[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@...
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
who have looked at the research in question and come
to the same conclusions independently, now, could
there?
  snip
   
   Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember
   back when you postulated that I was Barry, posting
   under another name?
  
  Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
  me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
  infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
  coming to Barry's defense?
  
  Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
  suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
  I tried to find it myself and couldn't.
 
 I spent a few minutes trying to backtrack and then thought, 
 why am I doing this?? 

Good realization. One thing to bear in mind
when trying to do research on FFL is that
sadly, because Yahoo's indexing mechanism is
so brain-dead, at least 11-15% of the posts
made to Fairfield Life are never indexed, and
thus do not appear in the Search engine. They
are there if you go back and look at them in
Message View, but they never appear in searches.

 Yes, you postulated that I was Barry 
 writing under another name. I finally had to write something 
 to the effect that I am not Barry! I do not know who Barry 
 is which was true at the time. It never occurred to me that 
 the Barry who wrote here was the guy I knew so many years 
 ago in LA. It would have been sometime in 2005 or so since 
 that is when I learned that there was a group known as FFL.

It's OK that you didn't recognize me at the 
time, Geez. I didn't recognize you, either.
I was probably busy lying about something or 
poisoning the well here or being a tax 
criminal or one of the other things that 
she's accused me of for 16 years, the period 
of time she hasn't really been stalking me. :-)

If you just learned to see things rightly,
the way that *she* does, you'd understand 
that *I* am the guilty party in all of this
stalking. If I had just gone away and STFU
like so many other of her victims, she would
not have *had* to stalk me for 16 years. 

The one thing you've got to learn if you want
to fit in to her world is that It's always
Barry's fault. Learn that, and you're home
free.

Learn its corollary, Judy is always right,
and you're well on your way to enlightenment.

Learn to make comments about films you have
never seen, and Blazing Brahman is within
your grasp.

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak 
geezerfr...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak 
  geezerfreak@ wrote:
snip
   Before you get too carried away here kiddo,
   remember back when you postulated that I
   was Barry, posting under another name?
  
  Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
  me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
  infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
  coming to Barry's defense?
  
  Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
  suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
  I tried to find it myself and couldn't.
 
 I spent a few minutes trying to backtrack and
 then thought, why am I doing this??

Because you made a claim that's been challenged?

 Yes, you postulated that I was Barry writing
 under another name. I finally had to write
 something to the effect that I am not Barry!
 I do not know who Barry is which was true at
 the time.

You finally had to write something? Do you
mean I said it more than once?

 It 
 never occurred to me that the Barry who wrote
 here was the guy I knew so many years ago in LA.
 It would have been sometime in 2005 or so since
 that is when I learned that there was a group
 known as FFL.

(Your first post here is dated September 22,
2006, FWIW.) When did you find out Barry was
your Barry?

Just did a search for not Barry in your
posts and came up empty.

Then I did another search of your posts for
Barry AND authfriend. Nada from you denying
you were Barry.

And before that, I did a search of my own
posts for geez. I looked through about
20 of the earliest and found zip. If I ever
did think you were Barry, it would have had
to have been very early on, because your
styles are noticeably different, and I would
have registered that pretty quickly. I did
find that I consistently referred to you and
Barry as different individuals.

So I've made a good-faith effort to find it,
with no success. I don't remember ever thinking
you might be Barry, and it's highly unlikely I
would have, given the difference in your 
writing styles.

Moreover, in your very first post addressing
me, you weren't sure to what degree I'd been
involved with the TMO. That would have ruled
you out as Barry right away, because he knew
my involvement was minimal.

And again, the difference in writing styles
is quite distinct. His is more polished, and
it's extremely difficult for a polished
writer to fake lack of polish and make it
sound spontaneous and natural. (Lack of
polish is NOT a criticism, BTW. It's a style
characteristic. My writing isn't as polished
as Barry's either.)

It isn't impossible I *joked* at some point
that you were Barry because of your constant
knee-jerk defense of him and attacks on me for
calling attention to the various manifestations
of his phoniness.

But unless you can turn up a post in which I
seriously accused you of being Barry, I have
to conclude it never existed. I don't think
you're lying, but I do suspect you're
misremembering somehow--either it was 
somebody else who made the accusation, or you
thought I was serious when I was kidding.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
  
   In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly
insignificant
   results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
   the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
   is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
   Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points
or your
   IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
   to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
   interesting.
  
  
  Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the
actual  
  figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously
insignificant  
  result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
  0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
instead  
  push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
  pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
  the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
  instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
  news.
 
 
 Marketing is another issue.
 
 
 L

Yes, but it is hard to separate the issues.  We acknowledge that
everyone has some bias and everyone likes to be right.  This is
exhibited in risks of confirmation bias and risks of using a too
narrow an approach.  However, the risks are not the same for everyone
everywhere. A marketing blitz by your supporting organization which
tends to exaggerate results reflects on you as part of the
organization.  Some, like Orme-Johnson and Haglin, both market and
research, which makes it look like they are even more biased than
most.  The woman who did the ADHD pilot study has participated in
marketing her study. Travis has done talks that wax eloquent about the
power of TM. How often do the TMO researchers test alternative
hypotheses? And isn't a particular complaint of TM research that there
is evidence of expectation bias in that they view all their data as
fitting their expectation that TM works? 

It is all part of trying to evaluate the bias risks.  We do not have
access to their actual procedures, to their hard data.  We can't know
to what extent their biases effect a particular study. But given the
fact that false positives are likely prevalent in research anyway,
that Orme-Johnson has said that they lean towards trying to show an
effect in their research, that many of the TM researchers participate
in exaggerated marketing claims,that the TMO researchers truly believe
TM works,  my bias concerns are greater with the TMO than with
Davidson.  All bias is not created equal.  

This is separate from my discussion of pattern recognition, but as all
these things are it is related.  The issue of pattern recognition is
two-fold.  One is positive, the ability of trained experts to spot new
and interesting patterns.  The other is negative, the risk of seeing a
pattern when none is there.  



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:47 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 I really would like to see them research unstressing.


I couldn't agree more, I've always felt this would be a fascinating  
opportunity to study meditation. Back when the TMSP was first  
introduced would have been the opportune time, less so now. Although  
the IA course, when in full swing, could represent such an opportunity.

