms. Important historical context for the Hosono meta-analysis.

Bolaji, A.S. & Potter, C. “Effectiveness of Digital Therapeutics for Mental Health Treatment Compared to Traditional Therapy.” 2025. A broader review that explicitly names the “digital placebo effect” as a methodological challenge for evaluating digital therapeutics. If the control condition (sham app) produces clinical improvement, it becomes harder to demonstrate that the active app is doing anything additional.

Steelmanning the debate

For taking digital placebos seriously: The digital health market is projected to grow enormously, and regulators (FDA, EMA) are beginning to approve “prescription digital therapeutics.” If a meaningful portion of these products’ effects comes from placebo mechanisms, we need to understand this — not to dismiss digital health, but to design it more honestly and effectively. Acknowledging the digital placebo could lead to better-designed interventions that deliberately harness expectation alongside active content.

Against: The “digital placebo” concept could be used to undermine legitimate digital therapeutics. Evidence-based apps like CBT platforms have active ingredients (psychoeducation, behavioral activation, exposure protocols) that go beyond placebo. Overemphasizing the digital placebo risks creating a false equivalence between validated digital therapeutics and wellness snake oil. There is also a measurement problem: it is difficult to create a convincing sham app that is truly inert, so “digital placebo” conditions may contain active elements.

Topic 6: The Nocebo Shadow — How Negative Expectations Create Real Harm

Core argument

The nocebo effect — the dark twin of the placebo — demonstrates that expectations operate bidirectionally. If positive expectations can produce healing, negative expectations can produce harm. This is not metaphorical: nocebo effects manifest as measurable increases in pain, inflammation, and side effects. The nocebo literature adds urgency to the self-optimization thesis because it reveals that the expectation environment people marinate in — social media, catastrophic health news, wellness industry fear-marketing — is not neutral.

Key sources

Sandra, D. “Inform and Do No Harm: Nocebo Effect of Mental Health Awareness and Approaches to Reduce It.” ProQuest Dissertations, 2025. A study examining whether mental health awareness campaigns on social media can paradoxically worsen outcomes through nocebo mechanisms. If you are repeatedly told that you probably have anxiety, your brain’s prediction machinery may oblige. Findings suggest that 98 of the initial participant pool showed measurable nocebo responses to awareness content.

Spotts, E.K. & Geers, A.L. “Interventions that inform patients about nocebo effects: A systematic review of the current evidence.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2025. Reviews whether educating people about nocebo effects can reduce them. The findings are mixed: some studies show that nocebo education reduces side effect reporting, while others show no effect. This is important because it complicates the self-optimization narrative — knowledge alone may not be sufficient to override deep priors.

Mattarozzi, K., Bagnis, A., Capucci, F., Cremonini, V., et al. “Nocebo effects and health perception during infectious threats: A pandemic lesson.” Heliyon, 2025. Uses COVID-19 as a natural experiment in mass nocebo. During the pandemic, negative health expectations were amplified by media coverage, and the study finds that individuals with higher nocebo susceptibility reported more symptoms and poorer health during the pandemic, controlling for actual infection status.

The Economist, “Rumours on social media could cause sick people to feel worse.” March 2025. A popular-press piece that brings the nocebo effect into mainstream conversation, specifically examining how social media rumor propagation creates expectation environments that worsen health outcomes.

Huneke, N.T.M., Fusetto Veronesi, G., Garner, M., et al. “Expectancy effects, failure of blinding integrity, and placebo response in trials of treatments for psychiatric disorders: a narrative review.” JAMA Psychiatry, 2025. A major review arguing that expectancy effects (both placebo and nocebo) are systematically confounding psychiatric drug trials. When patients guess they are on active drug vs. placebo, their expectations alter outcomes in ways that current trial designs cannot adequately control for.

Steelmanning the debate

For taking nocebo seriously in self-optimization: The information environment is part of your body’s regulatory input. A person scrolling doomful health content at 11 PM is not making a neutral choice — they are feeding their prediction machinery negative priors. Self-optimization that ignores nocebo is like nutrition advice that only discusses what to eat and never mentions what to avoid.

Against: The nocebo framework can be overextended into victim-blaming territory. “Your negative expectations are making you sick” is dangerously close to “it’s your fault you’re sick.” This is the toxic positivity trap that the nut graph warns against. Acknowledging nocebo must be paired with acknowledging that many health problems have structural, genetic, and environmental causes that no amount of positive expectation will fix.

