Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique

Independent sourcing

Portions of the article are remarkably WP:PROFRINGE with a touch of WP:PROMO. The underlying problem is non-independent sourcing (WP:SOURCES). This will take some time to fix. Some examples:

• The lead brags about "340 peer-reviewed studies published", however the source is a book written by a proponent who in turn points us to a website run by a faculty member of the Maharishi University of Management. Even assuming the number is true, what goes unsaid is that most of those papers are connected to MUM. This is misleading. Using independent sources tends to avoid such problems. The second citation listed is Mosby's, which does not support the text.
• The citation for "14 published studies" points us to a list of ... 14 published studies.[1] What's not mentioned is that every one of those studies is affiliated with MUM. The reader is mislead. Besides, cobbling together papers like this and telling us how many you've cobbled is WP:OR or nearly so.
• Using an uncritical (and probably unreliable) source, the article twice mentions the 1993 event in DC in nearly a positive light. In reality the event was a failure (crime went up), as reliable independent sources naturally mention. Robert Park called the group's final report a "clinic in data distortion" and an exercise in pseudoscience. That is the kind of mainstream reception that is required per WP:PSCI. Lacking that means failing NPOV.

Manul ~ talk 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is still clearly a big problem. Some studies referenced in the article don't relate to the text even indirectly. One passage extolling the virtues of mass meditation on causing societal behavioural changes cites an article on EEG measurements that is totally unrelated 222.154.25.7 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is because TM is a for-profit organization that is active in propagandizing the practice. Where's a section on criticism? This is practically a full page ad for TM.

173.73.65.19 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article is too focused on saying nice things about TM, sourced by its practitioners and marketers. However, wikipedia style is to not have a Criticism section. It is better to have sections like 'Efficacy', 'Relationship to religions' etc and include relevant pro and con details in each (without engaging in false balance). I believe the whole article also overuses direct quotes and putting the name of the source in the text. This has the effect of turning the article into a he said-she said affair, rather than just stating what is Verifiable. Ashmoo (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The Research section cites a mass of papers; primary research should not be used under WP:MEDRS (and indeed under plain old WP:RS for that matter). Many of the sources, including the better ones (meta-analysis, systematic review, which are ALL we should be citing here, and ideally the systematic reviews should be the only sources used) are apparently about meditation-in-general, presumably including some quantity of TM-ers among the meditators; if so, they are barely relevant here at all, as they support the claim "meditation-in-general has health benefits A, B, and C" but they do nothing to support the supposed claim "TM has benefits over and above meditation-in-general", and it may be there is little or no evidence that is true (there's no prima facie reason to suppose it's any better than, say, Vipassana). The section needs to be reworked using the best sources only, and the claims need to be properly distinguished without puffery. Mind you, that goes for the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Hot Mess

Hello, all. I’m reasonably certain the edits I’m applying are going to irritate some folks. I’m not interested in ruffling feathers, but I believe the whole article needs help to make it adhere to encyclopedic guidelines. Anyone wishing to challenge any of my changes is of course free to do so, but please do it in the spirit of making the article better and not because you don’t agree with WP guidelines. TX! Sugarbat (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Meditation encourages to be alarmed?

"Unlike some other approaches to meditation, TM instruction encourages students not to be alarmed by random thoughts which may arise, but to easily return to…" I don't know of any kind of meditation which teaches to be alarmed by random thoughts. Which approach to meditation would that be? One to be strongly discouraged to practice. --JonValkenberg (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your observation — although one other possible interpretation could be that other techniques don't specifically mention that one should not be alarmed by thoughts (which of course one shouldn't). But it was unclearly written, prone to misunderstanding, and there were no specific examples, so I removed that part of the statement. Jhertel (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content

Will M Davis has repeatedly tried to add content to this article (as here most recently) regarding research purporting that the practice of TM Meditation, and specifically the TM-Sidhi technique, can so reduce the stress level of the population at large as to have a measurable effect on drug use and crime rates. Such research has been published by David Orme-Johnson and Kenneth Cavanaugh, both associated with the Maharishi University of Management. This research has been published in the World Journal of Social Science and Medicina, both of which are listed as predatory journals (or predatory publishers) in the latest Predatory Journals List. The claims of these researchers have been dismissed as pseudoscience by several critics (James Randi, the Neurologica blog, Helland). I ask that, at the very least, the addition of this material be discussed here at the talk page before being allowed to remain in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. Regarding my post “ 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 of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying, reduced warfare with time-lags, in Lebanon. "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." [2]”

Back to our discussion please. The Journal of Conflict Resolution is not a predatory journal? Can we therefore please include my above post citing the statistical interpretation of causality by the Maharishi Effect on reducing warfare in Lebanon published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution? This study and other Maharishi Effect studies demonstrate the following: “Causality implies lagged correlation, i.e., the cause should precede the effect in time (McCleary & Hay Jr., 1980). One type of causal analysis, called 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, assuming that the synchronous correlations at both time periods are equal (Kenny, 1979).” 2600:1013:B010:5C0D:6038:4819:2700:C34C (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis and 2600:1013:B010:5C0D:6038:4819:2700:C34C: I believe the research is deeply flawed and a prime example of confirmation bias, but if scholarly journals have published it, go ahead and use it. I throw in my towel here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis: I hereby retrieve my towel. Per the arguments presented at Talk:Transcendental Meditation (and the critique published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution), the material you propose is as unacceptable here as it is at Transcendental Meditation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The arguments presented at Talk:Transcendental Meditation (and the critique published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1990) are with reference to the cross-correlation and transfer function methodologies for the Israeli-Lebanon study published in 1988 in Journal of Conflict Resolution.

