Revision as of 00:56, 26 October 2010 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Proposal: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:49, 14 August 2024 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,018 edits →Yogic Flying: reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{Notice|header=Other subpages| | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*]}} | |||
{{British English}} | |||
{{afd-merged-from|Transcendental Meditation research|Transcendental Meditation research|15 November 2013}} | |||
{{afd-merged-from|TM-Sidhi program|TM-Sidhi program|14 November 2013}} | |||
{{FailedGA|05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Psychology}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Controversial-issues}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index |mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=yes |template= | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 43 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old(21d) | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index|mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=no|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template location>}}{{talk header|search=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{connected contributors | |||
{{Rational Skepticism|class=C|importance=high}} | |||
|User1= Littleolive oil |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks= | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start}} | |||
|User2= TimidGuy |U2-EH=yes |U2-otherlinks= | |||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=Start|importance=Mid}} | |||
}} | |||
{{WPReligion|class=Start|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|class=Start|importance=Top}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Controversial3}} | |||
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=21|dounreplied=yes}} | |||
{{notice|header=Other subpages| | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*]}} | |||
== |
==State of the research== | ||
I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Misplaced Pages or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted. | |||
I must say these changes have made things much clearer and more compliant with ]. Both the technique and the movement are given the equal weight they deserve.] (] · ] · ]) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Problematic sources''' | |||
::You made these changes yourself despite other editor input except yours and Will's, and you ignored the RfC and misrepresented it as did Will despite the fact he had started it. Now you are saying NPOV has been served? Who are you trying to convince? You and Will highjacked these articles and that's not right or acceptable.(] (]) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)) | |||
:::Nobody's hijacking nothing. ("Take me to <s>Havana</s> Fairfield.") It's just what was wanted; a special article on the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's all good. <b>] ] </b> 11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== The lead (or lede) == | |||
•'''Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)''' | |||
The lead has at the moment 5 paragraphs. IMO the first and last of these are sufficient. The three in the middle are way too detailed to belong in the lead. --] (]) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:(Someday, sensible people may spell it "]"). | |||
:You're right. there are a few rough edges to improve. Let me see if I can move some of that to better articles, like TMT, and improve what remains. It needs a summary of the theoretical material, too. <b>] ] </b> 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I hope this is an improvement. <b>] ] </b> 11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree | |||
== Open discussion == | |||
'''Withdrawn''' | |||
I'd like to request and open discussion first, on how this article was formed, and second on the article itself. | |||
From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication. | |||
*This article Transcendental Meditation (TM) was created by splitting off content into another article, TM technique, despite clear editor objection on the second day of an RfC and with another suggestion on the table. Threads: Is this an appropriate way to use an RfC, that should be a clearly collaborative, dispute resolution process. If not what can be done about it and this article? | |||
*I have serious concerns about the article itself. Does anyone else have concerns?(] (]) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
:Who are you that speaks thus? ] (]) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I thank thee for thine notice.(] (]) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
•'''Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)''' | |||
* This article in indeed the left over of an important content fork, which was not properly discussed. ] (]) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•" | |||
:::Olive, what are your concerns about the article, in its current state? <b>] ] </b> 21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Let's not bypass the most fundamental of the issues here. How was a split of an article created on the second day of an RfC when there was another suggestion, and when editors did not agree-desctinctly did not agree. Unless someone can show me how this split was legitimate in the first place, that is, how it was collaborative per the TM arbitration, how taking this action was agreed on by the editors taking part in the RfC, how this is an acceptable way to deal with an RfC , then the two articles should be merged and the split undone. If someone can show me how the split was legitimate and with editor agreement, then I'd be willing to take the next step and deal with the TM article itself and its multiple concerns.(] (]) 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
:::::I'm interested in discussing the article. Whenever you're ready to talk about it I'll participate. <b>] ] </b> 03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| |||
How the article got here is discussing the article. It sounds as if you want to overlook that aspect. I don't want to overlook the input of several editors and a RfC that was cut off just as it started, and I won't pretend that this was a legitimate process. If you don't want to participate that's your prerogative. But I won't ignore the issue. If we need outside help to mediate this discussion to make it more comfortable for everyone, I will ask for help. Let me know if and how you want to proceed.(] (]) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed. | |||
::::::Are you recommending merging both ] at 96,926 bytes and ] at 85,763 bytes into this article at 60,883 bytes? The resulting article would just be to big.] (] · ] · ]) 03:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::No. I'm suggesting undoing the split of the original TM article into TM and TM technique. I'm going offline for tonight but will continue later tomorrow. Thanks for the input.(] (]) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
• '''Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)''' | |||
:::::::::That does not make any sense as it is neither fair nor neutral thus I strongly oppose this suggestion. TM refers equally to both the technique and the movement.] (] · ] · ]) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen | |||
:::::::::Can Olive explain why she wants to merge the two articles? There have been significant edits to both articles so we need to look at this from where we are today, not the past situation. <b>] ] </b> 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Before the split there were two article - Transcendental Meditation with a primary focus on the technique, and Transcendental Meditation Movement covering more the organization around the technique. These 2 artilcle served nicely to cover the main themes. Now we have three. --] (]) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Archived''' | |||
It appears that some editors feel that the split of the article was made without proper consensus and due process. For this reason they would like to discuss that here now. It would seem to me to be an appropriate place. Is there any Misplaced Pages guideline that says that once an article is split that the split cannot be re-considered?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Archived for historical reference only | |||
:The vast majority of edits to the two articles were made by those who engineered and supported the split not by those who didn't. The discussion that followed the split effectively excluded input from editors who did not support the split. At this point for the purposes of dealing with this article, how this split was even possible is not the concern in part because it brings into the discussion editor behaviour. I'd like to just focus on the article itself. The real question should be why was the content split when there was another suggestion made by an uninvolved editor agreed on by both an involved and uninvolved editor to rename the TM article TM technique. Even then any action with out agreement would have preempeted the RfC. So editors were waiting for further input. | |||
:Merging the two articles and renaming the article TM technique was the suggested discussed solution of the RfC. The split was a unilateral edit but was supported by another editor. The question now is, which of these two solutions can be agreed on as supported by a consensus. By consensus I mean almost all editors from both sides of the dispute in agreement rather than stacking up editors on either side and calling that a consensus. I'd like to see a situation where both sides are happy with what we decide to go on with. If we can't get to that point on our own I'd like to bring in a mediator. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::I don't see any point in constantly rehashing the past. Let's talk about how we want to improve the articles in the TM topic. <b>] ] </b> 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::We first have to decide what articles there are to deal with.(21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::::See ]. Since this is a multi-article discussion maybe it'd be better held on the project talk page. ]. <b>] ] </b> 22:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''More recent review/clinical updates''' | |||
====Editor input requested==== | |||
If editors could point out which of these suggestions appeals to them most we could get a sense of where we stand on this issue and whether we can deal with this on our own or need and outside eye. As far as I'm concerned unless we have total agreement from both sides we should ask for help. I've notified the regular editors on the TM pages. | |||
•'''Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses''' (2017) | |||
We have several possibilities: | |||
SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak | |||
1.) Don't merge ], ] | |||
2.) Merge ] into ] | |||
'''•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)''' | |||
3.) Some other re-configuration | |||
---- | |||
Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4 | |||
These are always possibilities no matter what other decisions are made and are not mutually exclusive as the above can be: | |||
== Could you point to the content == | |||
Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit: | |||
4.) Improve the articles | |||
"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety." | |||
5.) Delete them all and start from scratch | |||
The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,... | |||
*Olive: '''#2'''...I originally supported the renaming of the article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcedental Meditation technique and still do. | |||
*Bigweeboy - '''#2''' I think the 2 articles we had prior to the split were sufficient. --] (]) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
*TimidGuy - '''#2''' There's no need for three articles. It's just confusing. About 99% of the time "Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific meditation procedure, and that's what this article should be about. (Other, rare usages can be mentioned in the article.) ] (]) 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies. | |||
====Discussion==== | |||
I'd like to discuss this before we vote. I'm not sure the point of a vote anyway. <b>] ] </b> 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated. | |||