Topic 7: The Body Listening to Itself — Interoception as the Missing Mechanism

Core argument

How do expectations produce physiological change? One key mechanism is interoception — the brain’s processing of signals from inside the body. The interoception literature provides a concrete mechanism for the Pagnini framework (Topic 3): somatic focus works because it enhances interoceptive processing, which in turn amplifies the brain’s ability to regulate internal states. People who are better at sensing their own heartbeat, breathing, and gut signals tend to have stronger placebo responses, better emotional regulation, and more effective self-optimization outcomes.

Key sources

Rusinova, A., Aksiotis, V., Potapkina, E., Kozhanova, E., et al. “Interoceptive training enhances emotional awareness and body image perception: evidence from improved heartbeat detection and psychological outcomes.” bioRxiv, 2025. Demonstrates that interoceptive training (learning to detect your own heartbeat more accurately) produces downstream improvements in emotional awareness, body image, and self-regulation. The training is simple — no drugs, no devices — and the effects are measurable. This is a potential mechanism for why “body scan” meditations and somatic-focused practices produce clinical outcomes.

Barca, L. “The inner road to happiness: a narrative review exploring the interoceptive benefits of exercise for well-being.” Healthcare, 2025. Proposes that exercise’s well-known mental health benefits operate partly through enhanced interoception — not just endorphins and neurotransmitter changes, but improved ability to detect and respond to internal bodily signals. This reframes exercise as interoceptive training, which connects it to the placebo mechanism: exercise teaches your body to listen to itself more accurately, which improves the prediction machinery.

Ciacchini, R., Lazzarelli, A., Papini, G., Viti, A., Scafuto, F., et al. “Mind the Motion: Feasibility and Effects of a Qigong Intervention on Interoception and Well-Being in Young Adults.” Healthcare, 2026. A recent feasibility study showing that Qigong practice improves interoceptive awareness and well-being in young adults. Notable because it bridges Eastern somatic practices and Western interoception science.

Nicholson, W.C., Sapp, M., Karas, E.M., Duva, I.M., Grabbe, L. “The Body Can Balance the Score: Using a Somatic Self-Care Intervention to Support Well-Being and Promote Healing.” Healthcare, 2025. Tests a somatic self-care intervention that teaches body-based self-regulation skills. The title references Bessel van der Kolk’s “The Body Keeps the Score,” updating it with an active, agency-oriented frame: the body does not just keep the score; it can also balance it.

Steelmanning the debate

For interoception as mechanism: The evidence connecting interoceptive accuracy to emotional regulation, placebo responsiveness, and overall well-being is growing and convergent. It provides a testable, non-mystical mechanism for how “body awareness” practices actually work.

Against: Interoceptive accuracy is not always beneficial. Some research suggests that high interoceptive accuracy in anxious individuals can amplify health anxiety — you sense your heartbeat more clearly, and this feeds a cycle of catastrophic interpretation. The relationship between interoception and well-being may be U-shaped, not linear. Additionally, the measurement of interoception (heartbeat detection tasks, self-report scales) has been criticized for poor reliability.

Topic 8: Neural and Molecular Evidence — What Actually Happens in the Brain and Body

Core argument

Skeptics rightly ask: “Show me the molecules.” The recent literature obliges. Placebo effects are not vague “mind over matter” — they involve specific neural circuits, neurotransmitter systems, and immune markers that can be measured, mapped, and in some cases predicted in advance.

Key sources

Jinich-Diamant, A., Simpson, S., Zuniga-Hertz, J.P., et al. “Neural and molecular changes during a mind-body reconceptualization, meditation, and open label placebo healing intervention.” Communications Biology (Nature), 2025. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-09088-3

A neuroimaging study of 20 participants undergoing a combined meditation, reconceptualization, and OLP intervention. The study measures both neural changes (fMRI) and molecular changes (biomarkers) before and after the intervention. This is one of the first studies to track both brain and body simultaneously during a combined placebo-meditation protocol.

Volpino, V., Piedimonte, A., Campaci, F., et al. “It is time to feel better: how temporal information of placebo analgesia affects our brain.” European Journal of Pain, 2025. Explores how the timing of expected pain relief affects brain activity. The key finding: telling participants that a placebo will take effect in 5 minutes versus 20 minutes produces different patterns of neural activation, even though the placebo is identical. The brain’s prediction engine is sensitive not just to what it expects but when it expects it.

Handoko, K., Neppach, A., Snyder, I., Karim, H.T., et al. “Expectancy-Mood Neural Dynamics Predict Mechanisms of Short- and Long-Term Antidepressant Placebo Effects.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2025. Identifies specific neural dynamics in the salience network that predict both short-term and long-term antidepressant placebo effects. This is significant because it addresses the “durability” critique — placebo effects in depression may persist because they reorganize network-level brain dynamics, not just because they produce a temporary mood bump.

