I’m curious if anyone here who has already done substantial work in this area can speak to potential downsides.
Some research points to downsides, with the potential exacerbation of certain psychiatric conditions (or vulnerabilities to such). Schizophrenia is sometimes mentioned. The other reported downside is related to the fact that ‘no free lunch’ applies even to things like anxiety reduction. Some of the pressures that you release when meditating actually serve a useful purpose. You don’t achieve great things by being at peace with the universe!
Downsides (obviously) apply more to excessive use. If 15 minutes a day is great that doesn’t necessarily mean 3 hours a day is good too!
This article reviews 75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, including Transcendental Meditation among others. It summarizes definitions of meditation, psychological and physiological changes, and negative side-effects encountered by 62.9% of meditators studied. While the authors did not restrict their study to TM, the side-effects reported were similar to those found in the “German Study” of Transcendental Meditators: relaxation-induced anxiety and panic; paradoxical increases in tension; less motivation in life; boredom; pain; impaired reality testing; confusion and disorientation; feeling ‘spaced out’; depression; increased negativity; being more judgmental; feeling addicted to meditation; uncomfortable kinaesthetic sensations; mild dissociation; feelings of guilt; psychosis-like symptoms; grandiosity; elation; destructive behavior; suicidal feelings; defenselessness; fear; anger; apprehension; and despair.
Some of the pressures that you release when meditating actually serve a useful purpose.
While this may be true, it’s not clear that they are the optimal way towards this end. We may be able to substitute more effective mental forces. See Will_Newsome’s comment for an example.
While this may be true, it’s not clear that they are the optimal way towards this end. We may be able to substitute more effective mental forces. See Will_Newsome’s comment for an example.
Note that I speak, at Jeniffer’s request, only of potential downsides. As great and even life changing as they may be for some, effects like these:
Once you have established some degree of concentration you should be able to “see through” thoughts and emotions without getting swept away by them.
After practicing for some time (hours, days, or months) you should be able to “see through”5 arising thoughts and emotions without getting “stuck to” them. Demanding thoughts and emotions will arise, and by “seeing through” them you maintain your observation of the breath as they continue (unattended to) in your peripheral awareness.
… are not for everyone. This kind of development of awareness can be seen as a rubicon. When you change the way you think you become a different person to that which you were. As the paper I mention describes, the changes are not universally beneficial. That’s seldom how the world works, I’m afraid.
Some of the pressures that you release when meditating actually serve a useful purpose.
While this may be true, it’s not clear that they are the optimal way towards this end.
You need a knowable direction of improvement, not merely uncertainty about optimality of status quo. We know that status quo is not optimal, for there is no reason to expect otherwise. But it doesn’t suggest that any given change is an improvement.
It was just meant to point out the possibility of supplanting useful mental pressures (that could be disturbed my meditation) by more effective mental processes. I didn’t mean to make any claim about whether we can reasonably expect to do this; I was just aiming to stimulate thought about the possibility.
I was just aiming to stimulate thought about the possibility.
(On a side note, this phrase is an anti-epistemic cliché, usually used to make a privileged hypothesis more salient.)
You don’t need to “stimulate thought” about this, everyone already agrees. The reason that caused you to use this argument seems to be that meditation is on the side it argues for, but there is no merit to the argument itself, since it states the obvious and doesn’t improve meditation’s (or anything else’s) case. Do you still endorse that argument as worth making?
More charitably, the original confusion probably started from interpreting wedrifid’s comment as arguing for status quo, followed by an argument against status quo that would be correct given that assumption.
More charitably, the original confusion probably started from interpreting wedrifid’s comment as arguing for status quo, followed by an argument against status quo that would be correct given that assumption.
FWIW I think that is how I understood wedrifid’s comment, though I failed to articulate this when you asked me about my purpose.
Then, it’s incorrect that in context your argument was vacuous, since if one says that 2+2=5, it’s still worth arguing that 2+2=4, however obvious that is. On the other hand, motivated cognition was still probably the cause of interpreting wedrifid’s comment that way.
Some research points to downsides, with the potential exacerbation of certain psychiatric conditions (or vulnerabilities to such). Schizophrenia is sometimes mentioned. The other reported downside is related to the fact that ‘no free lunch’ applies even to things like anxiety reduction. Some of the pressures that you release when meditating actually serve a useful purpose. You don’t achieve great things by being at peace with the universe!
Downsides (obviously) apply more to excessive use. If 15 minutes a day is great that doesn’t necessarily mean 3 hours a day is good too!
Consider reference.
Abstract:
While this may be true, it’s not clear that they are the optimal way towards this end. We may be able to substitute more effective mental forces. See Will_Newsome’s comment for an example.
Note that I speak, at Jeniffer’s request, only of potential downsides. As great and even life changing as they may be for some, effects like these:
… are not for everyone. This kind of development of awareness can be seen as a rubicon. When you change the way you think you become a different person to that which you were. As the paper I mention describes, the changes are not universally beneficial. That’s seldom how the world works, I’m afraid.
You need a knowable direction of improvement, not merely uncertainty about optimality of status quo. We know that status quo is not optimal, for there is no reason to expect otherwise. But it doesn’t suggest that any given change is an improvement.
I didn’t claim this.
What was the purpose of your argument?
It was just meant to point out the possibility of supplanting useful mental pressures (that could be disturbed my meditation) by more effective mental processes. I didn’t mean to make any claim about whether we can reasonably expect to do this; I was just aiming to stimulate thought about the possibility.
(On a side note, this phrase is an anti-epistemic cliché, usually used to make a privileged hypothesis more salient.)
You don’t need to “stimulate thought” about this, everyone already agrees. The reason that caused you to use this argument seems to be that meditation is on the side it argues for, but there is no merit to the argument itself, since it states the obvious and doesn’t improve meditation’s (or anything else’s) case. Do you still endorse that argument as worth making?
More charitably, the original confusion probably started from interpreting wedrifid’s comment as arguing for status quo, followed by an argument against status quo that would be correct given that assumption.
FWIW I think that is how I understood wedrifid’s comment, though I failed to articulate this when you asked me about my purpose.
Then, it’s incorrect that in context your argument was vacuous, since if one says that 2+2=5, it’s still worth arguing that 2+2=4, however obvious that is. On the other hand, motivated cognition was still probably the cause of interpreting wedrifid’s comment that way.
No. Thanks for being patient and clearing that up for me.
To sum up, it seems that due to (perhaps unconscious) motivated cognition I failed in at least two ways:
I didn’t initially examine the purpose of my comment closely.
I didn’t spot the vacuousness of my comment upon reflection before posting.