[FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [...] . Ekman's results were astounding: the expert meditators were two standard deviations above the norm, far beyond what had ever been previously demonstrated. This same finding was also replicated in another western Buddhist meditator. You can't measure two (or even 1) SD above the norm if you have only one data set for that range. All they really found was that their test wasn't able to adequately assess the group. IOW, if everyone else shows IQ's between 85 and 115 and you have one group that scores 145, you really can't claim they scored 145 because the test hasn't been calibrated outside the normal range of scores. Or, if you have data to define a partial bell-shaped curve, and one group of people falls far outside the rest of the data points, you have no idea where on the bell-shaped curve they are because you don't have enough data to define the shape of the curve in that region (or even if its bell-shaped). Just feeling picky this morning. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: So these are some of the initial studies done which reflect on pacification when a meditator has a practice which can effectively pacify his or her negative emotions--and how that state resonates spontaneously with others. Sorry for delay, I'm reading so much new material, it took me a while to find and review this older material, which from 9 or 10 years ago. Enjoy. The thing that occurs to me straight away on reading your post Vaj is that (a) the study was of ONE western Buddhist meditator, who was an expert in various meditational styles (which sounds to me as if The Mystery can be reduced to something like a martial arts training gym). I then read: Ekman's results were astounding: the expert meditators were two standard deviations above the norm, far beyond what had ever been previously demonstrated. That should read The single expert meditator tested was two..., no? Then I read: This same finding was also replicated in another western Buddhist meditator. So we have a sample size of two. Then (b), the researcher (Ekman) was obviously pre-disposed to the results he claims to have achieved. The thing is, would you accept such research standards in the context of TM? I guess you would say that this is preliminary research to get it off the methodological hook. But as I recall, that cut no ice with you when considering the TM research on kids with ADHD?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: So these are some of the initial studies done which reflect on pacification when a meditator has a practice which can effectively pacify his or her negative emotions--and how that state resonates spontaneously with others. Sorry for delay, I'm reading so much new material, it took me a while to find and review this older material, which from 9 or 10 years ago. Enjoy. The thing that occurs to me straight away on reading your post Vaj is that (a) the study was of ONE western Buddhist meditator, who was an expert in various meditational styles (which sounds to me as if The Mystery can be reduced to something like a martial arts training gym). I then read: Ekman's results were astounding: the expert meditators were two standard deviations above the norm, far beyond what had ever been previously demonstrated. That should read The single expert meditator tested was two..., no? Then I read: This same finding was also replicated in another western Buddhist meditator. So we have a sample size of two. I missed how small the sample size was. 2 outliers from a data set of 5000 doth not a curve-plot make. Then (b), the researcher (Ekman) was obviously pre-disposed to the results he claims to have achieved. No researcher on Buddhist meditation could ever be biased, nosiree, just can't happen, because... they're Buddhists! Well, not really Buddhists, just practitioners of the techniques who like to talk to the most famous living Buddhist about Buddhist philosophy/theory. No self-selection going on there in the space of researchers... The thing is, would you accept such research standards in the context of TM? I guess you would say that this is preliminary research to get it off the methodological hook. But as I recall, that cut no ice with you when considering the TM research on kids with ADHD? But that was because it wasn't a controlled study... Unlike this one, of course. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
On May 11, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: So these are some of the initial studies done which reflect on pacification when a meditator has a practice which can effectively pacify his or her negative emotions--and how that state resonates spontaneously with others. Sorry for delay, I'm reading so much new material, it took me a while to find and review this older material, which from 9 or 10 years ago. Enjoy. The thing that occurs to me straight away on reading your post Vaj is that (a) the study was of ONE western Buddhist meditator, who was an expert in various meditational styles (which sounds to me as if The Mystery can be reduced to something like a martial arts training gym). I then read: Ekman's results were astounding: the expert meditators were two standard deviations above the norm, far beyond what had ever been previously demonstrated. That should read The single expert meditator tested was two..., no? No. In the initial study there were two western meditators, which actually replicated the findings. Not sure exactly how many times it's been replicated since