This seems especially important after reading Austin. He comments of  
the negative effects of closed eyes meditation vs. opened eyes  
meditation in people with depression--essentially a meditatively  
induced SAD. Closed eyes meditation screws with our ACTH and melatonin  
cycles. No surprise sleep disturbances are common. Could it lead to  
suicide if overused (rounding) and therefore be required to contain  
a warning label? Is that what happened on the European course where  
the whole course went whacko? What is the biochemistry behind that?

Also with the discovery of neuroplasticity and the fact that calcium- 
signaling pathways in neurons can regulate transcription, there are  
new reasons why the study of unstressing could be quite fascinating.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
  Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to
  not mention the actual figures or not mention
  them in a way makes the obviously insignificant  
  result seem small. SO instead of saying TM
  reduces blood pressure 0.08 % from normal
  baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
  instead push something like TM reduces blood
  pressure, TM decreases blood pressure, TM is
  good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and
  saturate the web and broadcast media as much as
  they can. In other words, instead of poisoning
  the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
  news.
 
 Marketing is another issue.

And it's hardly as if what Vaj describes is peculiar
to the TMO anyway; it's common to any research-based
marketing. For drug companies, for example, even the
slightest edge over competing products, or even over
placebo, can make the difference between a dud product
and a blockbuster.

BTW, Vaj should be careful about using the term
significant to mean important when discussing
research results. Significant is an objective
statistical measure in that context, not a value
judgment.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
   
In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly
 insignificant
results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points
 or your
IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
interesting.
   
   
   Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the
 actual  
   figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously
 insignificant  
   result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
   0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
 instead  
   push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
   pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
   the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
   instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
   news.
  
  
  Marketing is another issue.
  
  
  L
 
 Yes, but it is hard to separate the issues.  We acknowledge that
 everyone has some bias and everyone likes to be right.  This is
 exhibited in risks of confirmation bias and risks of using a too
 narrow an approach.  However, the risks are not the same for everyone
 everywhere. A marketing blitz by your supporting organization which
 tends to exaggerate results reflects on you as part of the
 organization.  Some, like Orme-Johnson and Haglin, both market and
 research, which makes it look like they are even more biased than
 most.  

Researchers of Buddhist meditation are interviewed by NPR to tout their latest
studies, make comments about how they already knew that buddhist meditation
worked and didn't need to perform the studies they were doing to show it worked,
etc. The bias may not be as obvious, or as straightforward, but it certainly
is there in many cases, IMHO.


The woman who did the ADHD pilot study has participated in
 marketing her study. Travis has done talks that wax eloquent about the
 power of TM. How often do the TMO researchers test alternative
 hypotheses? And isn't a particular complaint of TM research that there
 is evidence of expectation bias in that they view all their data as
 fitting their expectation that TM works? 
 

se above Anyone who practices the technique they study has that problem,
IMHO.

 It is all part of trying to evaluate the bias risks.  We do not have
 access to their actual procedures, to their hard data.  We can't know
 to what extent their biases effect a particular study. But given the
 fact that false positives are likely prevalent in research anyway,
 that Orme-Johnson has said that they lean towards trying to show an
 effect in their research, that many of the TM researchers participate
 in exaggerated marketing claims,that the TMO researchers truly believe
 TM works,  my bias concerns are greater with the TMO than with
 Davidson.  All bias is not created equal.  

False positives AND false negatives are prevalent in research.



 
 This is separate from my discussion of pattern recognition, but as all
 these things are it is related.  The issue of pattern recognition is
 two-fold.  One is positive, the ability of trained experts to spot new
 and interesting patterns.  The other is negative, the risk of seeing a
 pattern when none is there.


The Law of Fives is an interesting thing, but hopefully statistics and good 
faith
scientific procedures will reduce it sufficiently, in the long run, to allow us
to get some idea of what is what.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
 Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
 Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
 who have looked at the research in question and come
 to the same conclusions independently, now, could
 there?
 
 An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
 that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
 a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
 or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
 a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
 misleading impression that he is simply an
 independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
 
 This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
 after another about how TM research has been
 conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
 said is that some of it has been called in question.
 
 Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
 confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
 ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!

Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember back when you postulated 
that I 
was Barry, posting under another name?
In fact it was another year or so before I even knew (thanks to Rick's 
verification for me) 
that the Turq Barry was one and the same with the Barry Wright I knew all those 
years 
ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
  Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
  Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
  who have looked at the research in question and come
  to the same conclusions independently, now, could
  there?
snip
 
 Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember
 back when you postulated that I was Barry, posting
 under another name?

Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
coming to Barry's defense?

Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
I tried to find it myself and couldn't.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
   Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
   Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
   who have looked at the research in question and come
   to the same conclusions independently, now, could
   there?
 snip
  
  Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember
  back when you postulated that I was Barry, posting
  under another name?
 
 Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
 me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
 infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
 coming to Barry's defense?
 
 Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
 suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
 I tried to find it myself and couldn't.

I spent a few minutes trying to backtrack and then thought, why am I doing 
this?? Yes, you 
postulated that I was Barry writing under another name. I finally had to write 
something to 
the effect that I am not Barry! I do not know who Barry is which was true at 
the time. It 
never occurred to me that the Barry who wrote here was the guy I knew so many 
years 
ago in LA. It would have been sometime in 2005 or so since that is when I 
learned that 
there was a group known as FFL.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
 to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
 styles and background are similar.
 
 http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
positive-study-
 meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-296
 
 http://tinyurl.com/copqlw
 
 Do you really perceive my style and background as
 the same as, or even similar to, Mr Guy's?
 
 Goodness. I mean, we both appear to be native
 English speakers, but beyond that?

 Seriously.

Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
who have looked at the research in question and come
to the same conclusions independently, now, could
there?

An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
misleading impression that he is simply an
independent outside observer with no axe to grind.

This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
after another about how TM research has been
conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
said is that some of it has been called in question.

Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
  to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
  styles and background are similar.
  
  http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
 positive-study-
  meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-296
  
  http://tinyurl.com/copqlw
  
  Do you really perceive my style and background as
  the same as, or even similar to, Mr Guy's?
  
