5 ms·

Just because it is simple in your experience doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. Certainly not for anxiety disordered or PTSD suffering people f

Just because it is simple in your experience doesn't mean that is universally true for everyone. Certainly not for anxiety disordered or PTSD suffering people for example. See my reply to comment below which cites studies when these sort of practices backfire in a non-trivial fashion. Like I said, it is either too trivial as sit, breathe and relax which won't do much good, or it is potent enough to do some good in which case it also has the potential of doing some harm.

waihtis 6y ago
I have multiple problems with this statement. First, the problems you are describing are external to breathing. If you suffer from PTSD and get an episode at the grocery store, do you want to regulate grocery store visits also? Second, breathing has multi-thousand year old legacy spanning multiple cultures and eras touting it's benefits. Why would you obtain your perspective from a click-driven Vice article referring to a study of 73 people instead of the infinitely more robust source of truth?
- acituan 6y ago
  You're fighting several strawman arguments but I am still going to assume good faith. > If you suffer from PTSD and get an episode at the grocery store, do you want to regulate grocery store visits also? I am not talking about triggering based on some external stimulus. I am talking about a nilly-willy prescription of a pscyhoactive exercise that has a non-trivial chance of interacting/activating pre-existing conditions. > Why would you obtain your perspective from a click-driven Vice article referring to a study of 73 people instead of the infinitely more robust source of truth? My perspective doesn't come from the article, I merely put it there as it gives a readable summary to the otherwise terse scientific papers. Regarding the particular study, that study has tons of citations to other studies and meta studies, a good chunk of which complains about *adverse effects are not sufficiently mentioned", which I'm doing here. I'm not claiming that the score is settled on this matter, but the fact that there is no talk on adverse affects deserves attention. > Second, breathing has multi-thousand year old legacy spanning multiple cultures and eras touting it's benefits So does psychedelic mushrooms or circumcision. The good thing about science is we can systemically study traditional practices instead of taking their word for it. I don't think tradition is an infinitely robust source of truth, especially in comparison to scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, I value traditional knowledge too, but you can't claim traditional information and its context have propagated to our day sufficiently well (e.g. is circumcision a rite-of-passage anymore?), including the knowledge/caution on what to do with adverse reactions.
  - waihtis 6y ago
    I don't subscribe to scientism, so best end the debate here.
    - acituan 6y ago
      You could indeed end debating with the strawman. Contrasting merits of scientific processes with traditional knowledge is not scientism. If anything claiming tradition is an infinitely robust source of knowledge is some sort of dogmatism.
      - waihtis 6y ago
        You said that tradition doesn't stand scrutiny over time. It wouldn't be a huge leap to suggest you subscribe to the thought that science is the only way to approach any type of validation. I don't agree with that statement, I think there are cases where the lab doesn't translate into real world and suggesting that scientific experiments are always the best representation of the real world is just naive, I-M-H-O. Ergo, I don't see us agreeing on the topic and it is best left there. Regarding the straw man spam - it would help if your claims were correct and not removed from context. I didn't suggest that all tradition is infinitely robust, I suggested tradition concerning breathing is more robust than the limited scope paper you referred to. Context matters.
        acituan 6y ago
        > You said that tradition doesn't stand scrutiny over time No, that is not what I said. I said knowledge transmission through tradition is lossy and as such it is not systematic, it doesn't carry context and it doesn't cover the fine print. In that, the content of a memetic proposition that made it to our day might as well have truth value, but it doesn't mean it is readily applicable by anyone who reads about it on the internet. Or we might have memetic behavior that is divorced from context (e.g. circumcision) and is questionable as to why we should follow it. That's why rigorous scientific study is important. > I think there are cases where the lab doesn't translate into real world and suggesting that scientific experiments are always the best representation of the real world is just naive, I-M-H-O. I have not suggested any of these things (and this will be 3rd time in a row I'll be bringing up you strawmanning.) Lab science is not the only science, experimentation is not the only component of scientific method. Yes science can't explain a lot of things yet but science has the best methodology in working for an objective truth. So ignoring evidence science can produce, especially if it's conflicting with tradition, is going to be naive at best. > I didn't suggest that all tradition is infinitely robust, I suggested tradition concerning breathing is more robust than the limited scope paper you referred to. Context matters. I didn't suggest you said all tradition. I still stand by my argument that you are defending dogmatism of tradition, even in the limited context of breathing exercises. Besides, that paper is not the only source I've cited, breathing is studied in a multitude of psychological domains as I mentioned, so indeed context matters. > Regarding the straw man spam Please refrain from inflammatory language. You made your point that you don't think you're committing straw man, and I still think you do and that disagreement is fine. No need to retort underhanded attacks, let's keep it civil and intellectually honest.
vidarh 6y ago
Changing nothing can backfire too. The problem with this line of thinking is to assume that inaction is not also a choice that affect you.
- acituan 6y ago
  You don't go through your medicine cabinet and try everything there because "changing nothing" can backfire. You read/learn about the complications, side-effects, adverse reactions and make an informed decision based on that. Inaction argument is a strawman, I'm not arguing for doing nothing at all, I am just against informal prescription of rather potent, psychoactive exercises without due respect, especially in the form of "just try it, can't do any harm". If you want to get serious with it, find people/sangha/teachers/therapists who know their stuff and train in that context. But assuming no harm can come while assuming benefits can come is a contradiction and wishful thinking.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    No, but people frequently do change things like diet, sleeping patterns, exercise etc. on the basis of seeing whether they work for them. And people often harm themselves immensely through inaction in the same areas. People also change their breathing patterns all the time, or don't, without knowing what they're doing or not doing. You're advocating a line of thinking that simply is not how most people live their lives, and never will be, because it would paralyse us.

