6 ms·

Where's the Proof That Mindfulness Works?

54 points by xriddle 9y ago

magic_beans 9y ago
Try it.
- Wellshit 9y ago
  Found the Guru
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive or uncivil comments here.
- bybjorn 9y ago
  Well, it isn't scientific proof, at least.
- coffee9 9y ago
  Worked for acupuncture, right? Buddhism can be incredibly superstitious and anything associated with it requires skepticism.
- Y_Y 9y ago
  What are you implying? That the fact that Buddhism exists means mindfulness is an effective way of dealing with stress and pain? You could say the same of alcohol or Christianity or depression.
  - olleromam91 9y ago
    Do you know of cases where people have to be counseled for harmful effects of meditation?
- jgtrosh 9y ago
  That seems to me like little more than an appeal to tradition. I suppose the argument goes “if Buddhists didn't benefit from their mindfulness, Buddhism wouldn't have lasted so long” ? That hardly seems falsifiable because it relies on historical evolution of communities correlated to a one-parameter model of individuals. Other factors could play a bigger role in the correlation.
- nabla9 9y ago
  Thousands of years of Buddhism isn't midnfullness therapy.
orasis 9y ago
You could wait for the research to be conclusive, or you could dive in right now and radically improve your life. I recommend starting with the free short book, Mindfulness In Plain English - http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20English%20Book%20Preview.pdf http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Mindfu...
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  That's kind of begging the question, though. The question is, will diving in radically improve my life? I'm not saying it won't, by the way. I myself practice something that some might consider to be mindfulness. But you are assuming facts not in evidence, as a lawyer might say.
  - bad_user 9y ago
    Evidence is hard to get due to variables in such studies. You have to observe people's daily routine for a long period of time, which gets to be expensive. You also cannot fool the subject, or the people monitoring progress, so there's no way to do such studies double-blind. For these reasons studies on nutrition are also hard and mostly flawed. But do we need a study to tell us that sugar is poison? Well, ok, we do, but we can also notice our grandparents weren't eating that much sugar, they weren't suffering that much from obesity or diabetes and that's enough for me.
    - joombaga 9y ago
      I'll grant you the note of our grandparent's diets, but I don't think it's analogous. Were our grandparents also more mindful? Perhaps I'm missing your point.
      - erikbye 9y ago
        I seem to be missing it too. You don't need mindfulness to be on a particular diet, or to avoid sugar, or obesity.
    - 9y ago
projectramo 9y ago
What would it mean for it to "work"? What would such proof look like? (Self-reports of well-being? Seems wrong)
- ierolastic 9y ago
  That's what the original paper is kind of about. The Scientific American piece is a little misleading to me, because it implies the paper is about lack of evidence, when I think the original paper is a bit deeper than that, and about definitional issues and so forth. I think the original authors might say that it's about the need to figure out what exactly is working when it does, and what works and what doesn't. Self-reports of well-being are important, because self-perceived well-being is so important to the construct. I'm not saying other perspectives aren't important, but think of it this way: if you thought you were severely lacking in well-being, but others thought you weren't, would you want others to ignore your own perspective on that?
- jgtrosh 9y ago
  Well I'm not an expert in the domain but I'd wager there's models for what happiness is, from which you can determine how to measure that. For example if you thinks it's a variable composed of self-appreciation and appreciation of others you can have a good estimate with a properly-designed study. Why would that seem wrong ? Because it could miss cases where people don't know their own happiness ? I think a model based on actual observations is more right than a hypothetical transcendental happiness. Because people could lie ? That's where the proper design of the experiment steps in. This is off the top of my head.
alexssung 9y ago
Videos of monks performing self-immolation are enough proof to me. These monks practice mindfulness meditation for decades, and as a result, they have such control over their minds that they are literally able to "ignore" the pain of being on fire and sit still through the entire duration.
- Danihan 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure I could do that too without much practice. Assuming it was an intentional choice, anyway. Your body can only handle so much pain before it basically shuts off, and then you don't feel much of anything. The real pain comes later, when you're healing. Not going to test it out though.
  - alexssung 9y ago
    No, you wouldn't be able to do that. They burn themselves to death.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      Yes, I know what it is. And yes, I think I could do it.
      - alexssung 9y ago
        And I think I could fly, but I'm not going to try. See how that works?
        Danihan 9y ago
        I've been working two full-time jobs for more than a year now while maintaining a bi-phasic sleep schedule. Think what you wish, but sitting there in pain for a few minutes while my life ends (by my own accord) doesn't seem all that difficult comparatively. I take on very hard tasks daily, and sustain work on them for a lot longer than three minutes. Don't make me challenge you to a vipassana, friendo.
11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
Engaging in mindfulness implies changing what you think about, or, where your focus is. This can be therapeutic to persons who are suffer from anxiety and depression because it interrupts periods where negative thoughts dominate their consciousness and replaces them with periods where their thoughts focused on current circumstances that are generally benign or pleasant. For persons who don't benefit from such therapy, mindfulness could mean re-focusing away from the abstract thinking that solves problems or invents or creates. Many people deliver their work product or improve their circumstances through this type of thinking. Practicing mindfulness may negatively impact them by reducing the amount of time they spend contemplating in such areas.
- NickHolt 9y ago
  > For persons who don't benefit from such therapy, mindfulness could mean re-focusing away from the abstract thinking that solves problems or invents or creates. Many people deliver their work product or improve their circumstances through this type of thinking. Practicing mindfulness may negatively impact them by reducing the amount of time they spend contemplating in such areas. I understand where you're coming from with this, as I used to also hold this (very logical) opinion. However, after meditating and engaging with Buddhist philosophy for many years, I've never felt negatively impacted in this way. I now view this opinion as resulting from an overly-simplified understanding of mindfulness.
