---Such studies are interesting, but where are the real Siddhis? A bonafide demonstration of a Siddhi will really shake things up.
In [email protected], "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "ruthsimplicity" > > ruthsimplicity@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > TM can't *force* independent researchers to attempt > > > > replication of the TM studies. Such researchers are > > > > more likely to want to do a study that finds "adverse > > > > effects." (One of them counted "boredom" as an adverse > > > > effect, if you can imagine.) They're more interested > > > > in debunking than taking a chance that they'd actually > > > > confirm TM's results. > > > > > > I really disagree with your speculation as to the purported > > > motivations of the independent researchers. Generally, I > > > respect what you say because you do your homework, but here > > > all you are doing is speculating as to what independent > > > researchers are "more likely" to do. > > > > Well, actually it's based on the negative studies > > I've seen--some of which are really disgracefully > > bad--and the disparaging tone of their reports, as > > well as the comments of other scientists. > > Cite please. As far as disparaging tone, I have seen some criticisms of > TM research that could be interpreted by TM researchers as having a > disparaging tone. But is it disparging when the criticism is accurate? > > > > > There has been some mild interest over the years in use of > > > meditation techniques for treatment of various medical > > > conditions and for potential health benefits. Back in the > > > 1970s I knew several researchers who were not affiliated > > > with any meditation practice who were excited by the > > > potential of TM, biofeedback, and other "mental" techniques. > > > The primary goals of scientists who have looked at those > > > issues is not to confirm or debunk, but to inquire. > > > > I'd love to believe that, but I can't. Certainly > > in some, maybe even many, cases it's true. But with > > TM in particular, because of its huge PR hype and > > the proliferation of its own triumphalist studies-- > > and the fact that the founder is a little bearded > > brown-skinned dude in sheets and beads with lots > > of celebrity followers--I think at least some of > > the researchers got their backs up and decided they > > were going to puncture the balloon (maybe > > subconsciously?). > > This is insulting. No researcher I have ever met had their opinions > turn on whether a "brown skin dude in sheets" is the proponent. To > this day I know plenty of MDs who suggest meditation to their patients. > Now with that said, I am sure it is possible that there is a researcher > with a desire to pop the TM balloon, but I want to be pointed to who > they are and what research they did so I can evaluate it for myself. I > certainly have not read every piece of research. > > > > > > Other researchers, who might have been more > > objective, simply didn't want to have their > > names associated with TM because of its image. > > > > And then there was that awful Andrew Skolnick > > article in JAMA back in 1991. That's a long, > > ugly story, but the piece did terrible damage > > to TM's reputation among medical professionals, > > including researchers (which was Skolnick's > > intention, as well as to advance his own > > journalistic career, which he did). The article > > was a hatchet job, one of the most deliberately > > deceptive pieces of journalism I've ever seen. > > Not going there! I made the mistake of a google search and see that > there was a bitter dispute between the two of you. > > > Then Buddhist meditation and mindfulness began > > to become popular, and these were seen as more > > respectable forms of meditation to study, > > especially when the Dalai Lama got into the act. > > > > Bottom line, up to this point, I do think it's > > fair to say that scientific interest in TM has > > been lukewarm at best, and actively hostile, in > > at least some cases, at worst. > > I agree that interest is lukewarm because there really hasn't been any > earth shattering research results that entice others to follow up. I > still want to see your references to actively hostile research. > > > > Both potential > > > positives and negatives need to be explored. Now there is good > > > scientific sense to go into a research study with a hypothesis > > > and try to disprove that hypothesis, but that has nothing to do > > > with trying to debunk someone's results. > > > > Theoretically and ideally, yes, but I'm not > > convinced it always works that way in practice. > > I don't claim it always works that way. Nothing is so perfect. > > > > > I think if the TMO was interested in more independent research > > > it would go far if the TMO cooperated in providing a subject > > > pool that is not improperly selected. Obtaining subjects is a > > > big problem for independent researchers. > > > > I agree with you there. I don't know for sure that > > they've been *uncooperative*, though. > > > > > As far as research on adverse effects, I mentioned in my reply > > > to Vaj that there is not enough research to draw any conclusions, > > > but there are areas of interest for further inquiry. If I was > > > queen of the TMO researchers, I would go out of my way to > > > specifically study reported effects, both those people perceive > > > as adverse and those perceived as positive. I would follow up > > > with new meditators, inquire about their meditations, obtain > > > information good and bad from them, and then follow up with > > > studies. I would do the same with experienced meditators. > > > > They've done quite a bit of that, actually. The > > problem seems to be that they're not willing to > > publish negative results. > > What is your source for this information? > > > > > You mentioned "one of them counted "boredom" as an adverse > > > effect, if you can imagine." If I was queen of the researchers, > > > I would pay attention if people mentioned boredom as it might > > > correlate with people dropping the practice. > > > > Sure, but that wasn't the point of this particular > > study. > > > > Boredom is a "problem" with many forms of > > meditation, but as far as the traditions are > > concerned, it tends to be seen as perfectly > > normal, not an "adverse effect." Similarly > > with coming out of meditation too quickly and > > feeling irritable or getting a headache. If the > > meditator checks those off on the questionnaire > > because she hasn't been taking long enough to > > come out, should they be chalked up as an > > "adverse effect"? > > Maybe yes, maybe no. If there is a high frequency of headaches in > mediators, that is an adverse effect. Now maybe that adverse effect can > be addressed by better or more frequent checking procedures and the > cause may not be TM itself. I agree that care has to be taken as to > cause and effect and the term "adverse" could be considered by some as > pejorative, but the data is important. > > > > The researchers, in many cases, simply don't > > know what it makes sense to ask about. > > Meditation isn't *supposed* to be 100 percent > > bliss at all times, twice a day every day > > (unless you're in an advanced state of > > consciousness, and maybe not even then). > > > > > > And do you really think independent researchers know > > > > enough about TM to say whether their subjects are > > > > practicing it as instructed? > > > > > > How can any researcher really know? They can't get in the > > > meditators' heads and if the researchers try they will poison > > > the research. > > > > No, I mean they should arrange for the subjects to > > get checked by a certified TM teacher on a frequent > > basis as long as the study lasts. There should also > > be some record of whether the subjects are getting > > enough sleep and exercise, meditating regularly for > > the prescribed amount of time, that sort of thing. > > Data from subjects who go "off the program" (to > > a certain degree, to be determined beforehand as part > > of the study protocol) should perhaps not be included. > > Maybe certain specific studies would want your ideal conditions. But I > would be highly interested in real life results because meditation > occurs in real life where conditions are not ideal. Nevertheless, data > concerning compliance is important to gather and report. After all, > research is a process and the data you gather is fodder for future > research. There rarely is a firm conclusion. Almost everything is a > matter of probabilities. > > > > Use > > > a large enough subject pool who have been taught to meditate > > > and let them meditate. If we are going to discount independent > > > research on the grounds that the researchers can't evaluate > > > the process then we have a big problem. > > > > No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting > > the researchers may not know enough about > > meditation, and TM specifically, to realize how > > important it is to ensure optimal conditions. > > Otherwise they may not be measuring the effects of > > TM at all. > > > > Don't agree. As I stated, people practice TM in real life and we want > to know real life effects. You also do not give researchers enough > credit. A good researcher knows their topic and knows how to design a > study. Now meditation research has plenty of design challenges and > compromises may be made, but a good researcher reports their > compromises. >