  Goodness. I mean, we both appear to be native
  English speakers, but beyond that?
 
  Seriously.
 
 Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
 Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
 Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
 who have looked at the research in question and come
 to the same conclusions independently, now, could
 there?

Thing is, Ruth claimed that our writing styles were similar.

I guess I could write like Mr. Guy. It wouldn't be that hard.
All I would need to do is type properly. Then I would need
to write in short sentences with no commas. Or very few.


Actually, it's harder than it looked: I have a tendency to 
think parenthetically, and trying to marshal my words in
a way that duplicates his style, really cramps mine, I found.


Not to mention that my arguments would have more meat to them,
seeing that I've argued with Skeptics on their home turf before, 
and know the language they use.



 
 An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
 that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
 a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
 or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
 a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
 misleading impression that he is simply an
 independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
 

Well, had the subject been Buddhist meditation research, Vaj's 
handle would have evoked a response. Skeptics are great
at being mono-thematic when discussing things.

 This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
 after another about how TM research has been
 conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
 said is that some of it has been called in question.
 
 Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
 confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
 ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!


What leapt out at me was Ruth using silly arguments to counter
some of the same points about the Cambridge Handbook that
 I've made in this forum. I may be mistaken but I don't recall her
responses being quite as simplistic and full of holes as they were
in the Skeptics forum.

Ruth: surely you can see that TIm Guy and I are not the same person?


Or do you REALLY assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a
different forum, despite the different rhetorical style, must be the same
person because there can't be more than one semi-erudite pro-TM research
poster?


BTW, to claim that we have similar backgrounds is rather odd. I am a massive
underachiever: taught myself Calculus when I was 15 by reading a book. Surely
you had to notice that our respective perspectives concerning the Science 
were at two levels of sophistication? Or, again, perhaps you simply assume that
anyone who disagrees with you must be ineddicated.


Sheesh.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
   You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
   to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
   styles and background are similar.
   
   http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
  positive-study-
   meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-296
   
   http://tinyurl.com/copqlw
   
   Do you really perceive my style and background as
   the same as, or even similar to, Mr Guy's?
   
   Goodness. I mean, we both appear to be native
   English speakers, but beyond that?
  
   Seriously.
  
  Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
  Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
  Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
  who have looked at the research in question and come
  to the same conclusions independently, now, could
  there?
 
 Thing is, Ruth claimed that our writing styles were similar.
 
 I guess I could write like Mr. Guy. It wouldn't be that hard.
 All I would need to do is type properly. Then I would need
 to write in short sentences with no commas. Or very few.
 
 
 Actually, it's harder than it looked: I have a tendency to 
 think parenthetically, and trying to marshal my words in
 a way that duplicates his style, really cramps mine, I found.
 
 
 Not to mention that my arguments would have more meat to them,
 seeing that I've argued with Skeptics on their home turf before, 
 and know the language they use.
 
 
 
  
  An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
  that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
  a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
  or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
  a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
  misleading impression that he is simply an
  independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
  
 
 Well, had the subject been Buddhist meditation research, Vaj's 
 handle would have evoked a response. Skeptics are great
 at being mono-thematic when discussing things.
 
  This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
  after another about how TM research has been
  conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
  said is that some of it has been called in question.
  
  Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
  confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
  ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!
 
 
 What leapt out at me was Ruth using silly arguments to counter
 some of the same points about the Cambridge Handbook that
  I've made in this forum. I may be mistaken but I don't recall her
 responses being quite as simplistic and full of holes as they were
 in the Skeptics forum.
 
 Ruth: surely you can see that TIm Guy and I are not the same person?
 
 
 Or do you REALLY assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a
 different forum, despite the different rhetorical style, must be the
same
 person because there can't be more than one semi-erudite pro-TM research
 poster?
 
 
 BTW, to claim that we have similar backgrounds is rather odd. I am a
massive
 underachiever: taught myself Calculus when I was 15 by reading a
book. Surely
 you had to notice that our respective perspectives concerning the
Science 
 were at two levels of sophistication? Or, again, perhaps you simply
assume that
 anyone who disagrees with you must be ineddicated.
 
 
 Sheesh.
 
 
 L

Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
based on a personal message.  Okie dokie.  

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
[...]
 Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
 studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
 were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
 insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
 back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
 silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
 both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
 the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
 only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.


And you know this because,,,?

ALthough, I'm told the authors are aware of the studies they omitted, but they
won't discuss them because they don't have a theoretical framework to put 
them in and therefore they can't be of any value.


Lawson

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
 studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
 were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
 insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
 back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
 silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
 both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
 the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
 only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.

It turns out many TM research TB's do talk like that. So even though  
it sounds like L., you do hear similar or identical patterns of denial  
from other TM TB's. It's eerie. Many TM folks simply believed what  
they told and never really looked into the matters objectively--I  
certainly know that I didn't for decades. And most have no real  
background in science, statistics, physiology or research. It was very  
exciting to believe that the claims were all true and that you were  
part of this imaginary exalted tradition. It's not easy or even  
believable when you find out different and the tenacity of the denial  
seems proportional to the ego-investment and attachment we have to the  
technique.

The fact is, it's never good to be attached to ANY technique.

It's also difficult to admit to ourselves that an org that put out  
some of the most beautiful presentations, advertisements and  
publications--often painstakingly executed--is not really interested  
in using science as a tool of truth, but just gold-gilding it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 [...]
  Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
  studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
  were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
  insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
  back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
  silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
  both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
  the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
  only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
 
 
 And you know this because,,,?
 
 ALthough, I'm told the authors are aware of the studies they
omitted, but they
 won't discuss them because they don't have a theoretical framework
to put 
 them in and therefore they can't be of any value.
 
 
 Lawson

They said that they reviewed them.  Who told you that they don't have
the theoretical framework?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
 apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
 based on a personal message.  Okie dokie.



Um, feeling defensive are we?

Fact is, you asked a question sincerely and I answered it sincerely but I
was so stunned by the difference in writing style between Tim Guy and
myself that I felt a need to bring it to everyone's attention. Yes, technically
revealing the content of a private email is a no-no, but seriously, are
you upset because I revealed your private email, or merely because I let 
everyone see how strange your question was in the first place.

