4 ms·

Whenever I hear about a particular technique that is supposedly backed by evidence I wonder what specific protocol was used in the studies supporting it. I als

Whenever I hear about a particular technique that is supposedly backed by evidence I wonder what specific protocol was used in the studies supporting it. I also wonder how many studies have been conducted and for how many years. For those of you who want an actual evidence-based practice check out Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). It's the most frequently studied protocol and it's been studied for decades. When you read stories about studies showing how meditation does XYZ and ABC, it's almost always MBSR that the researchers are using. "Meditation" is a huge category, there's a lot of stuff in there. Some of it probably works, a lot of it doesn't (other than the placebo effect). What you think of as "meditation" may not be what actually has been researched in a given study. Of course, all of the above is only applicable to those of you who want to pursue evidence-based techniques. If you're just satisfied with trying stuff you read about on random blogs and HN posts then go ahead and try anything: prayer, astrology, witchcraft, etc - you'll probably realize a little positive benefit as long as you genuinely believe it will work.

devinjflick 7y ago
For those interested in evidence based meditation for treating mental illness, I suggest the following video and book. The mindful way through depression: Zindel Segal at TEDxUTSC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4w3W94ygA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4w3W94ygA The book that the talk is based on: https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Way-Through-Depression-Unhappiness/dp/1593851286 https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Way-Through-Depression-Unhapp...
flr03 7y ago
Why would you need studies ? It's not like trying to introduce a new medication on the market. If I like knitting 30 mins a day and I feel relaxed after that I'm not going to wait for a study to tell me it's actually making me feel better or not.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Because it may be harmful. See for example the idea of giving people involved in road traffic accidents a bit of psychological therapy afterwards. That seems like it'd help, and most people would say that it can't hurt, but when you look at the people 3 years later we see the group randomised to talking therapy have worse outcomes than the group randomised to no talking therapy. (I'll try to find a reference). Here's the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10974967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10974967/
  - andreilys 7y ago
    Which may only generalize to a specific group of people, in a specific country, at a specific period of time. All subject to change when we tweak a couple of variables.
    - jblwps 7y ago
      That point, while valid, is only against this study; it doesn't speak to studies in general.
      - andreilys 7y ago
        If we're speaking in the context of social sciences I would say it applies to nearly all of them.
        jblwps 7y ago
        Possibly. While I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that social science (at least as it's actually practiced) is relatively soft, I don't know how we'd go about discounting it all. Seems to me like we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the very least, I don't know what we could do differently, short of improving the practice of social science in various ways. The questions it would purport to investigate (i.e. social questions) are of course critical questions, but I'm not sure how we'd better answer them. More specifically, I'm not sure how we'd better answer them now. Sure, maybe if we had some Grand Unified Theory or even sufficiently sophisticated computer models. But we don't have those. (In the case where we did have them, it seems almost tautological that social science as such would have participated in their creation--but I digress.) What we've got now are social questions worth asking, and an admittedly imperfect practice of answering those questions. What do we do now?
        andreilys 7y ago
        We realize that scientific studies that are in the social sciences may only generalize to a specific group of people, in a specific country, at a specific period of time. All subject to change when we tweak a couple of variables.
- mrlala 7y ago
  The counter argument would be- just because you enjoy knitting 30 minutes a day and it relaxes you, does that mean it will work the same for anyone/everyone else? If there was a study that empirically proved knitting for 30 days made you happier, then it would be a lot easier for people to say "OK, I'll take the time to learn how to do this and do it for X amount of the day". Given that I still see your point. No reason to be so skeptical, just try out meditation and if it works great if not oh well.
  - andreilys 7y ago
    Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them. It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture.
    - mrlala 7y ago
      >Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? No one said that. >Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything. >It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture. Ok now, hold up. You are saying scientific studies is the same as religious dogma....? Do you honestly need me or someone to explain to you the difference?
      - andreilys 7y ago
        2/3rd of social sciences cannot be replicated [1]. 52% of scientists think there is a significant reproducibility crisis [2] If that doesn't signal a reproducibility crisis I don't know what does. Dogma is dogma, no matter the origin. Many people who are today dogmatic about the scientific method, would be the same people that would be dogmatic about religion in the 16th century. At the end of the day it is merely one lens of looking at reality, not the only lens. This isn't even touching on the fact that the scientific method is riddled with issues and ill equipped to tackle certain problems. Paul Feyerabend explores this nuanced issue in Against Method, which I recommend reading if you ever want to take off the pro-scientific method spectacles [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183... [2] https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/184...
jammygit 7y ago
MBSR is well studied and proven, but it’s worth noting that meditation has only recently become an area of medical research. If we insisted on the rule that we only try what is proven through research, meditation would have “gone extinct” thousands of years ago and nobody would benefit from it today