then, but I know it has continued to be so. I believe we're talking around 70-80 replications. Then I read: This same finding was also replicated in another western Buddhist meditator. So we have a sample size of two. Then (b), the researcher (Ekman) was obviously pre-disposed to the results he claims to have achieved. That's your assumption, I don't think one which is borne out in subsequent investigators. The thing is, would you accept such research standards in the context of TM? Different case history for their researchers, so contextually one is naturally forced to be very leery of many of these TM folks even though some of these people were my childhood heroes! In someone like a Paul Ekman, there's a long history of distinguished research and an honest and open conviction towards a true null hypothesis and independent, blinded replication. If I knew there was such an underlying intention with the TM folks, we should be happy to embrace it. But sadly, Richard, I don't honestly see that. I guess you would say that this is preliminary research to get it off the methodological hook. But as I recall, that cut no ice with you when considering the TM research on kids with ADHD? I have to automatically raise an eyebrow when bias is found. You've read the Skeptic website findings? The U. of Alberta finding are particularly damning as was the BBC investigator. Pretty negligent and very deceptive study execution, which was pushed nonetheless to media outlets. This is, professionally speaking, a potential career ender. Richard, above and beyond that I have to also look at my own meditation experience and compare my own decades of daily TM with other forms of attentional training and go with what I know. Ultimately this what has to inform my honest appraisal. We know what benefits TM can actually have, but with good controls, I suspect we should expect very modest improvements compared to other attentional mind training techniques re: ADHD. It may turn out our only nod to the huge contributions of TM investigators is to thanks the researchers and MMY for starting such an interest in this type of research in the first place. Unless something changes soon, a given the canonical, non-changing and non-staged teaching of TM, I can't say things looks good, except for people who seek answers elsewhere. You can take it with you. I've seen numerous people add stages to TM very successfully, but only by leaving the org.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
On May 11, 2009, at 10:41 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: So these are some of the initial studies done which reflect on pacification when a meditator has a practice which can effectively pacify his or her negative emotions--and how that state resonates spontaneously with others. Sorry for delay, I'm reading so much new material, it took me a while to find and review this older material, which from 9 or 10 years ago. Enjoy. The thing that occurs to me straight away on reading your post Vaj is that (a) the study was of ONE western Buddhist meditator, who was an expert in various meditational styles (which sounds to me as if The Mystery can be reduced to something like a martial arts training gym). I then read: Ekman's results were astounding: the expert meditators were two standard deviations above the norm, far beyond what had ever been previously demonstrated. That should read The single expert meditator tested was two..., no? Then I read: This same finding was also replicated in another western Buddhist meditator. So we have a sample size of two. I missed how small the sample size was. 2 outliers from a data set of 5000 doth not a curve-plot make. Well several points: Exceptional meditators of this calibre are RARE. Replication of such a unprecedented finding is like lightning striking twice in the same place. One is forced to take notice. We already (since this time) have the acquisition curves for these traits, published. We're well beyond this c. 2001 work. Then (b), the researcher (Ekman) was obviously pre-disposed to the results he claims to have achieved. No researcher on Buddhist meditation could ever be biased, nosiree, just can't happen, because... they're Buddhists! Well, not really Buddhists, just practitioners of the techniques who like to talk to the most famous living Buddhist about Buddhist philosophy/theory. No self-selection going on there in the space of researchers... Exceptional proof requires exceptional data which requires exceptional meditators which requires impeccable meditation training. It's the rarity in and of itself that is self-selecting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Grate pacification :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip Exceptional meditators of this calibre are RARE. Replication of such a unprecedented finding is like lightning striking twice in the same place. One is forced to take notice. We already (since this time) have the acquisition curves for these traits, published. We're well beyond this c. 2001 work. When we're evaluating Buddhist studies, we always rely on the most recent ones. When we're evaluating TM studies, we prefer to look at the older ones and ignore the latest ones. snip Exceptional proof requires exceptional data which requires exceptional meditators which requires impeccable meditation training. It's the rarity in and of itself that is self- selecting. But only in studies of Buddhist meditators. In studies of TMers, we consider self-selection on account of rarity to be cherry-picking.