While the studies I cite in my new edit under John Hagelin Criticism, are from Sage, 2016, and Sage, 2017, and both contain some different statistical analyses from those discussed in the 1988 study and the 1990 critique you cite. Therefore for the sake of inclusion of all methodological variations of the studies on the Maharishi Effect presented for the Wikipedia reader, you should not censor my most recent John Hagelin post with more recent and more comprehensive methodologies including time series regression analysis. Historically, the refinement and improvement in statistical methodologies of the Maharishi Effect, as time moves forward, should be available for the Wikipedia reader, not ignored and censored by you, please. Wikipedia should present a balance of pro and con arguments available to the reader, not total censorship of pro arguments. With the inclusion of references, the reader like myself, can go to the studies themselves and see the specific statistical methodologies, especially more recent, as Wikipedia tends to have older journal references on the area of the Maharishi Effect. Will M Davis (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience. Unless and until scientific consensus considers studies concerning the effects of bouncing around on ones backside on world peace to be worthy of serious discussion, Wikipedia won't do so either. Go convince the scientific community at large, and then come back here when you are done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis: Specifically, until someone else (someone not associated with Maharishi Institute or University) can reproduce these results, they are merely a statistical fluke. I point you to the page of spurious correlations for other such examples. All of your forum shopping will not help; multiple editors have disagreed with your content, so it will not be added. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear AndytheGrump and WikiDan61,

The following 5 main points suggest you should publish my edit in point 2 below:

[1] Multiple editors disagreed with the content of the republishing of Gilles-Eric Seralini's famous study on rats getting sick from trace levels of Roundup, but Wikipedia published it. Reference: "On 19 September 2012, Séralini and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper funded by CRIIGIN titled "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).It involved a two-year study of genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp fed to rats. At a press conference announcing his paper, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications. Photographs from the journal article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated in the press. In November 2013, the FCT editors retracted the paper, with the editor-in-chief saying that its results were inconclusive. In June 2014 the text of the article was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe."

[2] For the reasons contained in my 5 main points here, lease publish the following in place of the Lebanon study: A 27-member Project Review Board comprising independent scientists and leading citizens approved the research protocol and monitored the research process of the Washington, DC Maharishi Effect/ violent crime rate reduction study. Homicides, rapes, and assaults (HRA) in DC, decreased by 23.3 percent, with a statistical significance of p < .000000002. Thus the HRA crimes drop might have happened by pure chance but the analysis showed the statistical odds of this were less than 2 in a billion. Consistent with previous research, levels of homicides, rapes and assaults (HRA crimes) correlated with average weekly temperature. Time series analysis of 1993 data, controlling for temperature, showed that HRA crimes dropped significantly during the Demonstration Project. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226150037_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]

The non-TM 27 Project Review Board which evaluated the research objectively, was composed of some of the leading sociologists and criminologists in the US- from the University of Maryland, Howard U., the U. of the District of Columbia, American U., Temple U., the U. of Texas, and the U. of Denver College of Law. The Project Review Board was also composed of members of the Washington, DC Police Department, and members of local government and civic leaders.

[3] The Maharishi Effect is not a spurious correlation, because the 2 wavy lines for variable A, Size of TM-Sidhi group, and variable B, the violent crime rate are time lagged, with A preceding B. When A always precedes B, but B does not always precede A, we have a causal correlation. When correlated changes in A always precede B, but correlated changes in B do not always precede A, there is a causal relationship, not a spurious correlation.

[4] Bachelor's degrees awarded in Engineering technologies (A) correlates with The number of tire repairers and changers in Utah (B) is a spurious correlation and not causal because there is no time lag between variables. Correlated changes in A do not always precede B and correlated changes in B do not always precede A.

[5] The following research is remotely similar to the TM research and is not pseudoscience: "Brain Waves Synchronize When People Interact," published 2023, in Scientific American, measured that 2 people 150 miles apart, interacting on the phone, developed an inter brain synchrony."The researchers calculate linear correlations between subjects to determine the degree to which parts of their brains respond in the same way over time—are they in lockstep? Does their activity ebb and flow together?"(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/) Will M Davis (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reference for distinguishing causal correlations of A and B, from spurious correlations. [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/applied-time-series-analysis-social-sciences Will M Davis (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis: Your passion for this topic is clear, but is perhaps preventing you from addressing the matter neutrally. As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, the research you have presented has not been widely accepted in academia, and consists of primary research. For matters such as this, extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. In this case, that would mean that other researchers (researchers not associated with the Maharishi Institute/University) have been able to reproduce these results. When even the editor of the journal that published the research questions its validity, (see expanded content quote from this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard) we'll need more. Long story short, you are not going to convince Wikipedians to accept this material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References