devinjflick 7y ago

For those interested in evidence based meditation for treating mental illness, I suggest the following video and book. The mindful way through depression: Zindel Segal at TEDxUTSC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4w3W94ygA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A4w3W94ygA The book that the talk is based on: https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Way-Through-Depression-Unhappiness/dp/1593851286 https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Way-Through-Depression-Unhapp...

flr03 7y ago

Why would you need studies ? It's not like trying to introduce a new medication on the market. If I like knitting 30 mins a day and I feel relaxed after that I'm not going to wait for a study to tell me it's actually making me feel better or not.

DanBC 7y ago
Because it may be harmful. See for example the idea of giving people involved in road traffic accidents a bit of psychological therapy afterwards. That seems like it'd help, and most people would say that it can't hurt, but when you look at the people 3 years later we see the group randomised to talking therapy have worse outcomes than the group randomised to no talking therapy. (I'll try to find a reference). Here's the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10974967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10974967/
- andreilys 7y ago
  Which may only generalize to a specific group of people, in a specific country, at a specific period of time. All subject to change when we tweak a couple of variables.
  - jblwps 7y ago
    That point, while valid, is only against this study; it doesn't speak to studies in general.
    - andreilys 7y ago
      If we're speaking in the context of social sciences I would say it applies to nearly all of them.
      - jblwps 7y ago
        Possibly. While I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that social science (at least as it's actually practiced) is relatively soft, I don't know how we'd go about discounting it all. Seems to me like we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the very least, I don't know what we could do differently, short of improving the practice of social science in various ways. The questions it would purport to investigate (i.e. social questions) are of course critical questions, but I'm not sure how we'd better answer them. More specifically, I'm not sure how we'd better answer them now. Sure, maybe if we had some Grand Unified Theory or even sufficiently sophisticated computer models. But we don't have those. (In the case where we did have them, it seems almost tautological that social science as such would have participated in their creation--but I digress.) What we've got now are social questions worth asking, and an admittedly imperfect practice of answering those questions. What do we do now?
        andreilys 7y ago
        We realize that scientific studies that are in the social sciences may only generalize to a specific group of people, in a specific country, at a specific period of time. All subject to change when we tweak a couple of variables.
mrlala 7y ago
The counter argument would be- just because you enjoy knitting 30 minutes a day and it relaxes you, does that mean it will work the same for anyone/everyone else? If there was a study that empirically proved knitting for 30 days made you happier, then it would be a lot easier for people to say "OK, I'll take the time to learn how to do this and do it for X amount of the day". Given that I still see your point. No reason to be so skeptical, just try out meditation and if it works great if not oh well.
- andreilys 7y ago
  Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them. It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture.
  - mrlala 7y ago
    >Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something? No one said that. >Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything. >It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture. Ok now, hold up. You are saying scientific studies is the same as religious dogma....? Do you honestly need me or someone to explain to you the difference?
    - andreilys 7y ago
      2/3rd of social sciences cannot be replicated [1]. 52% of scientists think there is a significant reproducibility crisis [2] If that doesn't signal a reproducibility crisis I don't know what does. Dogma is dogma, no matter the origin. Many people who are today dogmatic about the scientific method, would be the same people that would be dogmatic about religion in the 16th century. At the end of the day it is merely one lens of looking at reality, not the only lens. This isn't even touching on the fact that the scientific method is riddled with issues and ill equipped to tackle certain problems. Paul Feyerabend explores this nuanced issue in Against Method, which I recommend reading if you ever want to take off the pro-scientific method spectacles [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/6422183... [2] https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/184...

jammygit 7y ago

MBSR is well studied and proven, but it’s worth noting that meditation has only recently become an area of medical research. If we insisted on the rule that we only try what is proven through research, meditation would have “gone extinct” thousands of years ago and nobody would benefit from it today