:Its not a vote but an indication of what people agree with and sets a bottom line on the discussion. Maybe we can all come to some agreement on how to deal with the article/articles in question. Discussion is ongoing and doesn't stop because we take a look at where we stand on this issue.(] (]) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::What's the purpose of having a "bottom line" in a discussion? I don't know what that means. <b>] ] </b> 22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::We have to be discussing the same thing. Right now we're not. You want to discuss an article others don't think should exist. Until we can agree on whether this article should be here or not a discussion has no focus. Per the arbitration far better to go to dispute resolution than drag on a convoluted discussion which is what occurs when groups can't even agree on what the discussion is about. If we can come to some understanding on what we are discussing we have a chance to resolve the issues.(] (]) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::::I still don't understand this "bottom line" concept. I said I'm not interested in rehashing this same old edit over and over, but you can do so if you want. I am interested in discussing improvements to this and other articles. If you don't want to that's fine too. <b>] ] </b> 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::So there is somewhat of an impasse... I want to discuss improvements to the article but think we have to establish first just what articles we are talking about... You don't want to discuss what articles we are talking about but would go onto discussing improvements with out that background in mind. (] (]) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
:::::::Aren't we talking about ] and ]? Those are the subject of the poll. Are there other articles we're talking about too? <b>] ] </b> 22:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions. | |||
::::::::I'm discussing the original article and the split of that article into two articles. You seem to be discussing the articles that exist after the split. Those are the ''articles'' we are discussing. Well think about it. I'm going of line for the night.(] (]) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
I'd note per MEDRS,] that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn. | |||
:::::::::So is this basically a discussion over whether to merge the two articles? If so, please apply the relevant {merge} tags to the article and start a thread on that explicit topic. See ] and ]. <b>] ] </b> 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at. | |||
:::::::::: A merge at this point would be a purely technical procedure, a remedy to a split that was not accepted, was not properly discussed, etc. What is the tag when a new article is created without consensus by article forking? This would be the only acceptable tag in the current situation. ] (]) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::See ] and ]. <b>] ] </b> 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
We have three articles. One that gives an overview ] one that deals with the technique ] and one that deals with the movement ]. This is a fair way to present the material. We could shrink the main TM page down to a disambig. But I feel that would be too small. We could join them all together but that would be to big. What we have now is just right. I have the impression of efforts to suppress information regarding the TM movement with a desire to give greater emphasis to the technique. While I hope I am wrong changes in this direction are not something I would support. BWBs possibles do not do justice to the options at hand which are: | |||
] (]) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
1)Merge all three.</br> | |||
2)Don't merge all three and leave them as they are</br> | |||
3)Move material from the main article to the sub articles and only leave a disambig.</br> | |||
] (] · ] · ]) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per ] it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from ] because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in ]. ] (]) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Actually, there are four article. Don't forget ]. <b>] ] </b> 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Thankyou that would mean four to merge. Anyway off to the symphony. May vote should be obvious. ] (] · ] · ]) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. ] (]) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. ] (]) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::If this is a merge discussion then let's do it right. <b>] ] </b> 04:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Really? This is a page specifically about ]. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the ] on TM and anxiety? ] (]) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::This is not a "merge discussion". As I stated above, before the unnecessary split, we had 2 article - one on TM that covered the TM technique, another that covered the TM Movement as the organization that teaches the technique and related courses. This covered material nicely. There is not even a need for a disambig in my opinion. --] (]) 08:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::I have already provided references that supported having separate articles on the technique and movement. Misplaced Pages is based on reasoned debate not a vote. TimidGuy says 99% of the time TM refers to the technique. Does he have a ref to support this opinion? The Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with this position. This change was done to increase ]. No justification why it should not have taken place was ever put forwards.] (] · ] · ]) 15:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. ] (]) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Lets not suggest anything else but the clearly stated intention of the input I requested- not to vote to make changes, but to state positions in order to to get a sense of where everyone stood on the issue of merging the TM article in which, content was split off without consensus or agreement in the face of another suggestion, in the second day of an RfC. Now I'm willing to move beyond that action, but unless we know how all editors feel about putting back together ie merging those two articles created as a unilateral edit, we will have a difficult time clarifying what is actually under discussion. | |||
::::Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::At this point it appears that Will and Doc do not support the merge, while TG, Olive, and BWB do. Is that correct. As well, I'm not seeing this as a consensus-needed situation. I think we just have to know were we all stand. It seems clear that some support the merge and some do not, and I don't see so far, any common ground, so then the next step is to discuss why or why not the merge is needed.(] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
(undent) We did not need this to figure out where we all stand. Everyone knew this even before we started. The question is which version is more congruent with wiki policy. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Reversion of date with out summary comment=== | |||
:I do not understand the purpose of this discussion. An RfC was announced in early September to elicit outside input on whether the lead of the (then) TM article should mention that TM as used by sources refers both to the technique of Transcendental Meditation and to the TM organization or movement. The ''only'' comment from an uninvolved editor was a suggestion that the content be split into two articles, one a short intro titled TM that disambiguates the term TM, and the other titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" that covers the technique only. I haven't been paying attention to those articles, but from the discussion on this page, it appears that was done. That seems a reasonable solution to the difficulty. But more to my point here, I'm puzzled why it's being brought up now, six weeks after the RfC, and put to a vote of involved editors? This isn't how we settle questions on Misplaced Pages, by counting who's on which side. We go by what works for the encyclopedia, as spelled out in policy. It seems to me that the changes that were made satisfy policy and should have put the matter to rest; I don't see why it's necessary now to re-hold the RfC. I'm not seeing here any reasoned argument why the solution as proposed and carried out wasn't a good one. The information is all there, just organized in a way that should be less confusing to readers, so what's the problem? I don't get it. ] (]) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated. | |||
I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. ] (]) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Let me say again for all who continue to use the word vote that as I clearly stated, I was asking for input and for editors to give a sense of how they saw the issues so that discussion could be more focused. There was no vote suggested and no consensus asked for. | |||
::The suggestion in the RfC was to rename the article TM technique, not to split the articles. And in fact Misplaced Pages does function at times using consensus. | |||
:See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with ] too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. ] (]) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@James: In fact, we can't assume what editor positions are in a group process and don't have the right to assign motives to anyone. Asking that we use a group process to asses where editors stand is part of acting and dealing with groups. Whatever our personal opinions are on other people, assuming good faith rather than assigning opinions and motives to people will best facilitate good collaboration.(] (]) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. ] (]) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: In accordance with policy, we should evaluate if Transcendental Meditation usually refers to a mental procedure or to an organisation. It should have been evaluated before the split. Looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica I could find many well structured sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the technique. We can find similar sentences all over the place, in newspapers, in TV programs, etc. I don't think that we have so many sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the organisation. There could be sentences that are in between, not so clear on the usage, such as "An adept of Transcendental Meditation". Anyway, what we need is to evaluate the most common usage in non ambiguous and well structured sentences, especially in popular media, which are most representative of the common usage. This was never done and thus policy was violated, but let just do it now. ] (]) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. ] (]) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. ] (]) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, that is not a common interpretation of policy. When a term refers to different things, we don't have to "evaluate" by some rubric which of the things is the more common use of the term and only have an article about that one; Misplaced Pages is full of disambiguation pages or introduction pages, that say "x can refer to y, or to z" with links to articles about y and z which people can click on depending on which meaning of the term they wanted to learn about. There is no policy requirement to choose between the meanings, in fact it's most common to disambiguate and have articles for the different meanings. ] (]) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes those within the movement often refer to the movement as "World Government" and the technique as TM. But we are not writing from the position of those within the movement. We are writing from the position of general interest / academia. TM as you acknowledge above may refer to the movement. Thus I hope this settles things.] (] · ] · ]) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::: The policy or guideline says that for a given name we have the choice between associating that name to a disambiguation page or to a main article that corresponds to the most common usage of that name. In the latter case, the main article includes references to the other uses of that name. Normally, if one usage is more common, then we use it for a main article. For example, there is no disambiguation page for . In any case, it says that it must be discussed before we do a splitting, create a disambiguation page or an introduction article. BTW, I don't think that introduction articles are so common. ] (]) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Coming back to the issue at hand - before the split (for a very long time, in fact) we had only 1 article on TM that covered the whole gambit of references to TM, but the main focus was no the technique. Then an article on the TM movement was created - 1 article for TM technique (the most common usage of the name), and another for the TM movement. I am still firmly of the opinion that all we need is 2 articles to cover the relevant material. --] (]) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Things were not stable. There was a dispute over whether the lede should say, "The TM technique is" or "TM is a technique and a movement". Editors have been strongly in favor of an article that was focused on the TM technique. So that's what we have. It's been very stable since then. <b>] ] </b> 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I would classify the TM article as stagnant, not stable. --] (]) 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::What's the difference? <b>] ] </b> 19:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. ] (]) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Transcendental Meditation; Technique or Movement? == | |||
