--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting > > and legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The > > problem has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure > > with complex psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of > > hemispheric coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this > > "means" that TM allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are > > "better" at something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The > > politics of consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either > > deceptive/naive scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the > > research. This was non-physiological, but it is like the latest research > > that, according to the TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. > > Even the TM "scientist" David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just > > patently false. The design of the study does not allow you to conclude this > > at all, primarily > > because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there > > own control. If you know anything about research design, such a study > > essentially tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount > > of time had a lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening > > occurred, which is the most important question, can not be concluded > > because no variables have been controlled. I would love to ask David, why > > he believes you can conclude that TM is the one variable that "caused" > > these results when not a single variable has been controlled. > > > > > A vaguely related thought on research and claims -- in our lives. People > make a lot of claims, here and everywhere. For example some may claim that if > an age difference between beer drinkers is to wide, the younger is quite > subject to corruption, disruption, and even severe discombobulation. Yet, > this is only a claim. Perhaps based on observation of a small sample of > people. Hardly epistimologically strong. > > Perhaps we should run an experiment. Gather 200 women under 30. let 100 b a > control group. Have Turq talk to the other 100 of them -- individually - or > possibly in groups not > 3, over a beer. Let the dialogue take its course. > That is, some will end in 5 minutes, some may carry on. Even for some time. > Beyond breakfast. > > Then test all 200 women. See if there is a statistically significant > difference between the control and "dosed' groups -- in psychological trauma, > adoption of false ideas as beliefs (aka "been snowed", erratic behavior, > problems with subsequent relations, a social closing up -- increased anxiety > or fear of meeting new people, lower grades (if students), loss of job or > diminishment of income, poorer athletic ability, degraded memory and > cognitive function, higher blood pressure, different brain waves, depression, > anxiety, etc.
And of course we would need to test for positive effects. Its an open question. Some women may benefit from the Turq interaction, others may not. However, just testing the Turq dosage may hide various factors. Maybe Turq is charming, maybe hes toxic. The test may tell us more about him than a generalization to wide-age gapped relations. Since, Curtis is nearby in Italy, for the cause of science, perhpas he could join the doser group. Perhaps Card could pry himself away from Finland and fly to sunny Spain. And for extra extreme shock dosage, perhaps Nabs would descend from his level and participate. Getting some variation in the doser group would strengthen the experiment greatly. > > Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would appear prudent to take claims > about the deleterious effects of such age-gapped dialogs as simply > speculation, dreaming or fantasy. > > Regardless, in the name of science, I sugggest we all send Turq $50 to fund > such research. >