Knezevic, N.N., Sic, A., Worobey, S., Knezevic, E. “Justice for placebo: placebo effect in clinical trials and everyday practice.” Medicines, 2025. A comprehensive review that documents placebo-driven changes in neurotransmitter release (endogenous opioids, dopamine, serotonin), hormone regulation (cortisol, growth hormone), and immune markers (cytokine profiles, natural killer cell activity). The title’s call for “justice for placebo” reflects a growing sentiment in the field: the placebo effect is not a nuisance variable to be eliminated from clinical trials but a genuine therapeutic mechanism to be studied and harnessed.

Bihorac, J., Schedlowski, M., Hadamitzky, M. “Conditioned immune responses and the neural-immune connection in animals and humans.” Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 2025. Reviews the evidence for conditioned immune responses — the finding that the immune system can be classically conditioned, such that pairing an immune-suppressing drug with a distinctive taste eventually allows the taste alone to suppress immune function. This is arguably the most “hard science” evidence for placebo-like mechanisms: the immune system literally learns to respond to informational cues in the absence of pharmacological agents.

de Oliveira Santana, M.V., et al. “Study the Immune System, Emphasizing Immunological Memory, Neuroimmunology, Immunological Placebo Effect, and Therapeutic Updates.” Scholars International Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine, 2025. Reviews the immunological placebo effect specifically, documenting cases where placebo administration produces measurable changes in immune cell populations, antibody production, and inflammatory markers.

Steelmanning the debate

For the molecular evidence: The neuroimaging, endocrine, and immunological evidence is now extensive and multi-method. Placebo effects are not “in your head” in the folk sense — they are in your prefrontal cortex, your opioid receptors, your cytokine profiles, and your hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. The question is no longer whether placebos produce real physiological changes but how to optimize and apply those changes.

Against: Individual studies often have small samples (the Jinich-Diamant study has 20 participants). Neuroimaging studies are notorious for reproducibility problems. And the jump from “we can measure a neural correlate” to “this is clinically meaningful” is large. A measurable change in cortisol or a fMRI activation pattern is not the same as a patient getting durably better. The molecular evidence is necessary but not sufficient for the strong claims placebo advocates sometimes make.

Topic 9: The $1.8 Trillion Question — Wellness Culture, Hustle, and the Placebo It Won’t Acknowledge

Core argument

The global wellness industry was valued at approximately $1.8 trillion in 2024. It sells supplements, apps, coaching programs, biohacking devices, productivity systems, and “mindset” courses. Much of what it sells may work — to the extent that it works at all — primarily through placebo mechanisms that the industry has no incentive to acknowledge. Recognizing this is not an argument against self-improvement; it is an argument for cheaper, more honest, and less exploitative self-improvement.

Key sources

Khrimian, Z. “Design for Transformation: Cultivating Enduring Wellness Behaviors in Young Adults.” ProQuest Dissertations, 2025. Documents the $1.8 trillion wellness industry figure and examines how the industry frames “self through self-improvement and self-optimization.” Notes that the industry disproportionately serves wealthier demographics while marketing a universal narrative of personal transformation.

Putrevu, J. & Mertzanis, C. “Wellness Sector Transformation: A Systematic Review of Trends, Challenges, and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Economic Surveys, 2025. A systematic review that names “systemic inequalities in the wellness industry, where corporate wellness initiatives often cater to wealthier demographics while neglecting marginalized” populations. This is the structural critique: the wellness industry’s self-optimization narrative is not just scientifically incomplete — it is economically exclusionary.

Raj, P. “Toxicity as a Symbol of Paradox in the Digital Self-Care Movement.” Culture and Dialogue, 2025. Examines the “toxicity of self-optimization” — how digital self-care culture creates “toxic positivity by gently pressuring them to adopt” an always-improving orientation that paradoxically increases distress. This connects directly to the nut graph’s framing of hustle culture exhaustion and hollow cheer.

Schunnesson, J. “Never Settle: Projects of the Self and The Ethos of Optimization among Young Professionals.” PhD thesis, 2025. An ethnographic study of young professionals navigating “the ethos of optimization.” Finds that the optimization imperative creates a perpetual sense of insufficiency: there is always another habit to adopt, another metric to track, another version of yourself that is better than the current one. The placebo literature offers an exit: if your body’s expectation machinery is the primary mechanism of change, then the expensive optimization stack is largely unnecessary.