There is NO WAY (as far as I can see) that you could have gotten the impression
that we were the same person based on our writing styles. I can only
conclude, as Judy has suggested, that you assume that there can't be more
than one person who makes the same arguments, regardless of the rhewtorical
style used to make them.

THAT was what I was dissing you for: even entertaining for a moment the 
thought that we were the same person based on our writing styles ...

Not to mention that he is a far better (or at least more accurate) typist them 
I am.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
   You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
   to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
   styles and background are similar.
   
   http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
  positive-study-
   meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-296
   
   http://tinyurl.com/copqlw
   
   Do you really perceive my style and background as
   the same as, or even similar to, Mr Guy's?
   
   Goodness. I mean, we both appear to be native
   English speakers, but beyond that?
  
   Seriously.
  
  Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
  Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
  Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
  who have looked at the research in question and come
  to the same conclusions independently, now, could
  there?
 
 Thing is, Ruth claimed that our writing styles were similar.
 
 I guess I could write like Mr. Guy. It wouldn't be that hard.
 All I would need to do is type properly. Then I would need
 to write in short sentences with no commas. Or very few.
 
 
 Actually, it's harder than it looked: I have a tendency to 
 think parenthetically, and trying to marshal my words in
 a way that duplicates his style, really cramps mine, I found.
 
 
 Not to mention that my arguments would have more meat to them,
 seeing that I've argued with Skeptics on their home turf before, 
 and know the language they use.
 
 
 
  
  An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
  that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
  a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
  or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
  a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
  misleading impression that he is simply an
  independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
  
 
 Well, had the subject been Buddhist meditation research, Vaj's 
 handle would have evoked a response. Skeptics are great
 at being mono-thematic when discussing things.
 
  This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
  after another about how TM research has been
  conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
  said is that some of it has been called in question.
  
  Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
  confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
  ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!
 
 
 What leapt out at me was Ruth using silly arguments to counter
 some of the same points about the Cambridge Handbook that
  I've made in this forum. I may be mistaken but I don't recall her
 responses being quite as simplistic and full of holes as they were
 in the Skeptics forum.
 
 Ruth: surely you can see that TIm Guy and I are not the same person?
 
 
 Or do you REALLY assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a
 different forum, despite the different rhetorical style, must be the
same
 person because there can't be more than one semi-erudite pro-TM research
 poster?
 
 
 BTW, to claim that we have similar backgrounds is rather odd. I am a
massive
 underachiever: taught myself Calculus when I was 15 by reading a
book. Surely
 you had to notice that our respective perspectives concerning the
Science 
 were at two levels of sophistication? Or, again, perhaps you simply
assume that
 anyone who disagrees with you must be ineddicated.
 
 
 Sheesh.
 
 
 L

Vaj did not confuse EEG coherence with the ME hypothesis.  He spoke
briefly but he isn't confused.  However, the ME hypothesis is somewhat
confusing and you can be fed slightly different stuff in different
places.  

But:
http://www.vedicknowledge.com/yogic_flying.html

Research has also established that the TM-Sidhi Programme cultures a
profound integration of brain functioning (EEG coherence), promoting
an optimal state of brain functioning that provides the basis for the
unfoldment of an individual's full creative intelligence. During Yogic
Flying individuals experience significant positive correlations
between the abundance of alpha EEG coherence in four regions of the
brain and the experience of self-referral consciousness. This
coherence and integration of brain functioning is maximum at the
moment the body lifts up into the air.

When Yogic Flying is practised collectively, the coherence of brain
functioning creates a positive and harmonious influence in the
environment, reducing negative tendencies and promoting positive,
harmonious trends throughout the whole society.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
  studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
  were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
  insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
  back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
  silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
  both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
  the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
  only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
 
 It turns out many TM research TB's do talk like that. So even though  
 it sounds like L., you do hear similar or identical patterns of denial  
 from other TM TB's. It's eerie. Many TM folks simply believed what  
 they told and never really looked into the matters objectively--I  
 certainly know that I didn't for decades. And most have no real  
 background in science, statistics, physiology or research. It was very  
 exciting to believe that the claims were all true and that you were  
 part of this imaginary exalted tradition. It's not easy or even  
 believable when you find out different and the tenacity of the denial  
 seems proportional to the ego-investment and attachment we have to the  
 technique.
 
 The fact is, it's never good to be attached to ANY technique.
 
 It's also difficult to admit to ourselves that an org that put out  
 some of the most beautiful presentations, advertisements and  
 publications--often painstakingly executed--is not really interested  
 in using science as a tool of truth, but just gold-gilding it.


Which has nothing to do with the points I made about Ruth's mistaking me
for Tim Guy, and certainly, pot, kettle, black. applies here as far as your
defense of the Buddhist meditation studies you constantly cite, goes.

Ruth's own defense appears to be that she can't conceive of the possibility 
that any OTHER group of meditation practitioners might have biases that 
creep into evaluating and/or producing a body of resarch and since she 
is already biased against TM research, anyone who criticizes it or comes 
to contrary conclusions about it must be a  good guy, unlike Mr. Tim.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
  [...]
   Pardon me.  You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
   studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
   were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked.  I certainly meant no
   insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
   back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
   silly about my arguments.  However, the one thing that bugged me about
   both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
   the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored.  They
   only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
  
  
  And you know this because,,,?
  
  ALthough, I'm told the authors are aware of the studies they
 omitted, but they
  won't discuss them because they don't have a theoretical framework
 to put 
  them in and therefore they can't be of any value.
  
  
  Lawson
 
 They said that they reviewed them.  Who told you that they don't have
 the theoretical framework?


Well, privledged email information slipping out again but its obvious from
the fact that 20 years research was ignored that they don't have a theoretical
framework to put it in, or are you seriously suggesting that every single 
EEG study published by the TMO in the past 20 years can be dismissed
 by citing a psychological study in 1986 and claiming there is no physiological 
evidence to support the proposed theory?

L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, sparaig wrote:

Which has nothing to do with the points I made about Ruth's  
mistaking me
for Tim Guy, and certainly, pot, kettle, black. applies here as  
far as your

defense of the Buddhist meditation studies you constantly cite, goes.