::I'm not sire what point you're making? | |||
It seems to to me that the central issue is whether the term "Transcendental Meditation" refers to a meditation technique, an organization/movement or both. It has always been my understanding that it referred to a meditation technique. Today I did some research on the web to see how it is defined by online dictionaries etc. I have posted my results here on a newly created subpage of this talk page. I encourage others to also post their findings so we can have comprehensive overview of how the term is defined by reliable secondary sources. Once the definition is clear than it will help us to decide what the article of the same name should contain in terms of content.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::You're probably right. I really don't want to be here haggling over this article again. So my responses may not be complete. As perspective. I am a strict, maybe rigid, supporter of MEDRS. So, the subtle implication that I am supporting bias is frustrating. This article is not moribund, it's stable after years of contention. Let's see if I can make my position clear, as apparently I haven't. My perceptions. | |||
: Note that encyclopaedia and dictionaries are not secondary sources, but tertiary sources. There is no unique criteria to determine the most common usage of a term, but definitively we should include newspapers, TV programs and other independent secondary sources. Some might want to include websites and books written by detractors of alternative medicine and related organisations, but they should be seen for what they are. I am curious to see what the result will be. ] (]) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:The official name of the technique, as we've discussed often here and as editors have frequently attested by their edits, is "the Transcendental Meditation technique". The movement has many names, both for the individual entities and the overall whole. There are also aspects of TM that are neither the technique and nor the movement either, like SCI. <b>] ] </b> 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::SCI is a course taught by the TM movement. It can go under the umbrella of courses taught by the TMM. --] (]) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::TM is also a course taught by the TM movement. But SCI is more than just a course - it's the intellectual framework for TM and MMY's philosophy. If we had an article like "TM theory" or "Philosophy of MMY" then it'd go there. Until then, this seems like the best place for the theoretical issues. <b>] ] </b> 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::This same set of issues have been previously discussed at great length. The talk archives show that this exercise is an unnecessary duplication and rehashing of issues long-settled. The current structure of a relatively short disambiguation article on TM, with separate articles on the technique, movement, history...and the numerous other articles on other aspects of the movement, its leaders and organization which are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles is completely consonant with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies and are extensively sourced. Complaining about how the various articles got created is a non-starter. Voting is not how issues get resolved. Counting Ghits for TM technique vs TM movement is not how issues get resolved. I do not see a single substantive suggestion as to what anyone thinks is wrong with the articles or how those complaining propose to cure their inchoate objections. ] (]) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Is there a proposal to rename this article? I don't understand the point of this exercise. <b>] ] </b> 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Will, regarding your statement that the official name is "Transcendental Meditation Technique", the issue is not about "Transcendental Meditation Technique", but about "Transcendental Meditation." We should care about what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation". If the most common usage is the technique, then they should see the article about the technique, which has a link to the article about the Transcendental Meditation Organisation. | |||
:::: However, there can be a compromise. One possibility is to give more room to the technique in the Transcendental Meditation article. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would simply provide more details. The main product of the Transcendental Meditation organisation is the technique. It is the product for which it is best known for. It makes no sense to have so little about it in the Transcendental Meditation article. Doc James wrote that he suspected a desire to hide the Transcendental Meditation Movement. How presenting the main product of the movement could be hiding anything about it? It seems to me that it does the opposite: it sheds light on what the organisation really is. Perhaps some people want to hide something important about this organisation when they try to hide the technique. ] (]) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::] calls on Misplaced Pages editors to split articles when they become too long. The phrase "TM" covers many issues: a technique, a movement, the history of both, the intellectual framework, etc. Editors here repeatedly sought to change the lead from "TM is" to "The TM technique is". So now there is an article specifically for the TM technique. <b>] ] </b> 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: "Transcendental Meditation Technique" is better, but "Transcendental Meditation" still mainly refers to the technique, much less to the organisation, as KeithBob has shown by looking at common usage on the Internet. This is a point that must be considered in the future, whatever we decide to do. A large article is fine unless it creates problem with a browser. I do not think there was any problem. However, I can see the point of having a central article on Transcendental Meditation that would respect what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation", which is mainly the technique, but also the organisation. This central article would then refer to the Transcendental Meditation Technique article for even more details about the technique and to other articles as well as needed. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would clearly identify itself as a continuation of the Transcendental Meditation article, which is the parent article. ] (]) 00:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::While I guess the next thing to do would be to create a request for comment and see if outside editors agrees with your interpretation. I personally see KB list as just a specific selection of sites to support his POV. One could come up with a long list the other way. Google give 165,000 for the movement and 232,000 for the technique. Hardly a big difference.] (] · ] · ]) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Misplaced Pages for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information. | |||
If we're compiling sources, keep in mind that all of the sources that refer to TM as a religion, cult, or sect are implicitly referring to it as a movement, not a technique. That's one of the reasons for having separate articles. <b>] ] </b> 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable.... | |||
: I think Doc James is confused about the issue. We are not asking what content should be associated with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" or "Transcendental Meditation Technique" because this is clear. So, a Google count on these two terms is not helpful. We need to decide what should be associated with the term "Transcendental Meditation". Therefore we want to know what is the most common usage of this term. If the most common usage of "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique, the corresponding article should be mainly about the technique. In the same line of thoughts, I don't understand the purpose of the section . It does not help to determine what is expected when one searches for "Transcendental Meditation". ] (]) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Every one of those entries would be found by searching for "Transcendental Meditation". We have no easy way of determining what readers expect to find. <b>] ] </b> 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::It seems like a fairly logical arrangement: cover the technique in "TM technique", the movement in "TM movement", and the history in "TM history", and everything else in "TM". <b>] ] </b> 04:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Perhaps we have located here the point about which we need outside help: what is a good and neutral way to determine what people expect to find when they search "Transcendental Meditation"? With regard to your suggestion, I think to the contrary that people that search for TM are expecting to find out about the technique and to some degree about the movement, not about "every thing else". ] (]) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::If they want to learn about the technique then they can follow that link, and if they are interested in the movement then there's a link for that too. If editors insist, as they have in the past, that we have an article that starts "The TM technique is" then it makes sense for that article to be titled "TM technique". That's how the RFC started and why we're here. <b>] ] </b> 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Let us be clear about what we want. Do we want that "Transcendental Meditation" goes to a disambiguation page or to a primary topic ? A disambiguation page is not the best option, but if we go for it, then let us do it right and have a clean simple ordinary disambiguation page. Otherwise, let us have a primary topic that makes sense for "Transcendental Meditation". It was suggested that this topic is an Introduction to Transcendental Meditation, which makes sense to me. However, I don't think that the content of such an Introduction should be every thing else beside the technique, the movement, etc. ] (]) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Things were settled before the split. TM primary article mainly focused on TM technique, another article on TMM covering the organization teaching TM technique and related programs, etc. --] (]) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The section has been organized by date. ] does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using ] as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement. | |||
::::::::: Yes, and there was no problem with the length of the article. Nobody pointed out a browser that had problem with it. Nevertheless, having "Transcendental Meditation" points to an Introduction article about TM is not a bad idea, as long as this Introduction article respects the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". "Transcendental Meditation" is normally used to mean the technique, so the article should mainly be about the technique. It also makes perfect sense to discuss the movement in this introduction article because the technique can only be thought by certified TM teachers, which is not a negligible point, and thus the TM technique is not a concept that is independent from the TM organisation. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::::::Edith, it sounds like you'd be satisfied if the technique section in this article were longer. Is that correct? <b>] ] </b> 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions. | |||
(undent) TM is associated with both terms as is amply shown beyond any doubt. Thus the reason for splitting off the section on the technique. Yes we known that TMers wish to portray TM as a technique which is scientifically validated. I have added refs to this effect. However the rest of the world users a broader definition and has their doubts. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
