Hi all:
I was pleased with this post. It seems there's an aversion to
critical analysis emanating from the core of the TM movement. The
Fooling People post should be dropped in leaflet form by a plane over
Fairfield....or catapulted from Batavia......no?....(sigh)
I tell people that meditation can be a great thing and "don't
throw the baby out with the bath water", but everyone.....EVERYONE is
so put off by the ridiculousness that they see north of town that
people wonder why I'd stick up for it.
As I've said before, I love Fairfield and meditate (my way)
everyday and love my TMer friends.....who I worry for.
However I've known enough of the permanently indoctrinated ru-s,
(always a sad thing to see) who are so ingrained in this occult
psuedo-science versified with sanskrit that they're unable to see how
obvious the silliness is to outsiders. Too many years of combining
the hypnotic bliss of the TM trance with the circuitous logic and
shiny idyllic imagery provided by Maharishi has not been kind to
them.
And this assertion of "research" that "proves" the claims made my
the hard core TM adherent remind me of the fundamentalist Christians
who HAVE to believe their reality view is flawless. The deeply weird
stuff they clam up about. Evidently they feel it's best to keep
their "deeper magic" secret; the un-indoctrinated somehow seem to not
be impressed by people bouncing on their butts, rounding til they're
not safe to drive, and praying over a chunk of ice with pictures of
Ganesh and "His Holiness."
Does anyone know what I mean? Is anyone 'allowed' to discuss it?
Don't be afraid to share. It's not as though any of these things are
secret. Thousands of people have left the movement and they tell
everyone EVERYTHING; their friends, family and the people who provide
psychiatric care to them. The scientific community has been given
ALOT more to go on than the questionable studies that the movement
insists on. There are no secrets. Why not remove the B.S.? Great
things might come of it.
Seriously...is this an appropriate forum to discuss such things? If
not I can repsectfully refrain.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fooling people with meditation research, TMO-style.
>
> The Superiority Lie: Exposing the Lies of TM research, one at a
time.
>
> The Superiority lie and the lies enabled through bad research with
> little or no controls.
>
>
> In a look at TM performance research, which typifies the general
> approach of some TM research, researchers decided to take a look
at
> the effect of TM on iconic memory as typically presented in TMO-
style
> research. Such poor research can often mask the actual truth.
>
> Three experiments were conducted (Frumkin & Pagano, 1979) with
> Sperling's tachistoscopic procedure using number matrices shown
just
> briefly (50 msec). They show that error and tomfoolery that can be
> used by researchers who present data findings, at best which could
be
> seen as mere pilot studies, without adequate and appropriate
controls.
> Not only can such bad methodology be used to give skewed results,
in
> some cases the uncontrolled results produce precisely the opposite
of
> what balanced and controlled inquiry would prove.
>
> In the first study 10 experienced TMers and 10 non-meditators were
put
> through a test on tonal memory: a pretest followed by a 20 minute
> "treatment" period, followed by a posttest. During the treatment
> period TMers meditated and the non-meditators were run together as
a
> group and also separately. The pre and posttests consisted of two
> practice trials followed by 16 trials which was used to determine
the
> performance score. The experimenter was a meditator and the digit
> matrix was cued verbally by the meditator. TM meditators performed
> significantly better than the non-meditator group as detailed in
the
> figure/graph below. This is typical of the style of TM research
seen
> in many TM studies.
>
> [Graph: Mean percentage correct as a function of practice; TMers
> superior]
>
>
>
> Then the experiment was repeated, this time using appropriate
> controls. The following controls were added: 1) extrinsic
motivation
> (a $10 reward for highest performance); 2) matching of groups;
3)
> individual rather than group running; 4) subject-paced
presentation;
> 5) automatic rather than experimenter initiated cueing; 6)
> experimenter neutral regarding meditation (the experimenter was a
non-
> meditator and unaware of whether the subject was a meditator or a
non-
> meditator); 7) scoring "blind" with regard to subjects' condition;
and
> 8) running subjects over many trials to eliminate practice effects
and
> to stabilize the dependent variable.
>
> The experiment followed the standard procedures for this task
using
> individual pacing. In the first part of the experiment cueing was
> auditory and in the second part, visual. The experiment lasted 5
days.
> On days 1 and 2, subjects practiced the task using auditory
cueing.
> Two hundred massed trials per day were run requiring 30-60 minutes
of
> lab time. Day 3 was the testing day and used auditory cueing. The
> subjects were pretested, followed by a treatment condition
(meditation
> or relaxation), and then posttested. Days 4 and 5 were test days
> identical to Day 3, except visual cueing was used.
>
> Separate ANOVAs were performed for the auditory and visual cues.
There
> were no significant group main effects for either cue. The graph
below
> plots the group scores as a function of practice. The striking
feature
> is that when appropriate controls are used, the meditators
performance
> is inferior to those of the non-meditators.
>
> [Graph: Mean Mean percentage correct as a function of practice in
> controlled study; TMers inferior]
>
>
>
> The researchers noted the following warnings and conclusions:
>
> "These three studies taken together graphically illustrate the
need
> for careful research when evaluating the effects of meditation on
> performance. On the basis of the first experiment, it appeared
that
> meditation [TM] facilitated performance on the appointed task.
> However, this experiment lacked important controls. The meditation
and
> non-meditation subjects were run in separate groups, cueing was
> controlled by the experimenter who was a meditator, testing was
not
> done blindly, and there was no attempt to equate motivation
between
> the groups. The study actually was of a pilot nature. When the
> appropriate controls were added, not only did the enhancement
effect
> specific to meditation fail to occur, but [TM] meditators
performed
> worse...
>
> This inferior performance even persisted in the final experiment.
The
> possibility that meditation might lead to decreased performance,
> particularly on LH [Left Hemisphere] tasks, was mentioned earlier.
It
> has also been raised by Schwartz (1974), based on unpublished data
> with TM practitioners using problem solving tasks which are
usually
> associated with LH processes.
>
> This research illustrates the importance of careful control when
> investigating the effects of meditation on behavior or
performance.
> Pilot type studies can be used to infer false superiority.
>