Well that's your false assumption. You're assuming I defend all  
Buddhist meditation studies, but in fact I generally only discuss ones  
I find valuable or interesting and scientifically viable. Many do not  
interest me. And my interest actually extends to all types of  
meditation research that I consider either interesting or noteworthy  
and which adhere to a certain amount or scientific rigor and whose  
researchers are credible.


I'm particularly interested in bona fide research on higher states of  
consciousness, esp. the higher meditative absorptions and rapture  
states.


Ruth's own defense appears to be that she can't conceive of the  
possibility
that any OTHER group of meditation practitioners might have biases  
that

creep into evaluating and/or producing a body of resarch and since she
is already biased against TM research, anyone who criticizes it or  
comes
to contrary conclusions about it must be a  good guy, unlike Mr.  
Tim.



Well, it sounds like mind reading to me Lawson. You'd like to think  
this is what Ruth believes, but is it really? I'd hold off on that  
1-900 number for now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
  apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
  based on a personal message.  Okie dokie.
 
 
 
 Um, feeling defensive are we?
 


Defensive is not the word.   It is the fact that there is not enough
of a level of trust between us that I can't even ask a private
question off hand without you using it as a gotcha on the public
forum.Personally, I never disclose what people say to me in a pm
unless they make a disclosure first. Some people here have shared
private information with me, including who they are in real life.  I
hope people here see now how risky that could be if you share with the
wrong person.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... 
wrote:
snip

[I wrote:]
   Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
   confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
   ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!

(Note that it was I who pointed out Vaj's confusion here,
yet Ruth can't bring herself to respond to my post, she
has to do it indirectly via her exchange with Lawson.
Funny.)

[Ruth wrote:]
 Vaj did not confuse EEG coherence with the ME hypothesis.

I didn't say he confused EEG coherence with the ME
hypothesis (see above); it's not possible to confuse
an EEG feature with a hypothesis. What I said was
that he confused the EEG *hypotheses* with the ME
hypothesis. Minor point, but typical of Ruth's
sloppiness.

  He spoke
 briefly but he isn't confused.  However, the ME
 hypothesis is somewhat confusing and you can be
 fed slightly different stuff in different places.  
 
 But:
 http://www.vedicknowledge.com/yogic_flying.html
 
 Research has also established that the TM-Sidhi
 Programme cultures a profound integration of brain
 functioning (EEG coherence), promoting an optimal
 state of brain functioning that provides the basis
 for the unfoldment of an individual's full creative
 intelligence. During Yogic Flying individuals
 experience significant positive correlations between
 the abundance of alpha EEG coherence in four regions
 of the brain and the experience of self-referral
 consciousness. This coherence and integration of
 brain functioning is maximum at the moment the body
 lifts up into the air.
 
 When Yogic Flying is practised collectively, the
 coherence of brain functioning creates a positive and
 harmonious influence in the environment, reducing
 negative tendencies and promoting positive, harmonious
 trends throughout the whole society.

And here's what Vaj wrote (briefly,
according to Ruth, and I haven't quoted all of 
even this one post!):

A popular claim of TM researchers is that EEG 
alpha-coherence is produced by TM and the TM-Sidhi
Program and when done with many people, this
coherence spreads to the surrounding area, making
people more peaceful and that it has the potential
to lead to world peace.

Note the difference: The quote from the TM site
does not say the EEG coherence spreads from the
meditators to the population, but rather that the
meditators' coherence has a harmonious influence
in the environment.

Vaj continues:

This claim is debunked in the recent neuroscience
textbook, The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness,
which includes a detailed paper on meditation
research in general. The paper is entitled
'Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness'
and can be found in pre-press PDF format on the web.

Note that this paper does not address the ME
hypothesis at all, so it can hardly be said to
debunk the claims for the ME.

Here it is:

http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2006/Lutz.Meditation
Intro.Chapter.InPress.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/aotjqx

Vaj goes on:

The paper rather succinctly points out that the type
of alpha coherence found in TM meditators is really
no different than the ranges normally found in
humans. So therefore any claims about the uniqueness
of the TM [sic] and 'the claim that alpha oscillations
and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an
original and higher state of consciousness seem [sic]
quite premature.'

Completely different set of claims than those for the
ME. Moreover, the study the authors reference to
support what Vaj quotes is from *1977* and has nothing
to do, again, with the Maharishi Effect or even the
TM-Sidhis; it deals only with plain-vanilla TM.

Finally, note that seem [sic] quite premature hardly
constitutes a debunking even of the claim it does
reference.

Here's the final paragraph of that post of Vaj's:

The overall impression I'm left with in regards to
TM research is one a of pseudoscience 'marketing cult' 
where 'sciencey' sounding claims are used to foster
a false sense of product superiority.

Note the attempt to portray himself as a disinterested
observer. He pretty much blows that carefully designed
pose in later posts in the discussion, though.

And finally finally, the section of the Handbook study
Vaj quotes from includes this gem:

...The initial claim that TM produces a unique state
of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted
by several EEG meditation studies which reported
sleeplike stages during this technique with increased
alpha and then theta power (Pagano, Rose, Stivers, 
Warrenburg, 1976; Younger, Adriance,  Berger, 1975).

I've pointed out before several times here that this
reveals rather astounding ignorance of what TM
actually claims on the part of the researchers.

TM does *not* claim a unique state of consciousness
different than sleep exists *throughout* a TM
meditation session, such that the finding of
sleeplike stages would constitute not just a
rebuttal but a *refutation*, for heaven's sake. TM
researchers (and virtually 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Which has nothing to do with the points I made
  about Ruth's mistaking me for Tim Guy, and
  certainly, pot, kettle, black. applies here as  
  far as your defense of the Buddhist meditation 
 studies you constantly cite, goes.
 
 Well that's your false assumption. You're assuming
 I defend all Buddhist meditation studies

False. Look at what Lawson wrote: He refers to your
defense of the Buddhist meditation studies you
constantly cite.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 
 
 Well, privledged email information slipping out again but its
obvious from
 the fact that 20 years research was ignored that they don't have a
theoretical
 framework to put it in, or are you seriously suggesting that every
single 
 EEG study published by the TMO in the past 20 years can be dismissed
  by citing a psychological study in 1986 and claiming there is no
physiological 
 evidence to support the proposed theory?
 