: The difficulty that we have is that you decide alone what the the world think. The only thing that I and others want is to have a chance to determine honestly using reliable sources what the world think. For example, to determine what is the common use of the term "Transcendental Meditation", we want to refer to how this term is used in encyclopedia and other reliable sources, not only take your words or the words of Fladrif or Will Beback. BTW, there is no need to separate any one from the "rest of the world". If you do that, it will be helpful that do that to yourself because you seem to think that the entire world think like you do. ] (]) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: :-) Do you remember the ref to the EB I provided? ] (] · ] · ]) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Edith seems to be taking the position that we can use other sources as a clear indicator of what is the most common usage. I regret to say that I have very serious doubts that we would be able to use sources like encyclopediae, for instance, because they will often themselves have a clear predisposition to one usage or the other. So, for instance, I think an encyclopedia of religions would give primary importance to the TM religion/movement, while an encyclopedia of yoga or similar exercises would probably give "first place" to the TM technique. If that is true, which I believe likely, then what we would probably ''really'' be doing would be determining whether there are more religion or yoga encyclopediae, etc., because they would probably break down as indicated here, and I think I can speak from experience that there are more of the former than the latter. Any individual is of course free to do whatever they want, including referencing these sources, but based on what I have seen this sort of short dab page is probably the best way to go. I say that because this seems to have been the decision reached after extensive previous discussion of this issue and it seems, at least to me, unlikely that things have changed significantly since then. ] (]) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for you comments, John. Unfortunately, the "decision" to create the split did not come from "extensive previous discussion", but rather from one editors action. --] (]) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::We've discussed the "TM is a techique" issue for over a year, IIRC, and there were discussions even before I got involved. <b>] ] </b> 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Per Will's, BWB, and John's comment: Two issues here are being conflated that should probably be untangled. There have been multiple discussions since before I came here too, on how to define the words TM, and how best to create articles on TM given the way the words are used in the sources. Eventually two primary articles were used to encompass content; technique and what is associated with the technique - a somewhat subjective discrimination, and everything else that is labelled in the sources as TM movement. (There are multiple other articles that are associated with TM technique/organization.) I assume Will is referring to those discussions. BWB is referring to a unilateral split or fork depending on how you look at it, that was carried out despite editor objections, on the second day of an RfC, and despite a suggestion by an outside editor that would have possibly solved the problem out lined in the RfC. Unilateral editing during an RfC especially on the second day is apt to create a contentious situation, as it has. | |||
::::::::::This thread was begun to deal with the split, and to see if there was any common ground that would allow all editors to deal with the split, and if not to ask for outside help, as in a mediation. Side angles have entered the conversation as to why the split was appropriate or not in terms of content considerations. One of those discussions has brought up again the terms TM movement and TM technique since some editors may see that defining those terms satisfactorily for everyone could solve the problems with the split.(apologies Edith for placing this here. Hope its OK. it made sense to follow the appropriate comments with this post rather than later on. (] (]) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::::: @John Carter: Also, this is not my personal position. The first to have used an encyclopaedic is Doc James, then KeithBob got inspired and looked into other encyclopaedia and dictionaries. I myself, pointed out that they are tertiary sources and proposed that we extend to secondary sources. You are right that different sources might have different uses of "Transcendantal Meditation", but what else do we have to evaluate the most common use of an ambiguous term. I propose that we see what the picture is, while taking into account the orientation of the different sources. It is better than only using what we personally think the world think. ] (]) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess. | |||
==Outside input== | |||
We now have two more people who have provided outside input Woonpton and John Carter. Both feel that what what we have currently is best. Ie no merging. Should we move on to improving the article or wait for more outside input? ] (] · ] · ]) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks to John for his input. Woonpton is not an uninvolved editor. John is of the impression that your split was carried out after extensive discussion which of course was not the case. What was resolved after extensive discussion many months ago was to create an article called TM movement and to separate that from an article called TM technique. The very simple renaming of the TM article to TM technique would have solved the problem outlined in the recent RfC, and was suggested by another outside editor but you bypassed that suggestion when you split off content to create another article. I think we could look into a true dab page but we need editor input and agreement on that. (] (]) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::Just renaming would not have dealt with the length issue. Do you think that the 7000-word TM technique article would be improved if we moved the 1300-word "Theoretical concepts" section and the 900-word "Characterizations" section there? <b>] ] </b> 21:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. ] (]) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There was no length issue per the RfC. | |||
'''RfC statement''': | |||
T''ranscendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages? Will Beback talk 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
'' | |||
The so called length issue was introduced after the unilateral split. If there is a length issue that's a discussion that belongs in the hands of all the editors here, not one or two. Further its another discussion. What ''are'' we discussing here? (] (]) 21:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
:::If we're not discussing improvements to this article we should move the discussion elsewhere. | |||
:::I asked you if you think the TM technique article would be improved if we moved two long sections from this article to that article. <b>] ] </b> 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:{{tq|Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war}} ← not at all, you could raise a query at ]. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? ] (]) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::And I said clearly, not me, or you or any other single editor should make that decision. ''"If there is a length issue that's a discussion that belongs in the hands of all the editors here, not one or two"''. What my personal opinion is has no bearing in this process. If we need a discussion on the length of this article that's another discussion. I'd be happy to take part in that kind of discussion with other editors later on, once we deal with the article concerns now. I don't think its clear what we are discussing anymore there have been so many side discussions. I was discussing a split and felt a neutral action would have been to rejoin the articles split off then clean them up to comply with best article practices. If editors see a length problem , it could be cleaned up then. At the same time if other editors discuss and agree on a dab page that would be a possible editor agreed upon solution. I'm not interested in any unilateral actions on anyone's part on these large issues.(] (]) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source. | |||
:@Doc James, important modifications to the current Transcendental Meditation article is a reasonable option for me. However, it still remain that we must discuss what people expect to get in a Transcendental Meditation article. | |||
:: No one suggested Cochrane in and of itself is not reliable. No source is valuable to us unless it specifically supports specific content and complies with our standards. | |||
:@Olive, I must say that I do not think that a renaming of the main article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation technique is a viable option. Detractors of TM will want that the main article contains something about the TM organization. This says a lot about the value of the TM technique as such. | |||
:: No one suggested the review is fringe. | |||
:@John, A DAB page is only an option if we really cannot agree on the content of a main article. I am hoping that we will agree on the content of a main article. One reason for this is that, even if we have two articles at the same level, the detractors of TM will still try push their viewpoints in both articles. Therefore, it is simpler to address the issue in one main article. ] (]) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: I don't have to go to a notice board to know the content you are supporting does not reflect the source. Further NB are often a time sink, and the positions raised there are not binding on any article. Often they are a waste of time, of which I have little, in part because they are not binding | |||
:: For starters, please look at the rest of the reviews in the section for TM and anxiety. | |||
::I've done what I can do here. Best wishes. ] (]) 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::A date is only needed if the information is time-bound in some way. Has the view on TM/Anxiety changed? Per ] we should just deliver the knowledge payload without needless detail. The conclusion of the review says "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" which we summarize well (i.e. no good evidence to support). As to other sources: good tip. That Goyal source is comparatively recent (2014), but was badly mis-summarized. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Maharishi effect == | |||
::::Edith I'm referring to the original TM article which existed before the split and during the RfC... and I'm suggesting renaming TM to TM technique after the two articles in existence now, TM and TM technique are rejoined. I guess I would not assume what other editors would want or not want. I try to think we are all trying to be neutral and with discussion can come to some agreement.(] (]) 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)) | |||
::::: So, you are indirectly saying that you had no content issue in mind, just a renaming of the article, with no intention to exclude content about the organisation. Well, the thing is that I am not attach, but also not against the idea of three articles: TM, TM technique and TM organisation. I do not interpret it to mean that TM means equally TM technique and TM organisation. I still think that it primarily means TM technique. This is why I am hoping to first discuss the most common use of "Transcendental Meditation" before we start improving the associated article as it is now after the splitting. | |||
"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. ] (]) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: If people want the Transcendental Meditation article to be the main article for "Transcendental Meditation", without a "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article, this is fine with me. I don't buy the length argument. It is not really an issue. Similarly, if people want a "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article to be the main article for "Transcendental Meditation" (without a Transcendental Meditation article, i.e., a renaming before splitting), this is also fine with me. | |||
:What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --] (]) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) <span style="white-space: nowrap;">] (]・])</span> 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Yogic Flying == | |||
::::: It seems to me that in all three cases, we will have to deal with the issue of what should be the content of the main article. So, why not discuss that. It seems to be the issue here. ] (]) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." </nowiki> ] (]) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Proposal== | |||
*Move "Theoretical concepts" section and the "Characterizations" section to ]. | |||
:Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? ] (]) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
;Comments | |||
:Dear Editor, | |||
I'm opposed to doing so but am making this proposal for discussion purposes. I think the Theoretical concepts underly more than just the technique. The Characterizations mostly refer to the generic "TM" and it's often unclear if the sources are referring to the technique or the movement, or both. Further, moving these sections to the TM technique article would make it too long. For those reasons I support keeping those sections here. <b>] ] </b> 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Here is further evidence why you post my edit from the Journal of Conflict Resolution. | |||