Sepúlveda, R., Flores, A.M.M., et al. “From lifestyle to commodity: How Instagram users construct and circulate wellness narratives.” Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 2025. Documents how Instagram wellness content “emphasizes personal responsibility and self-optimization, reinforcing the idea that” health outcomes are a matter of individual effort and consumer choice. This individualization obscures both the structural determinants of health and the simple, non-purchasable mechanisms (like expectation) that may be doing most of the work.

Conor, B. & Winch, A. “‘Creating Beauty’: Collagen’s speculative processes from waste to wellness.” Economy and Society, 2025. A case study of the collagen supplement industry, documenting how “prevailing sensibilities around self-optimization and efficiency” drive demand for a product whose benefits are largely unproven in rigorous trials. Collagen supplements are an almost perfect example of the placebo-as-product: the ritual of taking the supplement, the narrative of “feeding your body what it needs,” and the expectation of improvement may do more than the collagen itself.

Nurmayanti, N. “Work, Hustle, And Burnout: Narratives Of The Millennial And Gen-Z Workforce In Indonesian Fiction.” Journal of Literary Prose and Society, 2025. Finds that 85% of contemporary Indonesian fiction texts engage with hustle culture, with 60% adopting critical stances. The globalization of hustle culture means the self-optimization critique is not just a Western concern — it operates across cultures and economic contexts.

Steelmanning the debate

For the wellness industry: The industry responds to genuine demand. People want to feel better, perform better, and age well. Many wellness practices — meditation, exercise, nutrition, therapy — have strong evidence bases. The industry provides access to these practices at scale. Dismissing it as “placebo selling” is reductive and disrespects the millions of people who have genuinely benefited from wellness products and services.

Against the industry: The industry’s financial model depends on the illusion of insufficiency and the sale of proprietary solutions to universal problems. If a significant portion of wellness product effects come from placebo mechanisms (expectation, ritual, narrative), then the industry is selling the wrapping and calling it the gift. A $50/month meditation app and a free breathing exercise may produce equivalent outcomes if the active ingredient is expectation. The industry has every incentive to obscure this, and consumers have every right to know it.

Topic 10 (Closing): The Garden, Not the Gym — Slow Self-Optimization Through Narrative

Core argument

The practical upshot of this research is not “placebos cure everything” or “just believe harder.” It is quieter and more methodological: the single most evidence-backed, zero-cost self-optimization practice is to change the story you tell yourself about your body’s capacity — slowly, honestly, and with attention to the evidence your own body provides. This is garden cultivation, not gym hustle.

Practical framework (drawn from the research)

The closing argument in the nut graph sketches this out, and the research supports a specific protocol:

  1. Journal small expectation experiments. Write down a specific expectation before a practice (breathwork, meditation, a walk) and note what actually happens. The Schaefer et al. (2025) finding that belief and expectation are partially independent means that tracking both — “I think this will help” (expectation) and “I believe my body can regulate itself” (belief) — provides richer data.

  2. Track subtle shifts over weeks, not days. The OLP literature emphasizes that effects accumulate. Kleine-Borgmann’s migraine trial ran for three months. The Handoko et al. (2025) neural dynamics paper shows that antidepressant placebo effects have both short-term and long-term components with different neural signatures. Patience is not optional.

  3. Use body awareness as data, not judgment. Interoceptive training (Rusinova et al. 2025) is enhanced by a non-anxious, curious orientation toward bodily signals. The nocebo literature (Topic 6) shows that anxious body scanning amplifies negative expectations. The goal is to listen without catastrophizing.

  4. Narrate the process, not just the outcome. The Pagnini framework (2024) emphasizes narrative reframing. Audio musings during a commute, voice memos before sleep, or brief written reflections do not need to be elaborate — they need to articulate what the body did today that demonstrates its capacity for change.

  5. Stack, do not sprint. The Mun et al. (2025) protocol combining OLP with mindfulness represents the research frontier of stacking. In practice, this means adding one expectation-aware practice to an existing routine, not overhauling everything at once. The garden metaphor from the nut graph is apt: you nurture, you do not renovate.

A note on honesty

The OLP literature’s most important contribution to self-optimization is its insistence on honesty. The Kaptchuk protocol tells participants exactly what they are receiving and why it might work. This is the opposite of the “fake it till you make it” ethos of hustle culture. Effective self-optimization through expectation requires acknowledging uncertainty, tracking actual results, and being willing to update. It is closer to scientific practice than to motivational speaking.