 L


No point in us arguing this.  We disagree as to their conclusions. 
Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant interest. 

It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the
theoretical framework is for their work. 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 No point in us arguing this.  We disagree as to their conclusions.
 Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
 that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
 sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant  
 interest.

 It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the
 theoretical framework is for their work.


Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most  
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section  
editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,  
esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man  
who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.

These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)

But I agree, it's probably not worth discussing without someone  
willing to be honest and objective. Fundamentalists aren't likely to  
change their beliefs, but they will do whatever they can to obfuscate  
and misdirect, a form of dishonesty common in fundamentalists of many  
sorts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  No point in us arguing this.  We disagree as to their conclusions.
  Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
  that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
  sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant  
  interest.
 
  It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the
  theoretical framework is for their work.
 
 
 Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most  
 qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section  
 editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,  
 esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man  
 who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
 
 These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
 
 But I agree, it's probably not worth discussing without someone  
 willing to be honest and objective. Fundamentalists aren't likely to  
 change their beliefs, but they will do whatever they can to obfuscate  
 and misdirect, a form of dishonesty common in fundamentalists of many  
 sorts.

Yes, there is no way to even talk about it.  Instead, vague
accusations of not having the proper theoretical framework are made. 
I hope some other posters here read the article as it is worth
reading.

For the record, Vaj and I are not always in agreement. Vaj is a mystic
and I am not.  

Oh well, this all makes me tired.  The more I read actual TM studies
the more put off I am.  Here, we just talk about people who talk about
the studies.  Rarely do we actually talk about a particular study,
which is the only thing of relevance. When I first was on this board I
had not looked at TM research for years and years and was a bit
interested to see how things had developed. I am starting to lose
interest.   

I am also frustrated that so many journals publish crap.   Not just TM
crap, but crap in general.  The signal to noise ratio is way off. Part
of the problem is NCCAM.  It needs to be tossed in the garbage. 
Instead of spending time here I should be working to abolish NCCAM.  

Which will be on my list of things to participate in over the next few
months.  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  No point in us arguing this.  We disagree as to their conclusions.
  Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
  that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
  sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant  
  interest.
 
  It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the
  theoretical framework is for their work.
 
 
 Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most  
 qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section  
 editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,  
 esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man  
 who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
 
 These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
 

Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.

Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more likely
a researcher has biases, just because.

 But I agree, it's probably not worth discussing without someone  
 willing to be honest and objective. Fundamentalists aren't likely to  
 change their beliefs, but they will do whatever they can to obfuscate  
 and misdirect, a form of dishonesty common in fundamentalists of many  
 sorts.


Pot, kettle black time again, Vaj.


L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
  
   No point in us arguing this.  We disagree as to their conclusions.
   Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
   that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
   sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant  
   interest.
  
   It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the
   theoretical framework is for their work.
  
  
  Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most  
  qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section  
  editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,  
  esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man  
  who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
  
  These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
  
  But I agree, it's probably not worth discussing without someone  
  willing to be honest and objective. Fundamentalists aren't likely to  
  change their beliefs, but they will do whatever they can to obfuscate  
  and misdirect, a form of dishonesty common in fundamentalists of many  
  sorts.
 
 Yes, there is no way to even talk about it.  Instead, vague
 accusations of not having the proper theoretical framework are made. 
 I hope some other posters here read the article as it is worth
 reading.
 
 For the record, Vaj and I are not always in agreement. Vaj is a mystic
 and I am not.  
 
 Oh well, this all makes me tired.  The more I read actual TM studies
 the more put off I am.  Here, we just talk about people who talk about
 the studies.  Rarely do we actually talk about a particular study,
 which is the only thing of relevance. When I first was on this board I
 had not looked at TM research for years and years and was a bit
 interested to see how things had developed. I am starting to lose
 interest.   
 
 I am also frustrated that so many journals publish crap.   Not just TM
 crap, but crap in general.  The signal to noise ratio is way off. Part
 of the problem is NCCAM.  It needs to be tossed in the garbage. 
 Instead of spending time here I should be working to abolish NCCAM.  
 
 Which will be on my list of things to participate in over the next few
 months.


Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent
peer review?

L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:

 Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
 qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
 editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,
 esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
 who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.

 These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)


 Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.

 Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more likely
 a researcher has biases, just because.


I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields  
have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It  
behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:


 
 
 Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent
 peer review?
 
 L

Peer review alone is not going to cut it.  Instead, far more rigorous
methodologies have to be required before funding.  Interestingly,
Orme-Johnson on his site  acknowledges that MUM researchers tend
towards favoring type 2 error rather than type 1.  So, there will be
more false positives. I think in general we are getting way too many
false positives in research and especially in research where you
simply can't double blind.  Plus, controlling for the placebo effect
of meditation is difficult.  After all, to do TM you have to go
through the lectures and the puja, all done by true believers.  Simply
saying sit and relax for 20 minutes is not going to control for
placebo.  Nor is health education (which in my experience people find
boring and tune out or scary and tune out).  It is a tough problem to
get your hands around. But I digress.

I think NCCAM has to go because too much money is going to
pseudo-science.  After spending a billion dollars no important results
have come out of NCCAM research.  NCCAM has endorsed nothing as a
result of the research.  Too much money going to waste on stuff that
simply is not scientific.  For example, prayer is not scientific, it
doesn't have a scientific basis on which to hang a theory.  NCCAM was
supposed to help sort out pseudo-science from science but instead is
giving an illusion of respectability to pseudo-science. 

For those who are interested, Orme-Johnson says:

I would say that the faculty of Maharishi University of Management
tend to be in the Type 2 camp with regard to the Transcendental
Meditation program.  They came to the university because of their own
personal experiences that the program benefited of them, and they will
tend to see it as a good thing.  Therefore, in the research process,
they will be reluctant to declare a finding as negative before they
have examined it in many different ways and thought a great deal about
alternative interpretations or experimental factors which may have
explained the outcome.  On the other hand, those who have not had the
same experiences and intuition may be demand more stringent tests. 
Just because the researchers at Maharishi University of Management may
have a Type 2 attitude does not mean that they less objective than
anyone else. The research practices in place at the university listed
above provide a strong set of checks and balances making sure that the
research stays on track according to the highest standards of science.
 In the long-run, the scientific method and objectivity will win out
over the inevitable diverse subjective propensities of individual
researchers.