waihtis 6y ago

I have multiple problems with this statement. First, the problems you are describing are external to breathing. If you suffer from PTSD and get an episode at the grocery store, do you want to regulate grocery store visits also? Second, breathing has multi-thousand year old legacy spanning multiple cultures and eras touting it's benefits. Why would you obtain your perspective from a click-driven Vice article referring to a study of 73 people instead of the infinitely more robust source of truth?

acituan 6y ago
You're fighting several strawman arguments but I am still going to assume good faith. > If you suffer from PTSD and get an episode at the grocery store, do you want to regulate grocery store visits also? I am not talking about triggering based on some external stimulus. I am talking about a nilly-willy prescription of a pscyhoactive exercise that has a non-trivial chance of interacting/activating pre-existing conditions. > Why would you obtain your perspective from a click-driven Vice article referring to a study of 73 people instead of the infinitely more robust source of truth? My perspective doesn't come from the article, I merely put it there as it gives a readable summary to the otherwise terse scientific papers. Regarding the particular study, that study has tons of citations to other studies and meta studies, a good chunk of which complains about *adverse effects are not sufficiently mentioned", which I'm doing here. I'm not claiming that the score is settled on this matter, but the fact that there is no talk on adverse affects deserves attention. > Second, breathing has multi-thousand year old legacy spanning multiple cultures and eras touting it's benefits So does psychedelic mushrooms or circumcision. The good thing about science is we can systemically study traditional practices instead of taking their word for it. I don't think tradition is an infinitely robust source of truth, especially in comparison to scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, I value traditional knowledge too, but you can't claim traditional information and its context have propagated to our day sufficiently well (e.g. is circumcision a rite-of-passage anymore?), including the knowledge/caution on what to do with adverse reactions.
- waihtis 6y ago
  I don't subscribe to scientism, so best end the debate here.
  - acituan 6y ago
    You could indeed end debating with the strawman. Contrasting merits of scientific processes with traditional knowledge is not scientism. If anything claiming tradition is an infinitely robust source of knowledge is some sort of dogmatism.
    - waihtis 6y ago
      You said that tradition doesn't stand scrutiny over time. It wouldn't be a huge leap to suggest you subscribe to the thought that science is the only way to approach any type of validation. I don't agree with that statement, I think there are cases where the lab doesn't translate into real world and suggesting that scientific experiments are always the best representation of the real world is just naive, I-M-H-O. Ergo, I don't see us agreeing on the topic and it is best left there. Regarding the straw man spam - it would help if your claims were correct and not removed from context. I didn't suggest that all tradition is infinitely robust, I suggested tradition concerning breathing is more robust than the limited scope paper you referred to. Context matters.
      - acituan 6y ago
        > You said that tradition doesn't stand scrutiny over time No, that is not what I said. I said knowledge transmission through tradition is lossy and as such it is not systematic, it doesn't carry context and it doesn't cover the fine print. In that, the content of a memetic proposition that made it to our day might as well have truth value, but it doesn't mean it is readily applicable by anyone who reads about it on the internet. Or we might have memetic behavior that is divorced from context (e.g. circumcision) and is questionable as to why we should follow it. That's why rigorous scientific study is important. > I think there are cases where the lab doesn't translate into real world and suggesting that scientific experiments are always the best representation of the real world is just naive, I-M-H-O. I have not suggested any of these things (and this will be 3rd time in a row I'll be bringing up you strawmanning.) Lab science is not the only science, experimentation is not the only component of scientific method. Yes science can't explain a lot of things yet but science has the best methodology in working for an objective truth. So ignoring evidence science can produce, especially if it's conflicting with tradition, is going to be naive at best. > I didn't suggest that all tradition is infinitely robust, I suggested tradition concerning breathing is more robust than the limited scope paper you referred to. Context matters. I didn't suggest you said all tradition. I still stand by my argument that you are defending dogmatism of tradition, even in the limited context of breathing exercises. Besides, that paper is not the only source I've cited, breathing is studied in a multitude of psychological domains as I mentioned, so indeed context matters. > Regarding the straw man spam Please refrain from inflammatory language. You made your point that you don't think you're committing straw man, and I still think you do and that disagreement is fine. No need to retort underhanded attacks, let's keep it civil and intellectually honest.

vidarh 6y ago

Changing nothing can backfire too. The problem with this line of thinking is to assume that inaction is not also a choice that affect you.

acituan 6y ago
You don't go through your medicine cabinet and try everything there because "changing nothing" can backfire. You read/learn about the complications, side-effects, adverse reactions and make an informed decision based on that. Inaction argument is a strawman, I'm not arguing for doing nothing at all, I am just against informal prescription of rather potent, psychoactive exercises without due respect, especially in the form of "just try it, can't do any harm". If you want to get serious with it, find people/sangha/teachers/therapists who know their stuff and train in that context. But assuming no harm can come while assuming benefits can come is a contradiction and wishful thinking.
- vidarh 6y ago
  No, but people frequently do change things like diet, sleeping patterns, exercise etc. on the basis of seeing whether they work for them. And people often harm themselves immensely through inaction in the same areas. People also change their breathing patterns all the time, or don't, without knowing what they're doing or not doing. You're advocating a line of thinking that simply is not how most people live their lives, and never will be, because it would paralyse us.