Sources for the practical framework

  • Schaefer et al. 2025 (belief vs. expectation): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27622-5
  • Kleine-Borgmann et al. 2025 (3-month OLP for migraine): JAMA Network Open
  • Handoko et al. 2025 (short/long-term neural dynamics): Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  • Rusinova et al. 2025 (interoceptive training): bioRxiv
  • Pagnini et al. 2024 (self-induced placebo framework): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03492-6
  • Mun et al. 2025 (OLP + mindfulness protocol): Pilot and Feasibility Studies

Off-Topic Pitch Assessment

The input contained only one integrated theme (placebo/belief-driven physiological change within self-optimization). No off-topic pitches were detected that required removal or reframing. All material in the nut graph and closing argument was coherent with the central thesis.

Master Source List

Foundational Papers (2023–2024)

CitationJournalTopic
Froese, T. et al. (2023). From autopoiesis to self-optimization.Biosystems / bioRxivEnactive biology
Froese, T. (2023). Irruption theory.EntropyEnactive motivation
Pagnini, F. et al. (2024). Enacting the mind/body connection.Humanities & Social Sciences CommunicationsSelf-induced placebo
Khalid, I. et al. (2024). Mapping expectancy-based appetitive placebo effects.Nature CommunicationsPlacebo neuroscience
Froese, T. (2024). Irruption and absorption.EntropyMind-matter problem

Key 2025 Papers

CitationJournalTopic
Fendel, J.C. et al. Effects of open-label placebos (meta-analysis).Scientific ReportsOLP
Kleine-Borgmann, J. et al. OLP for migraine prevention (RCT).JAMA Network OpenOLP
Hosono, T. et al. Digital placebo effect (meta-analysis).JMIRDigital placebo
Schaefer, M. et al. Route, expectation, and belief in placebos.Scientific ReportsPlacebo mechanisms
Jinich-Diamant, A. et al. Neural and molecular changes (OLP + meditation).Communications BiologyNeuroscience
Rodrigues, B. et al. Placebo and nocebo effects.PainPredictive processing
Botvinik-Nezer, R. et al. Expectation and perception.PLoS Computational BiologyBayesian brain
Handoko, K. et al. Expectancy-mood neural dynamics.Social Cognitive & Affective NeuroscienceDurability
Hardman, D. & Miller, F. Ethics of OLP.Journal of Medical EthicsEthics
Huneke, N.T.M. et al. Expectancy effects in psychiatric trials.JAMA PsychiatryNocebo/trial design
Borg, F. et al. OLP in musculoskeletal pain.Scientific ReportsOLP
Rusinova, A. et al. Interoceptive training.bioRxivInteroception
Knezevic, N.N. et al. Justice for placebo.MedicinesReview
Bihorac, J. et al. Conditioned immune responses.Handbook of Clinical NeurologyImmunology
Mangalam, M. The myth of the Bayesian brain.European J. Applied PhysiologyCritique
Putrevu, J. & Mertzanis, C. Wellness sector transformation.Journal of Economic SurveysIndustry critique
Raj, P. Toxicity in the digital self-care movement.Culture and DialogueCultural critique
SourceDateTopic
The Economist, “Rumours on social media could cause sick people to feel worse”March 2025Nocebo/social media
RIKEN, “How the placebo effect tricks the mind into relieving pain”May 2025Neuroscience
Cleveland Clinic Health Essentials, “What’s the Placebo Effect?”September 2025General explainer
The New York Review of Books, Gavin Francis, “What Do You Expect?”June 2025Expectation/medicine
ScienceDaily, “Breakthrough brain discovery reveals a natural way to relieve pain”November 2025Neuroscience
National Geographic, “Why are humans religious? Scientists are studying miracles to find out.”October 2025Belief/healing
Nature, “Roles of administration route, expectation, and belief in placebos”December 2025Placebo mechanisms

Suggested Reading Order for Book-Length Treatment

  1. Topic 2 (Enactive Biology) — Establish the biological foundation: living systems self-optimize
  2. Topic 1 (Predictive Processing) — Layer in the neuroscience: the brain as prediction machine
  3. Topic 8 (Neural/Molecular Evidence) — Provide the hard evidence: molecules and circuits
  4. Topic 7 (Interoception) — Explain the mechanism: how the body listens to itself
  5. Topic 4 (Open-Label Placebos) — Present the clinical breakthrough: healing without deception
  6. Topic 3 (Self-Induced Placebos) — Extend to DIY: you do not need a pill
  7. Topic 5 (Digital Placebos) — Contextualize in modernity: screens as medicine
  8. Topic 6 (Nocebo) — Introduce the shadow: negative expectations harm
  9. Topic 9 (Wellness Industry Critique) — Widen the lens: the $1.8 trillion question
  10. Topic 10 (Practical Application) — Close with the garden: what to actually do

Work Area

Log

  • 2026-02-13 07:48 - Created

Graph View