I have an interesting survey study for MUM to do at very little cost.
Teach 100 people to do TM in the US over the course of a year.  Check
back for each participant in a year, in two years and in five years to
see if they are still meditating. I'll finance the research.  It will
be blinded with no one knowing which of all the meditators taught are
part of the study.  Teacher's wont even be informed of the study.
Surveyors will be independent. 

I really would like to see them research unstressing. 


 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
  qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
  editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,
  esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
  who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
 
  These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
 
 
  Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.
 
  Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more likely
  a researcher has biases, just because.
 
 
 I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields  
 have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It  
 behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.


So the fact that Davidson literally wrote teh book on the significance of
EEG asymmetry doesn't imply he's more likely bound to theories that
support his published work, as opposed to theories and research that
call into question his work?

Jujst about every philsopher of science I'm familiar with from Kuhn to Lakatos
points out the exact opposite: established figures in a field tend to be
the least open-minded about theories and studies  that conflict with their own 
theories and findings.

Of course, it goes both ways: TM researchers have an extreme emotional 
attachment to studies that confirm MMY's theories.


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
 
  
  
  Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent
  peer review?
  
  L
 
 Peer review alone is not going to cut it.  Instead, far more rigorous
 methodologies have to be required before funding.  Interestingly,
 Orme-Johnson on his site  acknowledges that MUM researchers tend
 towards favoring type 2 error rather than type 1.  So, there will be
 more false positives. I think in general we are getting way too many
 false positives in research and especially in research where you
 simply can't double blind.  Plus, controlling for the placebo effect
 of meditation is difficult.  After all, to do TM you have to go
 through the lectures and the puja, all done by true believers.  Simply
 saying sit and relax for 20 minutes is not going to control for
 placebo.  Nor is health education (which in my experience people find
 boring and tune out or scary and tune out).  It is a tough problem to
 get your hands around. But I digress.
 
 I think NCCAM has to go because too much money is going to
 pseudo-science.  After spending a billion dollars no important results
 have come out of NCCAM research.  NCCAM has endorsed nothing as a
 result of the research.  Too much money going to waste on stuff that
 simply is not scientific.  For example, prayer is not scientific, it
 doesn't have a scientific basis on which to hang a theory.  NCCAM was
 supposed to help sort out pseudo-science from science but instead is
 giving an illusion of respectability to pseudo-science. 
 
 For those who are interested, Orme-Johnson says:
 
 I would say that the faculty of Maharishi University of Management
 tend to be in the Type 2 camp with regard to the Transcendental
 Meditation program.  They came to the university because of their own
 personal experiences that the program benefited of them, and they will
 tend to see it as a good thing.  Therefore, in the research process,
 they will be reluctant to declare a finding as negative before they
 have examined it in many different ways and thought a great deal about
 alternative interpretations or experimental factors which may have
 explained the outcome.  On the other hand, those who have not had the
 same experiences and intuition may be demand more stringent tests. 
 Just because the researchers at Maharishi University of Management may
 have a Type 2 attitude does not mean that they less objective than
 anyone else. The research practices in place at the university listed
 above provide a strong set of checks and balances making sure that the
 research stays on track according to the highest standards of science.
  In the long-run, the scientific method and objectivity will win out
 over the inevitable diverse subjective propensities of individual
 researchers.
 
 I have an interesting survey study for MUM to do at very little cost.
 Teach 100 people to do TM in the US over the course of a year.  Check
 back for each participant in a year, in two years and in five years to
 see if they are still meditating. I'll finance the research.  It will
 be blinded with no one knowing which of all the meditators taught are
 part of the study.  Teacher's wont even be informed of the study.
 Surveyors will be independent. 


WEll, there have been studies of that sort. Depending on the group the TM
dropout rate can be huge, or relatively small.

I don't know of any research that attempts to replicate, letalone categorize,
the various dropout rates reported in the studies on various groups (e.g.
rest home residents or smokers or high school students or etc).

 
 I really would like to see them research unstressing.


MMY's admonishment not to publish negative research probably comes into
play here.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
  qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
  editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,
  esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
  who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
 
  These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
 
 
  Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.
 
  Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more likely
  a researcher has biases, just because.
 
 
 I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields  
 have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It  
 behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.


  I read a study recently about the more expertise a person has in a
certain area, the more likely that person will see a pattern in their
area of expertise, to the extent of seeing patterns where there are
none. (sorry, no cite, it was of all things a study of philosophy
professors--I have been into pattern research lately).  The false
positive problem.  However, this is the opposite from what Lawson
describes, which I believe to be far less likely to occur, that of an
expert not seeing a pattern when there is one.  

In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked. 
Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points or your
IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
interesting. 

It is hard to get people to be interested in the ME research when the
TMO says violent crime goes down but not murder because murder went up
for other reasons.  One pattern for one type of crime.  Another
pattern for another type of crime. Calming plus phase transition. 
Scientists eyes will roll because there isn't a consistent theory--no
matter what the theory is right.  It is like Haglin predicting the
stock market will go up and up because of the meditators but then it
goes down for the phase transition.  

To bring this around, Haglin was a highly trained pattern spotter in
his field.  The problem is that he sees patterns in everything.  Yes,
John Haglin, there is coincidence.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:

 I read a study recently about the more expertise a person has 
 in a certain area, the more likely that person will see a 
 pattern in their area of expertise, to the extent of seeing 
 patterns where there are none. 

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. 
In the expert's mind there are few. 
- Shunryu Suzuki 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  I read a study recently about the more expertise a person has 
  in a certain area, the more likely that person will see a 
  pattern in their area of expertise, to the extent of seeing 
  patterns where there are none. 
 
 In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. 
 In the expert's mind there are few. 
 - Shunryu Suzuki


Not really what I am thinking about.   The expert sees many
possibilities in the field of expertise, to the extent that they see
things that don't exist.  

