Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Putting meditation to the test (2011)

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#31

Post by DanBC »

goodJobWalrus wrote: post #30
qrendel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least.

> It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least. But this is really true for any activity. You don't know you'll like it until you try it. If you tried it and didn't like you wasted your time. The only problem I see is if you continue to do meditation even if you don't enjoy it because you believe in benefits. But like wit…

> You don't know you'll like it until you try it.

Article isn't about whether you enjoy it or not; article is about whether it has benefits or not.

In that specific context "I think it brings me benefits" is not good enough even though "I enjoy it" is.

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#32

Post by icebraining »

goodJobWalrus wrote: post #30
qrendel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least.

> It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least. But this is really true for any activity. You don't know you'll like it until you try it. If you tried it and didn't like you wasted your time. The only problem I see is if you continue to do meditation even if you don't enjoy it because you believe in benefits. But like wit…

The problem with meditation, and similar "experiences that can't be described", is that you never know if you tried it long enough or well enough to actually enjoy it, or if it simply doesn't work for you.

Working out, at least if done correctly - which can be assessed by others - will provide some benefits even if you never get to enjoy it.

And the loss is not just wasted time - it's the feelings of frustration and low self-esteem that come from the perception that you're failing without having idea how to improve.

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#33

Post by mbrock »

meagain20000 wrote: post #28
davzie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm, I worry about where I might have gone if it hadn't been for meditation pulling me out. It's impossible to put into words what it does for you, you're right, you just have to try it without any pre-conceived notion of what you want to get from it which for some, is too wild an idea.

Devil's advocate here. Lots people say the same thing about religion. In fact, you could almost replace meditation with religion in your comment. Quite illuminating.

And it's probably true for religion too. That doesn't constitute a counterargument. The negative aspects of religion (for example, you can argue that religious faith is exclusionary and confusing, and so on) don't carry over to meditation just because they have something in common.

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#34

Post by nichochar »

Although I'm a fan of meditation, and actually do think it increases focus, I think the experiment they conducted is not very scientific:

>Headed by Katherine MacLean at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, the study measured the volunteers’ attention skills by showing them a succession of vertical lines flashed up on a computer screen. They then had to indicate, by clicking a mouse, whenever there was a line shorter than the rest. As the retreat progressed, MacLean and her colleagues noted that the volunteers became progressively more accurate and found it increasingly easy to stay focused on the task for long periods.

I feel like I could also get better at it just by practicing... At least I think they should have benchmarked the experiment by comparing to people not meditating 5 hours a day, this is just inductive reasoning to me.

This being said, I love meditating and have found it to bring lots of good benefits to me. I find that focus can be trained in better ways, but meditation is great at making me enjoy the present moment, and take my time more.

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#35

Post by maroonblazer »

nichochar wrote: post #34

Although I'm a fan of meditation, and actually do think it increases focus, I think the experiment they conducted is not very scientific: >Headed by Katherine MacLean at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, the study measured the volunteers’ attention skills by showing them a succession of vertical lines flashed up on a computer screen. They then had to indicate, by clicking a mouse, whenever the…

>I find that focus can be trained in better ways

Such as?

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#37

Post by goodJobWalrus »

DanBC wrote: post #31
goodJobWalrus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least. But this is really true for any activity. You don't know you'll like it until you try it. If you tried it and didn't like you wasted your time. The only problem I see is if you continue to do meditation even if you don't enjoy it because you believe in benefits. But like wit…

> You don't know you'll like it until you try it. Article isn't about whether you enjoy it or not; article is about whether it has benefits or not. In that specific context "I think it brings me benefits" is not good enough even though "I enjoy it" is.

I was responding to a guy/gal that was wondering whether to try it if there is no hard evidence that it is beneficial. My answer to that is: try it, if you like it, it doesn't matter whether there are all those claimed benefits. The fact that you like it is enough a reason to do it.

If you don't like it, even if there are benefits (like there are from working out) and even if you know there are, you likely won't stick to it anyways (like most people don't stick to exercise regimes).

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#38

Post by goodJobWalrus »

icebraining wrote: post #32
goodJobWalrus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not really "no harm done" - the opportunity cost of wasting time that could be spent on other activities is a deterrent, for me at least. But this is really true for any activity. You don't know you'll like it until you try it. If you tried it and didn't like you wasted your time. The only problem I see is if you continue to do meditation even if you don't enjoy it because you believe in benefits. But like wit…

The problem with meditation, and similar "experiences that can't be described", is that you never know if you tried it long enough or well enough to actually enjoy it, or if it simply doesn't work for you. Working out, at least if done correctly - which can be assessed by others - will provide some benefits even if you never get to enjoy it. And the loss is not just wasted time - it's the feelings of frustration and…

> The problem with meditation, and similar "experiences that can't be described", is that you never know if you tried it long enough or well enough to actually enjoy it

But this is also true for most activities (playing a violin, playing tennis, or programming). Still, we decide whether any of it is for us by trying it. People who get into it, stay in it for long enough to really learn it and get benefits of it, people who don't get into it, and don't enjoy it on some level drop it quickly. I'm not saying that this is theoretically the best way to explore new activities, it's more of an observation that this is how people generally do it and that meditation is no different. You try it, and it either does something for you (enough to keep doing it), or it doesn't and you drop it.

Re: Putting meditation to the test (2011)

#39

Post by zafka »

niccaluim wrote: post #19
fit2rule wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its also how science fails to take root: by discouraging people from trying things, just because it hasn't been rubber-stamped by the authorities yet ..

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - William Paley

I have always loved that quote, now I find I have been mis-attributing it for close to 30 years... For quite some time it had been attributed to Herbert Spencer
Post reply on HN