The Morality of Meditation
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
...and the results:
>Although only 16 percent of the nonmeditators gave up their seats — an admittedly disheartening fact — the proportion rose to 50 percent among those who had meditated.
So they had 39 people total. 20 meditators and 19 non-meditators. Of that, 3 non-meditators of 19 gave up their seat and 10 meditators of 20 gave up their seat.
Did they perform this study on sociopaths? I find it incredible that any able-bodied person would not give up a chair to a person on crutches.
I would suggests the other people simply weren't consciously aware enough to notice, but would have gladly given up their seat if someone else pointed it out to them.
I don't think it is fruitful to try to scientifically evaluate morality. Morality from my own practice, naturally arises from awareness of [i]self[/i] as well as environment. What the professor said about meditation fostering perception of interconnectedness syncs up with my own experiences of this practice.
How will you correct your expectations given the results of the study? It is possible they hired a bad actor for the person with the crutches and therefore did not trigger the same response as if the person was actually in pain.
Small numbers, but the effect size seems big enough that this would pass the (admittedly low) bar for p=0.05.
Incidentally, does anyone have a quick method for estimating the statistical significance of numbers like these?
I'd have expected them to go for a higher level of statistical confidence.
1. http://elem.com/~btilly/effective-ab-testing/g-test-calculat...
It is a big question whether or not a primitive statistical methods are applicable to such vastly complex system as brain, given that no one could trace the causes of this or that manifested behavior, any other way but popular Freudian memes.
That doesn't take away from the fact that they had the creativity to think of it, did it, and added to our collective knowledge as a result. Sure, the results seem obvious in retrospect, and the process doesn't seem too tough to put together. But I'm grateful for their work nonetheless.
1) The fact that they based the outcome on giving up seat for someone. They could as well give them a gun and see who is willing to shoot someone. it has NOTHING to do with meditation. What they should test instead is work productivity, energy levels, sleep habits etc. those are factors that are supposed to be influenced by meditation. But why didn't they? Well because it would require a hell of a lot more work. Why not just do the one with taken chair? ... lol
2) The fact that this article is published by New York Times. This "work" should not get attention from big publications in my opinion.
IOW: "I've been meditating lately and meditation is supposed to make you a nicer person, so I should do something!"
This would be in accord with lots of studies that show how you prime someone's thinking can affect how they behave. You could test the above hypothesis by studying people who weren't recently introduced to meditation, that is, whose self image had some time to return to some sort of base state. The trick would be to disentangle the actual effects of the meditative process from the aura of associations surrounding Buddhism in particular, and that might be impossible.
To clarify my question: is it the meditation itself that makes you more compassionate, or the engaging in a practice long associated with compassion that makes you more compassionate?
I don't' think there is a long term biological effect in me. If I stop meditating for a few days, I can feel myself coming back to a base state. However, as I keep doing this, it gets much better. So yes I think the very act of regular meditation helps you become more compassionate. It is like a daily priming of the system.
To me, it seems as obvious as comparing two groups of exercisers and non-exercisers to see who are about to last longer on a treadmill. If you practice something enough, you're going to see benefits. Practicing getting past those negative elements of your psyche for 8 weeks is surely going to cause you to be a bit kinder to those around you.
Management fads rank right up there with parenting fads and diet fads in their ability to attract otherwise intelligent, and often highly intelligent, people to their inanity.
Having people do something and watching their brains light up is cool, but without taking it much further is hardly evidence of the efficacy of meditation one way or the other.
After all, changes in my skin conductivity do not suggest that I'm being haunted by thetans.
For the sake of clarity, a major study is designed like this:
Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of colorectal cancer: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial, a randomized controlled trial conducted in 48,835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years recruited between 1993 and 1998 from 40 clinical centers throughout the United States.
Source:
Taking meditation into a business perspective, I believe it can truly enhance teams and have people work together better. At my previous company, one of our developers introduced me to meditation for the first time. I enjoyed it so much that I've asked him to 'lead' a collective meditation session every morning in the office for all the employees who were 'open' to it. After a few weeks most of our team participated in these sessions and the feedback from our employees was very positive.
Now I have never tried to find a correlation of these sessions with actual productivity, but overall everybody seemed to be more focussed and happy in the office. If I ever get to found another company, I would definitely like to explore the options of team/office meditation sessions again.
For anybody interested in connecting with the inner self, Eckhart Tolle really knows how to translate the concepts of our inner spirit into plain language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE1dWwoJPU0
As for rest of the nonsense, any more or less authoritative teacher will tell you that it requires years of deliberate practice to attain very basic level of being continuously aware and in control of ones inner states. It is not mere sitting and counting one's breath. This is just a training drill for the very first realization, that thoughts are not continuous, that there is a gaps between them, and that the thought could be stopped, but not by self-denial or will, but naturally ceased, like an unnecessary tension. This is just a realization (the most important one) but one cannot stop ones mind without forcing oneself, and even that only for a few seconds. This is NOT the goal of meditation. It is only the very first step.
But the next step - from this very first realization to developing a habit of being self-aware continuously, without any conscious effort requires years of practice.
Different schools and branches has different techniques to practice daily in order to develop this habit of permanent self-awareness with in pop-culture is called the third eye (which looks inside). Practices which are based on body/breath control to change the state of the mind usually called yoga, at least in Tibetan or Indian tradition, but there are many so-called analytic meditation techniques, such as famous Tibetan meditation on a corpse (to realize the true nature of our body) and so on.
So, please, cut that 8-week-course crap out. What they "measured" is elevated self-esteem, or better self-confidence, or just felling special or even enlightened - any kind of these naive pre-mature "experiences" each and any novice had had.
