The Placebo Effect

It’s raceday. You need to set a new personal record by .5 seconds to make it to states. At higher levels, it's these precious milliseconds that matter most. Of course, there is an easier, guaranteed way to make that time. The first thing that comes to mind is probably PEDs, or performance-enhancing drugs. But, what if there was a way for similar results to occur without doing anything illegal? 

Then, a mysterious figure comes into view. He offers you a pill, saying that it will make you run faster. With the race about to start, you don’t even question if it’s legal and take it. So, you run, and are overjoyed when you see the time qualifying for states. Still, your heart feels heavy, so you go up to him to ask, “What was in that pill you gave me?” He responds, “It was just sugar”. The placebo effect occurs when a placebo—in this case, sugar—creates a beneficial effect, not due to the treatment itself, but because of the psychological belief in the treatment.

The placebo effect was first studied in the 20th century, during World War II. When morphine was starting to run low, American anesthesiologist Henry Beecher noted that wounded soldiers given saline—essentially salt water—instead of morphine, saw similar pain relief, simply because they believed that they were receiving a powerful drug. This phenomenon prompted deeper research into the mind’s ability to influence the body’s response to treatment. 

The placebo effect operates on expectation. When someone believes that a pill or treatment will improve their condition, whether it's for pain, anxiety, or even athletic performance, their brain often responds accordingly. Neurotransmitters like endorphins or dopamine may be released, physically changing how the body feels or functions. In sports, this physiological trick can translate into tangible performance improvements. Runners might shave off milliseconds, lifters might add extra reps, and fatigue might set in later than expected. All of this is due to the brain's belief in an edge that does not chemically exist. 

When placebos can have a surprising impact, they also raise ethical questions. Is it right to deceive someone, even if it's for their benefit? And how far can the placebo effect truly go? Obviously, you can’t sugar-pill your way to Olympic gold, but the belief that you can get better, faster, or stronger might just be enough to tip the scale in cut-throat situations.

In a world where the tiniest edge can make the biggest difference, the mind might be the most overlooked performance enhancer of all

Interestingly, some researchers are now studying open-label placebos, where people are told they’re receiving a placebo, yet still experience benefits. At first, this might seem counterintuitive, but it shows the profound impact of the mind-body connection. In sports, this could open doors to mental training methods that boost performance without violating any rules.  

In a world where the tiniest edge can make the biggest difference, the mind might be the most overlooked performance enhancer of all. Whether through traditional placebos or open-label versions, belief can sometimes be just as powerful as biology.  In competitive sports, where boundaries are strictly regulated, harnessing these effects through transparent, evidence-based methods, such as open-label placebos, could redefine the way we approach performance in sports. The effective use of placebos holds immense potential for the future of training and competition.

The Uncanny Valley

Credit: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/style/the-polar-express-hero-girl-tiktok.html

At first glance, the character above appears almost human—but something about her smile, her eyes, or her facial expression is odd. That unease isn’t just your imagination; it is the Uncanny Valley at work. This photo is from The Polar Express, a film often notorious for its hyper-realistic animation that lands uncomfortably between cartoon and human. Hopefully, you felt something was off—that’s the psychological effect at work. Holly, also called “Hero Girl,” is a lot more realistic than, say, a cartoon Superman. And yet, despite more realistic, she triggers more discomfort because she is almost—but not quite—human.

The Uncanny Valley was originally developed in 1970 by Japanese robotics engineer Masahiro Mori. At face value, this phenomenon might just seem like an instinct you have and nothing more, but there is a whole lot more. 

The process of analyzing human faces and emotions is complex, involving a network of brain regions like the fusiform face area (FFA) and amygdala, working together to interpret facial expressions and extract meaning for social interaction. The specific patterns of facial muscle activity that create emotional expressions have been shaped over millions of years. Three main ideas attempt to explain the origin of this effect.

The Uncanny Valley is not just a feeling you get in your gut when you look at something off—it’s the product of deeply-rooted psychological and evolutionary mechanisms

The evolutionary theory suggests that there was a point in history where evolution required slight deviations from human-like features to trigger discomfort; examples of this could be people who could be potentially dangerous or diseased individuals. 

Another idea is cognitive dissonance, defined as the mental discomfort felt when people hold attitudes or beliefs that conflict with their behaviors. In this case, when something looks human, people then subconsciously hold expectations of human-like behavior—when this expectation is not met, though, people may feel cognitive dissonance, consequently leading to a feeling of uneasiness. 