- ineptech 9y ago
  > This can be therapeutic to persons who are suffer from... The lack of rigorous scientific support for this assertion is the entire point of this article (and the journal article it summarizes).
- thinkling 9y ago
  Just as easily I could argue that being more mindful can mean becoming more aware of the anxiety that is present, and that clearing one's mind leaves more room for clear analytical thought. I think you are analyzing from an armchair, not from a meditation cushion.
  - 9y ago
warent 9y ago
I frequently hear an argument against these practices that they're just a placebo. But wouldn't that actually be an argument for it? If the placebo makes you believe that you have less stress and greater stillness, I don't see how that's different from "really" having less stress. Which means it's not a placebo but really works. Just a food for thought. In any case aside from the endless and consistent anecdotal evidence, there is a science to it https://youtu.be/aPlG_w40qOE https://youtu.be/aPlG_w40qOE
- computerex 9y ago
  The placebo effect operates on the domain of perception. In other words, placebo is a psychological effect, which may deceive a patient into perceiving that he or she is getting better even though the sugar pills they just took had no physiological response from the body. Stress has a big psychological component, but it is also something that can be physilogically seen and can be measured. It's important to see the distinction between the psychological perception and the true physiology. Stress may not be the best example because as stated, stress has a lot to with the psychological state.
  - olleromam91 9y ago
    Stress reduction is one of the few goals of mindfulness though, so it has to be an example.
rdslw 9y ago
That google guy who wrote the book disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Inside-Yourself-Unexpected-Achieving/dp/0062116932 https://www.amazon.com/Search-Inside-Yourself-Unexpected-Ach... p.s. book is worth read IMO.
nabla9 9y ago
As someone who has meditated 20 years, 2-4 hours per day and participated in long retreats 7 days to month, I have always been skeptical about this "mindfulness business". It has it's roots in old meditation traditions, but they were never supposed to bee quick fix, relaxation or therapy. Many therapy methods work well with the therapist who developed it, but don't give good results when packaged into programs and courses. Kabat-Zinn is experienced meditator and I'm not surprised if his therapy works when he is involved. He has so much personal experience. Meditation traditions transfer their knowledge to the next generation trough training regime that takes decades. It's not (yet) science that can be transferred trough short courses and readings. I have instructed newcomers in meditation. If they have mental problems I suggest they seek therapy and do little meditation on the side. Meditation can help, but I have also seen meditation induced psychosis several times when people see it as the cure for everything. Many experienced meditator's go to normal therapy to deal with their mental problems and find it useful. Some use medication. My experience is that people with mental problems benefit more from concentrative meditation that builds one-pointedness and calmness, than pure mindfulness type awareness meditation that brings problems into the consciousness. Build strength before facing your inner dragons.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thinkling 9y ago
  My experience (personal and from a few friends) is that there's a step function. A small amount of initial meditation gives some immediate benefit. Continuing to do that same thing yields little more. Further benefit takes a much larger effort until new plateau. Specifically, I think there's definite short-term benefit to be had from small amounts of relaxation-oriented meditation, and from the common teaching "don't identify with the feeling" ("I am angry" vs "I notice anger is present"), allowing some freedom in reaction different from acting out the emotion that is felt.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Strongly agree with this. It'd be nice to see some studies tackle this angle.
snambi 9y ago
Do it yourself and verify. If it works for you, then great! Otherwise move on. Most of the drugs recommended by doctors and FDA also don't work. But people are still trying them out. :)
mrleinad 9y ago
The author seems to discuss "mindfulness" like a generic thing, mentions trials without actually referencing them or diving into the details in order to consider their validity, and finishes the article mentioning that "it's a personal experience". Quite unworthy article of HN front page in my opinion, besides the possible interesting discussion that might arise based on it.
robg 9y ago
Lame, depends on what you mean and how it's studied. https://www.bensonhenryinstitute.org/research-published-research/ https://www.bensonhenryinstitute.org/research-published-rese...
emodendroket 9y ago
Frankly a lot of times "mindfulness" seems backwards. If I'm upset about something happening in the present, absolute focus on the present seems like not really the best approach, and I don't think indulging in thinking about the future or reminiscing about the past are really features you need to beat out of yourself. Also I was talked into reading the Power of Now and it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
- jgtrosh 9y ago
  If the idea behind these techniques is to combat the natural response of hiding the problems and actively reckoning them, your argument doesn't seem to offer a rebuttal of that counter-intuitive proposal, you're just saying it's bad.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Well, if the Power of Now is to be believed, "actively reckoning" with your problems is also bad and you should instead respond like a smiling fool to absolutely anything that happens (among other things he suggests that menstruation can be turned into a joyful expression of womanhood if only you let go of your "pain body" and "egoic mind," elements of the human psyche he also blames for the Nazis).
- thinkling 9y ago
  If one feels anger and is not mindful or "present", one is likely to act angrily. If instead one feels anger and is mindful about it, one acknowledges the anger but keeps room to decide how to act. This seems to me an improvement. (As I mentioned above, you go from "I'm angry!" to "I notice there is anger present" and that non-identification leaves room to decide how to act. Sure, this is harder with emotions that go on a long time, e.g. being 'OK" with the presence of anxiety.) "Absolute focus" and true constant mindfulness is a thing for advanced meditators that you won't get from 20 minutes a day.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    That seems like old-fashioned self-restraint. One frustration of this stuff is the difficulty in pinning down exactly what the claims are.
woodandsteel 9y ago
I wonder if it is the case that mindfulness is helpful for certain types of people, ineffective with others, and actually harmful with some people. Maybe all the effects cancel out when you do a study with a large sample, and that is why it seems to be ineffective.