The beginner doesn't have enough of a background to see all those
possibilities. 

For example,  the psychiatrist who treats a problem with his kid like
it is a mental health issue when it is just the kid being a brat.   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:



On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:


Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the  
section
editor of the state of the art work on Human  
electroencephalography,

esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.

These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)



Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.

Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more  
likely

a researcher has biases, just because.



I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields
have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It
behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.



So the fact that Davidson literally wrote teh book on the  
significance of

EEG asymmetry doesn't imply he's more likely bound to theories that
support his published work, as opposed to theories and research that
call into question his work?

Jujst about every philsopher of science I'm familiar with from Kuhn  
to Lakatos
points out the exact opposite: established figures in a field tend  
to be
the least open-minded about theories and studies  that conflict with  
their own

theories and findings.



If a researcher is truly interested in rigorously applying a null  
hypothesis--in other words if s/he has some integrity--s/he should be  
looking for whatever they can to find what might falsify it, to the  
point of being hypervigilant.


I would suspect the opposite of what you describe could be true in  
honest inquiry.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
 results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
 the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
 is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
 Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points or your
 IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
 to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
 interesting.


Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the actual  
figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously insignificant  
result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll instead  
push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
news. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[I am the eternal]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:

 On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
 results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
 the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
 is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
 Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points or your
 IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
 to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
 interesting.


 Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the actual
 figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously insignificant
 result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure
 0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll instead
 push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood
 pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate
 the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,
 instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet
 news.

I was on a two week residence course years ago in a place outside of
Quebec in a former ski chalet.  Lac Beauport, if I recall. They ran
out of meditator tapes so they started to showing us ATR tapes (big
place for ATR).  In one tape Maharishi was talking about this very
thing.  Actually teaching how to speak the truth to the point that it
was so sweet it became a lie.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
  
   Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
   qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the
section
   editor of the state of the art work on Human
electroencephalography,
   esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
   who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
  
   These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
  
  
   Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.
  
   Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more
likely
   a researcher has biases, just because.
  
  
  I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their
fields  
  have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It  
  behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.
 
 
 So the fact that Davidson literally wrote teh book on the
significance of
 EEG asymmetry doesn't imply he's more likely bound to theories that
 support his published work, as opposed to theories and research that
 call into question his work?
 
 Jujst about every philsopher of science I'm familiar with from Kuhn
to Lakatos
 points out the exact opposite: established figures in a field tend to be
 the least open-minded about theories and studies  that conflict with
their own 
 theories and findings.
 
 Of course, it goes both ways: TM researchers have an extreme emotional 
 attachment to studies that confirm MMY's theories.
 
 
 Lawson


I understand your bias issue and I think that there are a lot of
individual differences on how much a person wants to hold onto a
theory.  But yes, it is a problem and we all have a degree of bias. 
We want to be right. We get married to our ideas.   However, I am not
prepared to conclude that there were research results (emphasis on
results) that conflicted with Davidson's theories or his results.   
And, Davidson does not seem to have set in stone theories on
mediation, he appears to see learning about mediation as a process.  I
do think that there is little question that Davidson is as suited as
anyone to evaluate the evidence and theories.  His background is
appropriately suited to look at alternative meditation theories.  

 I certainly can understand discounting a theory if your analysis
indicates that the theory is not supported by the evidence or that the
evidence is so weak that it is not worth considering at this point. We
all do that all the time.  It is the only way to function in a
complicated world.  

Pseudo scientific theories come up all the time.  Like laying on of
the hands to heal.  When these theories are criticized, it is the
critics who seem to get accused of bias, of having an unwillingness to
expand their world view. I say the burden is on the proponent.  Be
interesting.  Find results and people will take note.  But if you
treat your research like it is for sales purposes and always ignore
the negative, you are going to get discounted or at least distrusted
and it is your own fault. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Duveyoung]

Vaj wrote: Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the
most qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the
section editor of the state of the art work on Human
electroencephalography, esp. electroencephalography and meditation.
Davidson's also the man who's systematically mapped the correlates of
alpha.

Vaj,

You know, my humble nature has heretofore stopped me from discussing
this issue, and even now I hesitate despite having the best reason --
that being that someone is, for the millionth time, discussing me, YET
AGAIN, in the scientific literature.

Frankly, I feel, well, used.  

And, hey, isn't it obvious that the researcher who would be the most
qualified man to comment on me would be me?  But do I ever get anyone
asking for my opinion about me? NO!

There oughta be a law.

EDG

oh, um, that's EEG not EDG.NEVER MIND.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
 
  On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
  qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the  
  section
  editor of the state of the art work on Human  
  electroencephalography,
  esp. electroencephalography and meditation. Davidson's also the man
  who's systematically mapped the correlates of alpha.
 
  These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-)
 
 
  Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise.
 
  Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more  
  likely
  a researcher has biases, just because.
 
 
  I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields
  have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It
  behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice.
 
 
  So the fact that Davidson literally wrote teh book on the  
  significance of
  EEG asymmetry doesn't imply he's more likely bound to theories that
  support his published work, as opposed to theories and research that
  call into question his work?
 
  Jujst about every philsopher of science I'm familiar with from Kuhn  
  to Lakatos
  points out the exact opposite: established figures in a field tend  
  to be
  the least open-minded about theories and studies  that conflict with  
  their own
  theories and findings.
 
 
 If a researcher is truly interested in rigorously applying a null  
 hypothesis--in other words if s/he has some integrity--s/he should be  
 looking for whatever they can to find what might falsify it, to the  
 point of being hypervigilant.
 
 I would suspect the opposite of what you describe could be true in  
 honest inquiry.


So why do you think someone is honest while someone else is dishonest?

Fact is, both the experienced, famous researcher, and the True Believer have 
reasons to cling to a certain world view. THat doesn't make them worse or 
better, only points out the possibility that both can fall into the same trap.


L

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:

 
 On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
 
  In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
  results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
  the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
  is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
  Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points or your
  IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
  to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
  interesting.
 
 
 Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the actual  
 figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously insignificant  
 result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
 0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll instead  
 push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
 pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
 the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
 instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
 news.


Marketing is another issue.


L