Finally, impaired empathy is the inability to understand or share the feelings of other people. Small cues such as facial expressions and body language are extremely important to human interaction and socialization. Similar to dissonance, when these boxes are left unchecked, it creates complications in our ability to truly connect—impaired empathy—adding to the sense of eeriness. 

The Uncanny Valley is not just a feeling you get in your gut when you look at something off—it’s the product of deeply-rooted psychological and evolutionary mechanisms. Our brains have spent millions of years being able to recognise human faces and to ring an internal alarm when something looks human but doesn’t feel quite right. From unnatural movements to abnormal reactions, these things disrupt our set of expectations, triggering discomfort. 

As AI and hyper-realistic technology become a growing part of our daily lives, we can see why this valley matters. With growing exposure to these almost human-like entities, it can blur the line between human and machine. The more we interact with “almost-humans,” the more the line between real and artificial grows thinner, challenging our very sense of what it means to connect.

---

Masahiro Mori, “The Uncanny Valley,” IEEE Spectrum, 2005.

Nancy Kanwisher et al., “The Fusiform Face Area,” Journal of Neuroscience, 1997; Ralph Adolphs, “Recognizing Emotion from Facial Expressions,” Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 2002.

Mahdi M. Moosa and S. M. Minhaz Ud-Dean, “Danger Avoidance,” Biological Theory, 2010.

Ayse Pinar Saygin et al., “Predictive Coding and the Uncanny Valley,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2012.

Angela Tinwell et al., “Perception of Psychopathy and the Uncanny Valley,” Computers in Human Behavior, 2013.

Discipline Dilemma: Understanding Corporal Punishment

Parents have a duty to discipline their children. When children do something wrong, their parents should discipline them to teach a lesson. 

One of the most common manifestations of discipline is physical punishment, otherwise known as corporal punishment. Corporal punishment can refer to a variety of actions, from slapping, spanking, and even prolonged periods in a fixed position. However, this form of punishment has raised questions regarding effectiveness and ethics. How effective is corporal punishment? What are its effects? Is it morally just to administer such punishment on a child? 

In schools across the United States, corporal punishment is still considered a valid form of punishment in 19 states. Corporal punishment is more prevalent in states in the South, such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi (National Institute of Health). In a second study published by the National Institute of Health, researchers surveyed a group of parents bringing in their children to a clinic, asking about their position on corporal punishment. Based on this survey, 51% of these parents showed support for forms of corporal punishment, 37% disagreed, and the rest took no clear position. Dovetailing this finding, Columbia University’s Demographic and Health Surveys show that in 2015, nearly 40% of children under the age of five were exposed to some form of physical punishment in their lives. Surveys from the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) show that hundreds of millions of 2-to-4 year olds still experience corporal punishment globally. Corporal punishment remains a common choice for parents as a form of discipline in homes, with almost one third of U.S parents reporting spanking their children weekly. 

Clearly, corporal punishment is common—but is it also effective? Psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff of the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University conducted a meta-analysis in which over the course of 62 years, she attempted to unveil the consequences of corporal punishment. In her study, Gershoff discovered that for most cases, corporal punishment was linked to continuous negative behavior in kids and did not seem to have an overwhelmingly positive result. However, it was also highlighted in her study that there did seem to be an immediate, temporary obedience from the children after they received the punishment, though this did not last. Gershoff finds that the severity and how often a child is punished plays a significant factor in determining its outcome, where the more often and harder the punishment, the more likely an aggressive behavior begins to show. This underscores how subjective corporal punishment can be, with many different variables being at play to determine the outcome of punishment inflicted on children. Ultimately, however, Gershoff’s studies have found that there is a correlation between corporal punishment and negative behaviors among children and advises parents to avoid administering such discipline.

Children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.

Conversely, many parents still argue that corporal punishment is necessary and an effective way to discipline children. For instance, an article published by Britannica argued that corporal punishment is a valid form of punishment when used in moderation. The article explained how more moderate punishments, such as a time-out, would not be effective on more severe behavior. A sharper form of punishment, such as corporal punishment, would overall yield better results in teaching children a lesson when considering certain forms of behavior. Moreover, the same article argued that the physical consequence better establishes boundaries and forces children to continue to behave in the future. President and Dean of the Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary Harold Bennet mentions that “children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.” Overall, the debate surrounding corporal punishment has still remained complex and polarizing. It is crucial for parents, educators, and policymakers to weigh both sides of the debate and strive to create an environment for children to learn, grow, and develop.