54 points by xriddle 9y ago

magic_beans 9y ago

Try it.

Wellshit 9y ago
Found the Guru
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive or uncivil comments here.
bybjorn 9y ago
Well, it isn't scientific proof, at least.
coffee9 9y ago
Worked for acupuncture, right? Buddhism can be incredibly superstitious and anything associated with it requires skepticism.
Y_Y 9y ago
What are you implying? That the fact that Buddhism exists means mindfulness is an effective way of dealing with stress and pain? You could say the same of alcohol or Christianity or depression.
- olleromam91 9y ago
  Do you know of cases where people have to be counseled for harmful effects of meditation?
jgtrosh 9y ago
That seems to me like little more than an appeal to tradition. I suppose the argument goes “if Buddhists didn't benefit from their mindfulness, Buddhism wouldn't have lasted so long” ? That hardly seems falsifiable because it relies on historical evolution of communities correlated to a one-parameter model of individuals. Other factors could play a bigger role in the correlation.
nabla9 9y ago
Thousands of years of Buddhism isn't midnfullness therapy.

orasis 9y ago

You could wait for the research to be conclusive, or you could dive in right now and radically improve your life. I recommend starting with the free short book, Mindfulness In Plain English - http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20English%20Book%20Preview.pdf http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Mindfu...

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That's kind of begging the question, though. The question is, will diving in radically improve my life? I'm not saying it won't, by the way. I myself practice something that some might consider to be mindfulness. But you are assuming facts not in evidence, as a lawyer might say.
- bad_user 9y ago
  Evidence is hard to get due to variables in such studies. You have to observe people's daily routine for a long period of time, which gets to be expensive. You also cannot fool the subject, or the people monitoring progress, so there's no way to do such studies double-blind. For these reasons studies on nutrition are also hard and mostly flawed. But do we need a study to tell us that sugar is poison? Well, ok, we do, but we can also notice our grandparents weren't eating that much sugar, they weren't suffering that much from obesity or diabetes and that's enough for me.
  - joombaga 9y ago
    I'll grant you the note of our grandparent's diets, but I don't think it's analogous. Were our grandparents also more mindful? Perhaps I'm missing your point.
    - erikbye 9y ago
      I seem to be missing it too. You don't need mindfulness to be on a particular diet, or to avoid sugar, or obesity.
  - 9y ago