::I agree with Will that it would be best to leave these section where they are. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:“A causal law of nature means no more and no less than that A is always followed by B (Kemeny, 1959),” said Dr. John G. Kemeny, former colleague of Einstein, and former President of Dartmouth College. This causal law satisfies the requirement made by non-TM peer review editors that TM causes the creation of a EEG coherent brain, increased IQ and intelligence scores, increased moral and ethical reasoning scores, more loving behavior, reduced school suspensions and expulsions, fewer hospitalizations in all disease categories, a longer average life span of about 15 years, relief from suicidal PTSD by veterans, and when only 1% of society practices TM, significantly decreased accident rates, decreased crime rates, and improved economic indicators like increased gross domestic product, and rising international stock markets. | |||
:: I don't think it is a good idea to discuss what should be moved out of the main article at this stage without also discussing what should be moved in. Any proposal should present the big picture since it is hard to evaluate sections without the overall context. I am interested to see a proposal that would present the big picture. I invite people to boycott this proposal, not reject it, but not accept it either, until we see the big picture. ] (]) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: The chance of error in the TM crime reduction studies, is only p < .0000000000000000001. In normal studies p < .01 means there is an excellent chance — 99 per cent — that the difference in outcomes would NOT be observed if the intervention had no benefit whatsoever. So p < .000000000000000001 means it is virtually certain, statistically, that the TM intervention caused the war deaths to fall 76%. | |||
:::If you'd like to make an alternate proposal then that's fine too. But asking other editors to boycott discussions is probably not a good way of working towards consensus. <b>] ] </b> 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: In TM crime reduction studies, other possible causes (weekends, holidays, weather, police procedures, government initiatives, etc.) are statistically controlled for. | |||
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: TM peace intervention studies are announced (predicted) ahead of time (before the TM intervention). | |||
:To sum up, non-TM peer review editors confirm: Using the compound probability model , cross-lagged panel correlation (CLPC), Box-Jenkins ARIMA impact assessment, transfer function analyses, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Liu’s linear transfer function (LTF), Ljung-Box Q statistic (showing joint probabilities of autocorrelations in residuals were insignificant, indicating statistical adequacies), robustness checks with “pseudovariables” (to rule out spurious effects), etc., 19 published studies indicate causality and rule out reverse causation for the TM crime reduction effect.https://istpp.org/news/2017_03-field-effects-of-consciousness-peer-reviewed-studies.html ] (]) 09:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That crackpot institution is not a ]. --] (]) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::This Journal Of Conflict Resolution study on Yogic Flying time-lagged correlated to reduction of warfare includes authors Charles N. Alexander affiliated with Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University; and Wallace E. Larimore affiliated with Computational Engineering, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts. | |||
:::Please see for yourself at: </nowiki> ] (]) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::While Charles N. Alexander did receive his , at the time of the publication of this paper he was a faculty member of the "Department of Psychology" at Maharishi University of Management, then known as Maharishi International University.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schmidt-Wilk |first1=Jane |title=A Biographical Sketch of Charles 'Skip' Alexander (1949–1998) |journal=Journal of Adult Development|date=2000 |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=289–290 |doi=10.1023/A:1009584000035}}</ref> The claimed contemporaneous affiliation to Harvard is evidently a disingenuous one, made to give a (false) imprimatur of legitimacy to an otherwise obviously ridiculous research study, as the subsequent points out. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks, but back to the specific statistics approved by the non-TM peer review editors of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. We will see that cross correlation and transfer functions are used to determine and define causal notation, commonly used in the social sciences, as in A, Yogic Flying, causing B, reduction of warfare. | |||
:::::Cross-correlation is the measurement of how well two independent signals resemble each other, a concept also known as cross-similarity. "'''cross-correlation''' is a ] of two series as a function of the displacement of one relative to the other... It is commonly used for searching a long signal for a shorter, known feature. It has applications in ]."]] Here the pattern is when the number of Yogic Flyers reaches a threshold, A, the number of war deaths B, decline. And when the number of Yogic Flyers, A, falls below the threshold, the war deaths, B, increase. | |||
:::::A transfer function is a convenient way to represent a linear, time-invariant system in terms of its input-output relationship. "a transfer function of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. "a '''transfer function''' (also known as '''system function''' or '''network function''') of a system, sub-system, or component is a ] that ] the system's output for each possible input. "]] Here the transfer function models the system's output (war deaths) for each possible input (number of Yogic Flyers). | |||
:::::'''"Causal notation''' is ] used to express cause and effect. | |||
:::::"In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect). Establishing causal relationships is the aim of many scientific studies across fields ranging from ] and ] to ] and ]."]] Here as Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains, when group EEG coherence reaches a threshold (from the technology of Yogic Flying), the effect is war deaths reduce. | |||
:::::Here is a list of the 19 peer review studies using statistics like cross-correlation and transfer functions, approved by the non-TM peer review editors, as causal notation. Please check out these mainstream journals: | |||
:::::Assimakis P., & Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. ''Psychological Reports'' ''76''(3), 1171–1193. | |||
:::::Cavanaugh, K. L., & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017a). The contribution of proposed field effects of consciousness to the prevention of U.S. accidental fatalities: Theory and empirical tests. ''Journal of Consciousness Studies,'' ''24''(1–2), 53–86. | |||
:::::Cavanaugh, K. L, & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017b). Field effects of consciousness and reduction in U.S. urban murder rates: Evaluation of a prospective quasi-experiment. ''Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3''(3–1), 32–43. | |||
:::::Davies, J. L., & Alexander, C. N. (2005). Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact assessment analysis of the Lebanon war. ''Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,'' ''17''(1), 285–338. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C. (1990). Test of a field theory of consciousness and social change: Time series analysis of participation in the TM-Sidhi program and reduction of violent death in the U.S. ''Social Indicators Research'' ''22''(4), 399–418. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Banus, C. B., Polanzi, C., & Landrith III, G. S. (1988). Test of a field model of consciousness and social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased urban crime. ''The Journal of Mind and Behavior'' ''9''(4), 457–486. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2016). Societal violence and collective consciousness: Reduction of U.S. homicide and urban violent crime rates. ''SAGE Open'', ''6''(2), 1–16. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2017). Group practice of the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program and reductions in infant mortality and drug-related death: A quasi-experimental analysis. ''SAGE Open'', ''7''(1), 1–16. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Cavanaugh, K. L., Glenn, T., Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Mittlefehldt, V. (1987). Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators. ''The Journal of Mind and Behavior'' ''8''(1), 67–104. | |||
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Landrith III, G. S., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1981). The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities. ''Journal of Crime and Justice'' ''4'', 25–45. | |||
:::::Fergusson L. C. (2016). Vedic science-based education, poverty removal and social wellbeing: A case history of Cambodia from 1980-2015. ''Journal of Indian Education'', ''31''(4), 16-45. | |||
:::::Hagelin, J. S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Cavanaugh, K. L., Alexander, C. N., Shatkin, S. F., … Ross, E. (1999). Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June–July 1993. ''Social Indicators Research,'' ''47''(2), 153–201. | |||
:::::Hatchard, G., & Cavanaugh, K. L. (2017). The effect of coherent collective consciousness on national quality of life and economic performance indicators—An analysis of the IMD index of national competitive advantage. ''Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3''(3–1), 16–31. | |||
:::::Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1996). The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. ''Psychology, Crime & Law,'' ''2''(3), 165–174. | |||
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N., Chandler, H. M., & Cranson, R. W. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. ''Journal of Offender Rehabilitation'', ''36''(1–4), 283–302. | |||
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Davies, J. L. (1990). The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Reply to a methodological critique. ''Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34''(4), 756–768. | |||
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' ''32''(4), 776–812. | |||
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. ''Journal of Offender Rehabilitation'', ''36''(1–4), 283–302. | |||
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Oates, R. M. (2009). A field-theoretic view of consciousness: Reply to critics. ''Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22''(3), 139–166. ] (]) 11:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od|5}} | |||
You made a claim about the authorship of the paper for which you advocate inclusion, to counter {{u|Hob Gadling}}'s pointing out, not inaccurately, that a paper emerging from such a {{tq|crackpot institution is not a ]}}. When your claim is shown to be false, you change the subject. | |||
You've changed the subject to one which you apparently know even less about than accurately examining the authorship of a joke research study. The analysis "{{tq|commonly used in the social sciences}}" to determine causation from multiple variables is ], not cross-correlation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::'''INTERSUBJECT EEG COHERENCE: IS CONSCIOUSNESS A FIELD?''' | |||
::::::As Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains inter subject EEG coherence at a distance explains the time-lagged correlation of warfare reduction in Lebanon, from a small group of TM experts. The rise of EEG coherence in the small group, radiates out and causes other people's (warfare combatants) EEG coherence to improve. Then the warring groups become more coherent and begin to cease aggression. Hagelin says this represents a theoretic field effect propagated by the unified field of physics. This Maharishi Effect has been replicated in numerous mainstream peer review journal studies in which the editors are not practicing TM. Never the less, these brilliant editors have endorsed the experimental designs and statistical notations for causality. | |||
::::::Abstract: EEG coherence was measured '''''between''''' pairs of three different subjects during a one-hour period practice of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Coherence between subjects was evaluated for two sequential fifteen minute periods. On six experimental days, these periods preceded and then coincided with a fifteen minute period during which '''''2500''''' students participated in the TM-Sidhi program at a course over lo00 miles away. After the course had ended coherence was evaluated on six control days. | |||
