What I know about neuroscience, I mostly learned around 1990. I had a pretty good idea of what was known and knowable. The main new thing since then was fMRI, which I had good reasons to think is mostly not a thing. So why was I (mostly) taken in by the hype?
-
Show this thread
-
Around this time, I discussed the meditation research with my sister, who was the Chair of the neuroscience program at UC Davis. She was characteristically taciturn, but reading between the lines slightly her reaction was “almost certainly mostly nonsense.” Why didn’t I listen?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Clearly, in part, I *wanted to believe*, for essentially religious reasons. That’s really embarrassing. https://vividness.live/2011/04/25/translating-the-meditation-research/ …pic.twitter.com/qsX9NniM4b
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
-
-
Well, the same reason my homeopath friends persist, I guess… “seems to work for me and people I know. :( The particular type of meditation I do is very different from MBSR, so I can tell myself maybe the near-zero results from that don’t apply.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @minzlicht and
Also, my reasons for meditating are quasi-religious and mainly aim at long-term, subtle changes in perception and action, so maybe (as you noted in the podcast) RCTs on six-week interventions are irrelevant. I’d like to know whether we’re fooling ourselves about this though!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @minzlicht and
To what extent was your stopping due to reevaluating the scientific literature, and to what extent due to deciding it didn’t seem to do much for you personally?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It’s tempting to think about what separates hypothetical “responders” and “non-responders”... but we kinda know studies like that don’t go well...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.