projectramo 9y ago

What would it mean for it to "work"? What would such proof look like? (Self-reports of well-being? Seems wrong)

ierolastic 9y ago
That's what the original paper is kind of about. The Scientific American piece is a little misleading to me, because it implies the paper is about lack of evidence, when I think the original paper is a bit deeper than that, and about definitional issues and so forth. I think the original authors might say that it's about the need to figure out what exactly is working when it does, and what works and what doesn't. Self-reports of well-being are important, because self-perceived well-being is so important to the construct. I'm not saying other perspectives aren't important, but think of it this way: if you thought you were severely lacking in well-being, but others thought you weren't, would you want others to ignore your own perspective on that?
jgtrosh 9y ago
Well I'm not an expert in the domain but I'd wager there's models for what happiness is, from which you can determine how to measure that. For example if you thinks it's a variable composed of self-appreciation and appreciation of others you can have a good estimate with a properly-designed study. Why would that seem wrong ? Because it could miss cases where people don't know their own happiness ? I think a model based on actual observations is more right than a hypothetical transcendental happiness. Because people could lie ? That's where the proper design of the experiment steps in. This is off the top of my head.

alexssung 9y ago

Videos of monks performing self-immolation are enough proof to me. These monks practice mindfulness meditation for decades, and as a result, they have such control over their minds that they are literally able to "ignore" the pain of being on fire and sit still through the entire duration.

Danihan 9y ago
I'm pretty sure I could do that too without much practice. Assuming it was an intentional choice, anyway. Your body can only handle so much pain before it basically shuts off, and then you don't feel much of anything. The real pain comes later, when you're healing. Not going to test it out though.
- alexssung 9y ago
  No, you wouldn't be able to do that. They burn themselves to death.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Yes, I know what it is. And yes, I think I could do it.
    - alexssung 9y ago
      And I think I could fly, but I'm not going to try. See how that works?
      - Danihan 9y ago
        I've been working two full-time jobs for more than a year now while maintaining a bi-phasic sleep schedule. Think what you wish, but sitting there in pain for a few minutes while my life ends (by my own accord) doesn't seem all that difficult comparatively. I take on very hard tasks daily, and sustain work on them for a lot longer than three minutes. Don't make me challenge you to a vipassana, friendo.

11thEarlOfMar 9y ago

Engaging in mindfulness implies changing what you think about, or, where your focus is. This can be therapeutic to persons who are suffer from anxiety and depression because it interrupts periods where negative thoughts dominate their consciousness and replaces them with periods where their thoughts focused on current circumstances that are generally benign or pleasant. For persons who don't benefit from such therapy, mindfulness could mean re-focusing away from the abstract thinking that solves problems or invents or creates. Many people deliver their work product or improve their circumstances through this type of thinking. Practicing mindfulness may negatively impact them by reducing the amount of time they spend contemplating in such areas.

NickHolt 9y ago
> For persons who don't benefit from such therapy, mindfulness could mean re-focusing away from the abstract thinking that solves problems or invents or creates. Many people deliver their work product or improve their circumstances through this type of thinking. Practicing mindfulness may negatively impact them by reducing the amount of time they spend contemplating in such areas. I understand where you're coming from with this, as I used to also hold this (very logical) opinion. However, after meditating and engaging with Buddhist philosophy for many years, I've never felt negatively impacted in this way. I now view this opinion as resulting from an overly-simplified understanding of mindfulness.
ineptech 9y ago
> This can be therapeutic to persons who are suffer from... The lack of rigorous scientific support for this assertion is the entire point of this article (and the journal article it summarizes).
thinkling 9y ago
Just as easily I could argue that being more mindful can mean becoming more aware of the anxiety that is present, and that clearing one's mind leaves more room for clear analytical thought. I think you are analyzing from an armchair, not from a meditation cushion.
- 9y ago

warent 9y ago

I frequently hear an argument against these practices that they're just a placebo. But wouldn't that actually be an argument for it? If the placebo makes you believe that you have less stress and greater stillness, I don't see how that's different from "really" having less stress. Which means it's not a placebo but really works. Just a food for thought. In any case aside from the endless and consistent anecdotal evidence, there is a science to it https://youtu.be/aPlG_w40qOE https://youtu.be/aPlG_w40qOE

computerex 9y ago
The placebo effect operates on the domain of perception. In other words, placebo is a psychological effect, which may deceive a patient into perceiving that he or she is getting better even though the sugar pills they just took had no physiological response from the body. Stress has a big psychological component, but it is also something that can be physilogically seen and can be measured. It's important to see the distinction between the psychological perception and the true physiology. Stress may not be the best example because as stated, stress has a lot to with the psychological state.
- olleromam91 9y ago
  Stress reduction is one of the few goals of mindfulness though, so it has to be an example.