::::::It was found that intersubject coherence was generally low, between '''0.35''' and '''0.4,''' with coherence in the alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta '''(16-20''' Hz) frequencies significantly higher than at other frequencies. On the experimental days, intersubject '''EEG''' coherence increased during the experimental period relative to the fifteen minute baseline period immediately preceding the experimental period. Coherence increased significantly from baseline to experimental periods '''on''' experimental days compared with control days (p = 0.02). This effect was particularly evident in the alpha and beta frequencies. The results reinforce previous sociological studies showing decreased social disorder in the vicinity of TM and TM-Sidhi participants and are discussed in terms of a field theoretic view of consciousness. </nowiki> ] (]) 11:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Maharishi International University is a 501(c)3 nonprofit university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, not a crackpot institution. The President of MIU is Dartmouth and Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin. How many presidents of other universities can come close to his scientific achievements, I ask you, Sir? "In 1992, Hagelin received a ] from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce "for his promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory"...During his time at CERN, SLAC and MUM, Hagelin worked on supersymmetric extensions of the standard model and grand unification theories. His work on the ] heterotic ] is considered one of the more successful unified field theories, or "theories of everything", and was highlighted in 1991 in a cover story in '']'' magazine. | |||
:From 1979 to 1996, Hagelin published over 70 papers about ], ], ], ] and ], most of them in academic scientific journals. He co-authored a 1983 paper in '']'', "Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity", that became one of the 103 most-cited articles in the physical sciences in 1983 and 1984. In a 2012 interview in ''Science Watch'', co-author Keith Olive said that his work for the 1984 study was one of the areas that had given him the greatest sense of accomplishment. A 1984 paper by Hagelin and John Ellis in '']'', "Supersymmetric relics from the big bang", had been cited over 500 times by 2007."]] | |||
:"The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]] | |||
:Following is a link to a diagram from the Journal of Conflict Resolution study that illustrates the proposed causal notation between A, the number of TM-Sidhi participants, and B, the improved quality of life index in Israel and reduction of conflict in Lebanon. You can see the 2 lines represent the data that illustrate the time lag that B always follows A, that former President of Dartmouth, John Kemeny, defined as the requirement for causality. | |||
:https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_5.png/ ] (]) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: "The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]] | |||
::: Here is a link illustrating 2 lines for their mathematical relation of TM-Sidhi Intervention Period and a time-lag to reduction of crime in DC. Again this is a chart illustrating causal notation defined by statistics. | |||
::: 4,000 participants in the TM-Sidhi programme gathered in Washington DC for a six-week demonstration project in 1993. Predictions were lodged in advance with a 27-member independent review panel and advertised in the ''Washington Post.''(8) The results provide evidence of a dosage effect: when numbers participating increased, the effects were greater. Findings showed a 23.3% reduction in total violent crime during the project period, as well as increased approval ratings for President Clinton. In addition, accidents, emergency psychiatric calls, hospital trauma cases and complaints against police all decreased, while a quality of life index improved.(9,10) | |||
::https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_3.png/ ] (]) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Following is a link to a diagram that illustrates the proposed causal relationship between US per capita consumption of ] and the ] in ]. And here's one showing the relationship between the number of google searches for "best schools" and the number of ]s in ]. You can, one hopes, see the problem. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thank you for your very intelligent insight with these 2 diagrams showing correlations that are not causal. It is clear you perceive the correlation between Yogic Flying and war reduction as non-causal. To you and your colleague Misplaced Pages editors, Yogic Flying causing war reduction is as ridiculous as the consumption of margarine causing the Maine divorce rate or visa versa. | |||
:::::However, as I have tried to explain, the Maharishi Effect studies always involve statistical techniques, that show a time lag between line A and line B (as in the Lebanon study), indicating causality. One precedes the other. A always precedes B. This is the requirement for causality. "In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect)." Cross correlations combined with transfer functions can prove your 2 diagrams are correlated but not related causally. Whereas in the TM-Lebanon study, cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B. This is not true in the correlation of consumption of margarine and the Maine divorce rate. Margarine consumption, A, does not lead the Maine divorce rate, B, or visa versa. For your diagrams, A does NOT lead B. | |||
::::: Furthermore the Maharishi Effect studies have multiple replications in many parts of the world, all indicating causality by statistical techniques. | |||
:::::Therefore Hagelin is proposing the Maharishi Effect is a law of nature propagated by the unified field. He is proposing the coherent brain is the basis of world peace. He is saying the Maharishi Effect is evidence of the unified field, which is usually researched only in particle accelerators and atomic labs. This is one reason the TM scientists are using physics functions like cross-correlations and transfer functions. It is a coherent proposal because as I cited above inter subject EEG coherence occurs across long distances. The source of the higher brain EEG synchrony is coming from the Yogic Flying group, as measured. ] (]) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: "The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]] | |||
::::: Here is link showing rising lines for improvement of Norway's and Sweden's economies when the Maharishi Effect Threshold was achieved. | |||
::::: Increased national economic strength and competitiveness in New Zealand and Norway. Scores on the Institute for Management Development (IMD) Index of National Competitive Advantage increased significantly for New Zealand and Norway when the number of people practising Transcendental Meditation exceeded 1% of the national population, in comparison to 44 other developed nations over a 7-year period. Subsidiary analysis and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirmed that the observed economic improvements were unusually broad-based, sustained, and balanced in nature, with five years of high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. For New Zealand, a cost-benefit analysis of coherence creation through Transcendental Meditation conservatively estimated the gain to the nation at $320 for every $1 invested in implementing the programme.(24 | |||
::::https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_7.png/ ] (]) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the propagation of credulous horseshit claiming that arse-bouncing leads to world peace. ] (]) 14:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{tq|cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B}} One leading another does not prove anything at all. The text you posted above does prove that you do not understand statistical regression. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You are right the above 2 posts with 2 lines for Norway (green) and New Zealand (blue), and 2 lines for actual DC crime (red) and the time series predicted crime without creating coherence group (green) DO NOT represent linear regression because they are not lines for independent and dependent variables. Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake sorry. I admit I am not an expert in linear regression. | |||
:::::::However, the following is correct. What I meant by A leads B in the J of Conflict Resolution is the independent variable always precedes or leads the dependent variable. In a causal correlation B always follows A. The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." | |||
:::::::Therefore my original edit is correct and should be posted by you under Yogic Flying please: | |||
:::::::The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." </nowiki> | |||
:::::::I wear a Christ cross and Mother Mary medallion but find no conflict in practicing TM. I would not believe the Maharishi Effect either if it were not for about 40 studies showing causality by cross-correlations, transfer functions, etc. My friend Father Thomas Keating, Abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey, Spencer, MA, who practiced Transcendental Meditation (TM), and lived to be 95, believed in what Lord Christ said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” and, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto thee.” Perhaps he could better explain the Maharishi Effect than I? ] (]) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Misplaced Pages isn't the slightest bit interested in what religious symbols you wear, or what your personal religious beliefs are. You aren't going to be permitted to add this credulous horseshit to the article for the same reasons that all the previous promoters of said horseshit haven't been. Feel free to read the archives (linked at the top of this page) for past attempts, and for why they have not been accepted. Or alternatively, read ] - this is an essay, rather than policy, but it summarises nicely the opinions of Misplaced Pages contributors at large, and forms the background to the policies which prevent the article being used to promote arse-bouncing for world peace. ] (]) 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!---put comments above this line--> | |||
{{talk-reflist}} |
Latest revision as of 21:49, 14 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Other subpages |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Transcendental Meditation research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
TM-Sidhi program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Transcendental Meditation was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
State of the research
I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Misplaced Pages or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.
Problematic sources
•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)
Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
Withdrawn
From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)
T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.
• Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)
Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen
Archived Archived for historical reference only
More recent review/clinical updates
•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)
SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)
Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4
Could you point to the content
Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...
I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.
We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
I'd note per MEDRS,WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.
There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.
Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per WP:MEDSAY it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Really? This is a page specifically about Transcendental Meditation. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the WP:BESTSOURCES on TM and anxiety? Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Reversion of date with out summary comment
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.
I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with WP:MEDSAY too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. Bon courage (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sire what point you're making?
- You're probably right. I really don't want to be here haggling over this article again. So my responses may not be complete. As perspective. I am a strict, maybe rigid, supporter of MEDRS. So, the subtle implication that I am supporting bias is frustrating. This article is not moribund, it's stable after years of contention. Let's see if I can make my position clear, as apparently I haven't. My perceptions.
