--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip > > > The concept has been defunct for years. Find mention of O2 > consumption > > > in any current research or any current "talking points" > scientific > > > charts. > > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > I did not say that "02" had been retained. What WAS retained > was "state of rest twice as > > deep as sleep", only now as indicated by metastudies, not by one > single, decisive measure. > > > > L B S > > > > Metastudies of what parameters? ******** The "global" physiological measures. A metastudy is a mathematical workup of existing studies. The statistical methods are comparatively sophisticated, and in my opinion, comparatively more subject to manipulation for that reason. Before this goes too far into the trees, let me once again identify the forest I am discussing: For many years (based primarily on Wallace), TM teachers around the world proudly pointed to the O2 consumption chart and told audiences collectively numbering in the milllions that this one, single, incontrovertible measure proved beyond reasonable doubt that TM provided the deepest level of rest available to humanityan coincidentally, unavailable by any other method. With Kesterson's finding, that claim was shattered. It was not, however, immediately withdrawn from public use. No bulletin was sent out to teachers in the field. (In fact, I'm sure there must be old timers out there still using it.) Instead, it was retired without fanfare. In its place were now claims that subtle measures of blood chemistry and other global measures showed that TM produced a level of rest "twice as deep as sleep". So the concept was not dropped. Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle blood chemistry argument was based on metastudies. The metastudy argument gained its greatest currency when a "metastudy" was produced to show that TM was more effective than all other meditation techniques. My pointforgive me for belaboring it, but it's easy to overlookis that the simplest and most effective argument for TM had crumpled. It was replaced with something that is neither simple enough for the average person to undestand nor obvious enough to be acknowledged as decisive. Generally speaking, every benefit of TM has been documented for other programs. Because TM has more research behind it, it is comparatively easy to make the "global" argument, that no other technique produces the overall benefits. This argument is suspect because of the generally bad reputation of TM research in general, which has been discussed elsewhere. The bottom line, from my point of view, is that TM research will never again be able to establish the primacy of the TM technique among other forms of meditation and self- improvement programs. On a practical level, it doesn't matter whether the reasons are sociological or scientific, a matter of prejudice or a matter of professional evaluation. The arguments for the superiority of TM are of such a sophisticated level of science and mathematics that Joe Lunchbucket will never have a clue whether they mean anything or not. Nor will most of his neighbors who possess MAs and PhDs. This is not to say that TM research does not generate scientific support or funding for TM programs, as some who post here are quick to point out. But the view from inside the movement is deeply skewed, and doesn't acknowledge that TMs competitors are out there making hay as well. L B S ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