rdslw 9y ago

That google guy who wrote the book disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Inside-Yourself-Unexpected-Achieving/dp/0062116932 https://www.amazon.com/Search-Inside-Yourself-Unexpected-Ach... p.s. book is worth read IMO.

nabla9 9y ago

As someone who has meditated 20 years, 2-4 hours per day and participated in long retreats 7 days to month, I have always been skeptical about this "mindfulness business". It has it's roots in old meditation traditions, but they were never supposed to bee quick fix, relaxation or therapy. Many therapy methods work well with the therapist who developed it, but don't give good results when packaged into programs and courses. Kabat-Zinn is experienced meditator and I'm not surprised if his therapy works when he is involved. He has so much personal experience. Meditation traditions transfer their knowledge to the next generation trough training regime that takes decades. It's not (yet) science that can be transferred trough short courses and readings. I have instructed newcomers in meditation. If they have mental problems I suggest they seek therapy and do little meditation on the side. Meditation can help, but I have also seen meditation induced psychosis several times when people see it as the cure for everything. Many experienced meditator's go to normal therapy to deal with their mental problems and find it useful. Some use medication. My experience is that people with mental problems benefit more from concentrative meditation that builds one-pointedness and calmness, than pure mindfulness type awareness meditation that brings problems into the consciousness. Build strength before facing your inner dragons.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thinkling 9y ago
My experience (personal and from a few friends) is that there's a step function. A small amount of initial meditation gives some immediate benefit. Continuing to do that same thing yields little more. Further benefit takes a much larger effort until new plateau. Specifically, I think there's definite short-term benefit to be had from small amounts of relaxation-oriented meditation, and from the common teaching "don't identify with the feeling" ("I am angry" vs "I notice anger is present"), allowing some freedom in reaction different from acting out the emotion that is felt.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Strongly agree with this. It'd be nice to see some studies tackle this angle.

snambi 9y ago

Do it yourself and verify. If it works for you, then great! Otherwise move on. Most of the drugs recommended by doctors and FDA also don't work. But people are still trying them out. :)

mrleinad 9y ago

The author seems to discuss "mindfulness" like a generic thing, mentions trials without actually referencing them or diving into the details in order to consider their validity, and finishes the article mentioning that "it's a personal experience". Quite unworthy article of HN front page in my opinion, besides the possible interesting discussion that might arise based on it.

robg 9y ago

Lame, depends on what you mean and how it's studied. https://www.bensonhenryinstitute.org/research-published-research/ https://www.bensonhenryinstitute.org/research-published-rese...

emodendroket 9y ago

Frankly a lot of times "mindfulness" seems backwards. If I'm upset about something happening in the present, absolute focus on the present seems like not really the best approach, and I don't think indulging in thinking about the future or reminiscing about the past are really features you need to beat out of yourself. Also I was talked into reading the Power of Now and it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

jgtrosh 9y ago
If the idea behind these techniques is to combat the natural response of hiding the problems and actively reckoning them, your argument doesn't seem to offer a rebuttal of that counter-intuitive proposal, you're just saying it's bad.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, if the Power of Now is to be believed, "actively reckoning" with your problems is also bad and you should instead respond like a smiling fool to absolutely anything that happens (among other things he suggests that menstruation can be turned into a joyful expression of womanhood if only you let go of your "pain body" and "egoic mind," elements of the human psyche he also blames for the Nazis).
thinkling 9y ago
If one feels anger and is not mindful or "present", one is likely to act angrily. If instead one feels anger and is mindful about it, one acknowledges the anger but keeps room to decide how to act. This seems to me an improvement. (As I mentioned above, you go from "I'm angry!" to "I notice there is anger present" and that non-identification leaves room to decide how to act. Sure, this is harder with emotions that go on a long time, e.g. being 'OK" with the presence of anxiety.) "Absolute focus" and true constant mindfulness is a thing for advanced meditators that you won't get from 20 minutes a day.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  That seems like old-fashioned self-restraint. One frustration of this stuff is the difficulty in pinning down exactly what the claims are.

woodandsteel 9y ago

I wonder if it is the case that mindfulness is helpful for certain types of people, ineffective with others, and actually harmful with some people. Maybe all the effects cancel out when you do a study with a large sample, and that is why it seems to be ineffective.