The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Misplaced Pages for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.
The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....
The section has been organized by date. WP:MEDSAY does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using WP:MEDSAY as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.
The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.
The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war
← not at all, you could raise a query at WT:MED. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
- No one suggested Cochrane in and of itself is not reliable. No source is valuable to us unless it specifically supports specific content and complies with our standards.
- No one suggested the review is fringe.
- I don't have to go to a notice board to know the content you are supporting does not reflect the source. Further NB are often a time sink, and the positions raised there are not binding on any article. Often they are a waste of time, of which I have little, in part because they are not binding
- For starters, please look at the rest of the reviews in the section for TM and anxiety.
- I've done what I can do here. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- A date is only needed if the information is time-bound in some way. Has the view on TM/Anxiety changed? Per WP:MEDSAY we should just deliver the knowledge payload without needless detail. The conclusion of the review says "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" which we summarize well (i.e. no good evidence to support). As to other sources: good tip. That Goyal source is comparatively recent (2014), but was badly mis-summarized. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Maharishi effect
"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. 2600:1700:37E0:6890:7CCA:BDEB:A173:B2C8 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Yogic Flying
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." Will M Davis (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Editor,
- Here is further evidence why you post my edit from the Journal of Conflict Resolution.
- “A causal law of nature means no more and no less than that A is always followed by B (Kemeny, 1959),” said Dr. John G. Kemeny, former colleague of Einstein, and former President of Dartmouth College. This causal law satisfies the requirement made by non-TM peer review editors that TM causes the creation of a EEG coherent brain, increased IQ and intelligence scores, increased moral and ethical reasoning scores, more loving behavior, reduced school suspensions and expulsions, fewer hospitalizations in all disease categories, a longer average life span of about 15 years, relief from suicidal PTSD by veterans, and when only 1% of society practices TM, significantly decreased accident rates, decreased crime rates, and improved economic indicators like increased gross domestic product, and rising international stock markets.
- Non-TM peer review editors confirm: The chance of error in the TM crime reduction studies, is only p < .0000000000000000001. In normal studies p < .01 means there is an excellent chance — 99 per cent — that the difference in outcomes would NOT be observed if the intervention had no benefit whatsoever. So p < .000000000000000001 means it is virtually certain, statistically, that the TM intervention caused the war deaths to fall 76%.
- Non-TM peer review editors confirm: In TM crime reduction studies, other possible causes (weekends, holidays, weather, police procedures, government initiatives, etc.) are statistically controlled for.
- Non-TM peer review editors confirm: TM peace intervention studies are announced (predicted) ahead of time (before the TM intervention).
- To sum up, non-TM peer review editors confirm: Using the compound probability model , cross-lagged panel correlation (CLPC), Box-Jenkins ARIMA impact assessment, transfer function analyses, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Liu’s linear transfer function (LTF), Ljung-Box Q statistic (showing joint probabilities of autocorrelations in residuals were insignificant, indicating statistical adequacies), robustness checks with “pseudovariables” (to rule out spurious effects), etc., 19 published studies indicate causality and rule out reverse causation for the TM crime reduction effect.https://istpp.org/news/2017_03-field-effects-of-consciousness-peer-reviewed-studies.html Will M Davis (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That crackpot institution is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- This Journal Of Conflict Resolution study on Yogic Flying time-lagged correlated to reduction of warfare includes authors Charles N. Alexander affiliated with Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University; and Wallace E. Larimore affiliated with Computational Engineering, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts.
- Please see for yourself at: Will M Davis (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- While Charles N. Alexander did receive his PhD from Harvard, at the time of the publication of this paper he was a faculty member of the "Department of Psychology" at Maharishi University of Management, then known as Maharishi International University. The claimed contemporaneous affiliation to Harvard is evidently a disingenuous one, made to give a (false) imprimatur of legitimacy to an otherwise obviously ridiculous research study, as the subsequent critique points out. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, but back to the specific statistics approved by the non-TM peer review editors of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. We will see that cross correlation and transfer functions are used to determine and define causal notation, commonly used in the social sciences, as in A, Yogic Flying, causing B, reduction of warfare.
- Cross-correlation is the measurement of how well two independent signals resemble each other, a concept also known as cross-similarity. "cross-correlation is a measure of similarity of two series as a function of the displacement of one relative to the other... It is commonly used for searching a long signal for a shorter, known feature. It has applications in pattern recognition." Here the pattern is when the number of Yogic Flyers reaches a threshold, A, the number of war deaths B, decline. And when the number of Yogic Flyers, A, falls below the threshold, the war deaths, B, increase.
- A transfer function is a convenient way to represent a linear, time-invariant system in terms of its input-output relationship. "a transfer function of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. "a transfer function (also known as system function or network function) of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. " Here the transfer function models the system's output (war deaths) for each possible input (number of Yogic Flyers).
- "Causal notation is notation used to express cause and effect.
- "In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect). Establishing causal relationships is the aim of many scientific studies across fields ranging from biology and physics to social sciences and economics." Here as Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains, when group EEG coherence reaches a threshold (from the technology of Yogic Flying), the effect is war deaths reduce.
- Here is a list of the 19 peer review studies using statistics like cross-correlation and transfer functions, approved by the non-TM peer review editors, as causal notation. Please check out these mainstream journals:
- Assimakis P., & Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. Psychological Reports 76(3), 1171–1193.
- Cavanaugh, K. L., & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017a). The contribution of proposed field effects of consciousness to the prevention of U.S. accidental fatalities: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 24(1–2), 53–86.
- Cavanaugh, K. L, & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017b). Field effects of consciousness and reduction in U.S. urban murder rates: Evaluation of a prospective quasi-experiment. Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3(3–1), 32–43.
- Davies, J. L., & Alexander, C. N. (2005). Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact assessment analysis of the Lebanon war. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 17(1), 285–338.
- Dillbeck, M. C. (1990). Test of a field theory of consciousness and social change: Time series analysis of participation in the TM-Sidhi program and reduction of violent death in the U.S. Social Indicators Research 22(4), 399–418.
- Dillbeck, M. C., Banus, C. B., Polanzi, C., & Landrith III, G. S. (1988). Test of a field model of consciousness and social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased urban crime. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 9(4), 457–486.
- Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2016). Societal violence and collective consciousness: Reduction of U.S. homicide and urban violent crime rates. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–16.
- Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2017). Group practice of the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program and reductions in infant mortality and drug-related death: A quasi-experimental analysis. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–16.
- Dillbeck, M. C., Cavanaugh, K. L., Glenn, T., Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Mittlefehldt, V. (1987). Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 8(1), 67–104.
- Dillbeck, M. C., Landrith III, G. S., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1981). The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities. Journal of Crime and Justice 4, 25–45.
- Fergusson L. C. (2016). Vedic science-based education, poverty removal and social wellbeing: A case history of Cambodia from 1980-2015. Journal of Indian Education, 31(4), 16-45.
- Hagelin, J. S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Cavanaugh, K. L., Alexander, C. N., Shatkin, S. F., … Ross, E. (1999). Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June–July 1993. Social Indicators Research, 47(2), 153–201.
- Hatchard, G., & Cavanaugh, K. L. (2017). The effect of coherent collective consciousness on national quality of life and economic performance indicators—An analysis of the IMD index of national competitive advantage. Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3(3–1), 16–31.
- Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1996). The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 165–174.
- Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N., Chandler, H. M., & Cranson, R. W. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 36(1–4), 283–302.
- Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Davies, J. L. (1990). The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Reply to a methodological critique. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(4), 756–768.
- Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32(4), 776–812.
- Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 36(1–4), 283–302.
- Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Oates, R. M. (2009). A field-theoretic view of consciousness: Reply to critics. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22(3), 139–166. Will M Davis (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- While Charles N. Alexander did receive his PhD from Harvard, at the time of the publication of this paper he was a faculty member of the "Department of Psychology" at Maharishi University of Management, then known as Maharishi International University. The claimed contemporaneous affiliation to Harvard is evidently a disingenuous one, made to give a (false) imprimatur of legitimacy to an otherwise obviously ridiculous research study, as the subsequent critique points out. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That crackpot institution is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
You made a claim about the authorship of the paper for which you advocate inclusion, to counter Hob Gadling's pointing out, not inaccurately, that a paper emerging from such a crackpot institution is not a reliable source
. When your claim is shown to be false, you change the subject.
You've changed the subject to one which you apparently know even less about than accurately examining the authorship of a joke research study. The analysis "commonly used in the social sciences
" to determine causation from multiple variables is regression analysis, not cross-correlation. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- INTERSUBJECT EEG COHERENCE: IS CONSCIOUSNESS A FIELD?