It takes years of daily practice, as any other talent development.
If a novice can improve themselves in only 8 weeks, that doesn't seem to imply that only practicing for 8 weeks is "crap". Rather, it seems to imply that an 8 week course may be truly valuable.
It takes a great deal of daily practice to master chess, but even a few hours of instruction and the occasional game provides many people with pleasure, a chance for social interaction, and practice in careful thought. You don't need to truly master something for its practice to have value.
> any more or less authoritative teacher will tell you that it requires years of deliberate practice to attain very basic level of being continuously aware and in control of ones inner states
Perhaps that is true, but the article says that there are other benefits. On the other hand, it's important to beware of any teacher that tells you that you need years of (paid) instruction to get any benefit from something.
Even without any books, just look around, any dude who spent vacation in India or Tibet is cocksure that he is already enlightened, transformed, special - all those bearded, barefooted hipsters wandering in a popular tourist destinations, or some yogi-dressed Slavic youths, spending parent's money on weed and booze.
It looks like a person who picked up few phrases from "learn Hindi in 21 days" and now claims that he know the language, while just ability to watch TV or read a newspaper understanding everything requires years and years of practice.
I remember a teacher writing about this, how Tibet used to have the same spiritual relationship to India as America now does to Tibet and India. This is a natural part of growing up, and of the nascent Western Buddhism flowering here. There's a long way to go, and it's fine.
I do find it interesting you got downvoted though. I don't think that should have happened, but it's a fascinating observation of karma (no pun intended). What would downvoting your "attitude" accomplish? This is between you and yourself on the cushion.
I can tell you from my own practice, that you eventually become OK with things that arise and passes. That includes what non-meditators tend to consider as "negative" emotions.
More to the point, what you associate with "self-awareness" is just that. An association. It is as real and unreal as the emotions driving this person to make that comment with that tone. Both are things to investigate, and if not examined, both can form obstacles to practice.
That poster's comments and attitude is pretty typical for meditators along a certain stage of practice (in the insight cycles). Everyone will pass through that point eventually. Correction of this isn't something that needs to come from social pressure; it comes from continued practice on mindfulness. I commend this person for practicing and encourage him or her to keep going!
Not sure what you mean. Comments which have these properties or are otherwise not constructive to discussion are to be downvoted on HN. To an extent good points can outweigh inflammatory language (although taking out that language is always preferable). But having a modicum of content is not sufficient to justify something that destroys the level of the discussion.
They say that because that is generally true, and people who come into this practice cold tend to have expectations of quick results that forms obstacles to the practice.
However, I have met, and have experienced on my own, various inner states that themselves motivated me to start up a practice of meditation. That happens too. It results from biology, though some of those very same authoritative teachers might have other views on this.
In any case, there is a reason that when teachers describe meditation to the mainstream, they will lower the standards to as low as it goes. 8-weeks. Sit for five minutes. Etc. Some sort of practice, no matter how watered down, has a beneficial effect, will tease out a tiny bit of self-realization for the person. As such, encouraging people to try it without talking about how enormous the task is, is itself a compassionate activity.
The first is whether or not developing a habit of continuous self-awareness is important. For the individual meditators like you and me, yeah, this is the goal. I don't expect others to try to reach this. It's not something that people who have not meditated, or who have not been graced with the realizations from meditation will understand why that is important. Until you reach that point, there is nothing in the world that will convince you of the importance. And even if you are persuaded that this is the standard, you're reacting to things inside of you that you are not aware of. You can't force someone to be mindful; why would you want to force someone to be continuously mindful?
The second is why you are upset by this apparent lack in the article. Perhaps it is something to investigate on the cushion.
As for the article, take it at face value.
The article doesn't assert that the participants had mastered anything. Novices experience the benefits of meditation to a degree. Even minimal sustained practice has been shown to increase focus and provide a sense of well being.
Still further: what of the gender bias? A forty person study seems hardly likely to account for the gender bias inherent in compassionate activities. I would suspect that a male would be more inclined to give up his seat to an attractive female than any other, even regardless of the circumstances (broken foot, lack of chairs, etc.) This "study" warrants some careful reading.
It makes sense to be critical of bad experiment design, and skeptical about extraordinary results. On the other hand, claiming bad experiment design based on the amount of data presented in the article seems premature. Maybe wait for the full paper and criticize the methodology if it appears flawed.
Eh, if the authors and their university are going to promote this in the media--and, make no mistake, this has been promoted heavily in order for it to reach the NYTimes--then I think it's fair game. You don't get to publicize your claims on the national stage and then avoid criticism until after your paper is published and the reader has forgotten everything (except the vague impression that meditation is backed by science).
> it could have been random luck that people with more empathy were selected to follow the meditation training.
Some people (ahem) are pathologically shy. Getting up in front of all those people and offering the seat to the injured person can be a physically painful act since it draws so much attention.
Science would suggest that this result is preliminary, and results should be studied with Bayesian statistics. This article makes headlines, sure, but shouldn't on its own dictate any behavior.
PS. I found the false dichotomy between things like "moving for a person with crutches" and "being good at your job" annoying. This was likely more a product of reporting than the study though.
FWIW, I agree that Bayesian statistics strikes me as regrettably underused in modern social science. But it's my impression that scientists of many stripes continue to use classical statistics instead, so calling something that doesn't use Bayes "not science" seems a bit off.
[0] http://www.socialemotions.org/page5/files/Condon.etal.2013.p...
What a load of crap. There is no way you'd experience that after meditating once a week for eight weeks.