- As Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains inter subject EEG coherence at a distance explains the time-lagged correlation of warfare reduction in Lebanon, from a small group of TM experts. The rise of EEG coherence in the small group, radiates out and causes other people's (warfare combatants) EEG coherence to improve. Then the warring groups become more coherent and begin to cease aggression. Hagelin says this represents a theoretic field effect propagated by the unified field of physics. This Maharishi Effect has been replicated in numerous mainstream peer review journal studies in which the editors are not practicing TM. Never the less, these brilliant editors have endorsed the experimental designs and statistical notations for causality.
- Abstract: EEG coherence was measured between pairs of three different subjects during a one-hour period practice of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Coherence between subjects was evaluated for two sequential fifteen minute periods. On six experimental days, these periods preceded and then coincided with a fifteen minute period during which 2500 students participated in the TM-Sidhi program at a course over lo00 miles away. After the course had ended coherence was evaluated on six control days.
- It was found that intersubject coherence was generally low, between 0.35 and 0.4, with coherence in the alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta (16-20 Hz) frequencies significantly higher than at other frequencies. On the experimental days, intersubject EEG coherence increased during the experimental period relative to the fifteen minute baseline period immediately preceding the experimental period. Coherence increased significantly from baseline to experimental periods on experimental days compared with control days (p = 0.02). This effect was particularly evident in the alpha and beta frequencies. The results reinforce previous sociological studies showing decreased social disorder in the vicinity of TM and TM-Sidhi participants and are discussed in terms of a field theoretic view of consciousness. Will M Davis (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maharishi International University is a 501(c)3 nonprofit university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, not a crackpot institution. The President of MIU is Dartmouth and Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin. How many presidents of other universities can come close to his scientific achievements, I ask you, Sir? "In 1992, Hagelin received a Kilby International Award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce "for his promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory"...During his time at CERN, SLAC and MUM, Hagelin worked on supersymmetric extensions of the standard model and grand unification theories. His work on the flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory is considered one of the more successful unified field theories, or "theories of everything", and was highlighted in 1991 in a cover story in Discover magazine.
- From 1979 to 1996, Hagelin published over 70 papers about particle physics, electroweak unification, grand unification, supersymmetry and cosmology, most of them in academic scientific journals. He co-authored a 1983 paper in Physics Letters B, "Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity", that became one of the 103 most-cited articles in the physical sciences in 1983 and 1984. In a 2012 interview in Science Watch, co-author Keith Olive said that his work for the 1984 study was one of the areas that had given him the greatest sense of accomplishment. A 1984 paper by Hagelin and John Ellis in Nuclear Physics B, "Supersymmetric relics from the big bang", had been cited over 500 times by 2007."
- "The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
- Following is a link to a diagram from the Journal of Conflict Resolution study that illustrates the proposed causal notation between A, the number of TM-Sidhi participants, and B, the improved quality of life index in Israel and reduction of conflict in Lebanon. You can see the 2 lines represent the data that illustrate the time lag that B always follows A, that former President of Dartmouth, John Kemeny, defined as the requirement for causality.
- https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_5.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
- Here is a link illustrating 2 lines for their mathematical relation of TM-Sidhi Intervention Period and a time-lag to reduction of crime in DC. Again this is a chart illustrating causal notation defined by statistics.
- 4,000 participants in the TM-Sidhi programme gathered in Washington DC for a six-week demonstration project in 1993. Predictions were lodged in advance with a 27-member independent review panel and advertised in the Washington Post.(8) The results provide evidence of a dosage effect: when numbers participating increased, the effects were greater. Findings showed a 23.3% reduction in total violent crime during the project period, as well as increased approval ratings for President Clinton. In addition, accidents, emergency psychiatric calls, hospital trauma cases and complaints against police all decreased, while a quality of life index improved.(9,10)
- https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_3.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Following is a link to a diagram that illustrates the proposed causal relationship between US per capita consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine. And here's one showing the relationship between the number of google searches for "best schools" and the number of security guards in Pennsylvania. You can, one hopes, see the problem. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very intelligent insight with these 2 diagrams showing correlations that are not causal. It is clear you perceive the correlation between Yogic Flying and war reduction as non-causal. To you and your colleague Misplaced Pages editors, Yogic Flying causing war reduction is as ridiculous as the consumption of margarine causing the Maine divorce rate or visa versa.
- However, as I have tried to explain, the Maharishi Effect studies always involve statistical techniques, that show a time lag between line A and line B (as in the Lebanon study), indicating causality. One precedes the other. A always precedes B. This is the requirement for causality. "In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect)." Cross correlations combined with transfer functions can prove your 2 diagrams are correlated but not related causally. Whereas in the TM-Lebanon study, cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B. This is not true in the correlation of consumption of margarine and the Maine divorce rate. Margarine consumption, A, does not lead the Maine divorce rate, B, or visa versa. For your diagrams, A does NOT lead B.
- Furthermore the Maharishi Effect studies have multiple replications in many parts of the world, all indicating causality by statistical techniques.
- Therefore Hagelin is proposing the Maharishi Effect is a law of nature propagated by the unified field. He is proposing the coherent brain is the basis of world peace. He is saying the Maharishi Effect is evidence of the unified field, which is usually researched only in particle accelerators and atomic labs. This is one reason the TM scientists are using physics functions like cross-correlations and transfer functions. It is a coherent proposal because as I cited above inter subject EEG coherence occurs across long distances. The source of the higher brain EEG synchrony is coming from the Yogic Flying group, as measured. Will M Davis (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
- Here is link showing rising lines for improvement of Norway's and Sweden's economies when the Maharishi Effect Threshold was achieved.
- Increased national economic strength and competitiveness in New Zealand and Norway. Scores on the Institute for Management Development (IMD) Index of National Competitive Advantage increased significantly for New Zealand and Norway when the number of people practising Transcendental Meditation exceeded 1% of the national population, in comparison to 44 other developed nations over a 7-year period. Subsidiary analysis and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirmed that the observed economic improvements were unusually broad-based, sustained, and balanced in nature, with five years of high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. For New Zealand, a cost-benefit analysis of coherence creation through Transcendental Meditation conservatively estimated the gain to the nation at $320 for every $1 invested in implementing the programme.(24
- https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_7.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the propagation of credulous horseshit claiming that arse-bouncing leads to world peace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B
One leading another does not prove anything at all. The text you posted above does prove that you do not understand statistical regression. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)- You are right the above 2 posts with 2 lines for Norway (green) and New Zealand (blue), and 2 lines for actual DC crime (red) and the time series predicted crime without creating coherence group (green) DO NOT represent linear regression because they are not lines for independent and dependent variables. Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake sorry. I admit I am not an expert in linear regression.
- However, the following is correct. What I meant by A leads B in the J of Conflict Resolution is the independent variable always precedes or leads the dependent variable. In a causal correlation B always follows A. The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation."
- Therefore my original edit is correct and should be posted by you under Yogic Flying please:
- The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation."
- I wear a Christ cross and Mother Mary medallion but find no conflict in practicing TM. I would not believe the Maharishi Effect either if it were not for about 40 studies showing causality by cross-correlations, transfer functions, etc. My friend Father Thomas Keating, Abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey, Spencer, MA, who practiced Transcendental Meditation (TM), and lived to be 95, believed in what Lord Christ said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” and, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto thee.” Perhaps he could better explain the Maharishi Effect than I? Will M Davis (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages isn't the slightest bit interested in what religious symbols you wear, or what your personal religious beliefs are. You aren't going to be permitted to add this credulous horseshit to the article for the same reasons that all the previous promoters of said horseshit haven't been. Feel free to read the archives (linked at the top of this page) for past attempts, and for why they have not been accepted. Or alternatively, read Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans - this is an essay, rather than policy, but it summarises nicely the opinions of Misplaced Pages contributors at large, and forms the background to the policies which prevent the article being used to promote arse-bouncing for world peace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Following is a link to a diagram that illustrates the proposed causal relationship between US per capita consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine. And here's one showing the relationship between the number of google searches for "best schools" and the number of security guards in Pennsylvania. You can, one hopes, see the problem. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- Schmidt-Wilk, Jane (2000). "A Biographical Sketch of Charles 'Skip' Alexander (1949–1998)". Journal of Adult Development. 7 (4): 289–290. doi:10.1023/A:1009584000035.
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- Mid-importance Hinduism articles
- B-Class Yoga articles
- Mid-importance Yoga articles
- WikiProject Yoga articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Unknown-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Articles edited by connected contributors