Misplaced Pages

Talk:Transcendental Meditation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:53, 8 December 2006 editTimidGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,259 edits →Offer their own techniques?: I wouldn't want to do an RfC on this one← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:49, 14 August 2024 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits →Yogic Flying: reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Controversial3}}
{{Notice|header=Other subpages|
{{Calm talk}}
*]
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
*]
If further archiving is needed, see ].
*]}}
{{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}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 43
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{connected contributors
|User1= Littleolive oil |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks=
|User2= TimidGuy |U2-EH=yes |U2-otherlinks=
}}


==State of the research==
'''Previous discussions:'''


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.
*]:
*] Disclosing Mantra:
*]
*
*
*]
*]
*]


'''Problematic sources'''
==Newbie question re: keeping track of new comments ==
Well, I'm back after a week and there is a reasonable amount of new discussion. Question: If I reply or make a comment in a previous "thread", how will anyone know I did so? Is it necessary to track History to tell that someone has made a comment? Thanks! ] 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


:Hi, Tanaats. Welcome back. Hope you had a good vacation. To answer your question, as far as I know History is the only way to tell what comments have been added in previous threads. I do regularly check the History so will be alert to any comments you make. ] 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


•'''Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)'''
==Other allegations regarding TM safety==
I propose adding this citation after the DeNaro quote starting with "It was obvious to me that organization was so deeply immersed...".


Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
I also propose adding this section after the "Suit alleges mental health required for safe practice". Otherwise, the TM article can leave people with the false impression that only people with a prior mental health problem are alleged to have developed problems from TM practice...


'''Withdrawn'''
Other allegations regarding TM safety
--------------------------------------------------

Not all allegations about TM's safety posit prior mental health problems. In the same affadavit Attorney DeNaro (see above) also alleges:

"In fact, meditation was used as an excuse (probably valid) by my students for not completing a project much in the way a "virus" or "the flu" debilitates the average college student. The consequences of intensive, or even regular, meditation was so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system, that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic programs,"

"...In early December 1975, while the Maharishi was on campus, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to adopt a more honest, less commercial, approach to meditation, the Sidhi courses, the curricula, the disguised religious element masquerading as a science, inter alia He was aware, apparently for some time, of the problem, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, serious psychotic episodes, depressions, inter alia, but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it because the community would lose faith in the TM movement."
] 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yikes. Of course, from my perspective, having been on campus most of the time 1974-present, these statements are bizarre in the extreme. But, in Misplaced Pages, my opinion doesn't count. : (

:I think we need to determine if an affidavit is considered a reputable source according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. After all, anyone can write an affidaviit and file it in a court house. Also, in this instance, the affidavit was filed in a suit that was settled out of court. If ultimately we can't agree regarding whether an affidavit is acceptable, we can take it through the various channels of dispute resolution.] 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, the statement is objectively true as written, as DeNaro did in fact allege these things. It's analogous to "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India" which is true as written, but could be struck out under the an analogous premise that "anyone can express an opinion about anything" and therefore such opinions are inadmissible. And for another example, Max Planck's statement is just a personal opinion. Or so I see things.

::BTW, I respect your own observations, but opinions differ of course. For example, DeNaro's experience is quite congruent with what I experienced and saw all around me on Mallorca/Fiuggi TTC. This is the TTC that Billy Clayton, a "skin boy" at the time, called the "General Hospital" course because so many people were crippled by "heavy unstressing". MMY had to set up "clinics" for the heavy unstressors, where attempts were made to help them with such things as chiropractic and foot massage. One CP went home in such bad shape that his psychiatrist father had him hospitalized. When MMY heard this, he complained in an open meeting about why "such weak people" were allowed on the course in the first place, a response which I now consider to be quite callous in a "blame the victim" mode. I myself went home in such a dissociated state after six months of TTC that I could barely function, which is of course due to something being wrong with *me* according to defacto TMO docrine (since doctrinally there can not possibly be anything "wrong" with TM). And a friend of mine who lived in Fairfield for years is writing a book about her experiences, including the psychological casualties she encountered along the way. Well, enough of the BTW stuff.

::Be that as it may, certainly we can check whether affadavits are acceptable. But it seems to me that "anyone can write anything" cuts quite a wide swath. I'm looking forward to exploring this with you. :) ] 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the affidavit ]? -] 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm kind of in a hurry so don't have much time. But here's a quick take. I think opinion is ok if it's been published by a reputable source, such as a mainstream publisher. An affadavit, as I understand it, doesn't have any special standing or authority. I believei that the article in Misplaced Pages on ] says that it's considered hearsay. I believe it's not admissible as evidence in court unless both parties agree to it. And generally, it's only used if the affiant isn't available for testimony. In the case of Denaro, I think that the affadavit was superseded by his testimony in court. I'm trying to get transcripts of the testimony and cross examination (since this affidavit keeps cropping up).

:In any case, I so appreciate your cordial manner and friendliness. I feel like we can work together, with mutual respect of each other's views, and figure out these things.] 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth.

:Hi, Sethie. As I understand it, an interview isn't allowed in Misplaced Pages, if by that you mean gathering original quotes. And as far as I know, an affadavit isn't sworn before a judge. (Check out ].] I'd be willing to wager that the affidavit isn't even part of the court documents, since it's not considered admissible evidence, and since in any case the affidavit was superseded by the testimony and cross examination.

::If that is what I meant by an interview, yes, I agree with you.... I meant interview more like something that we read in the newspaper or Time magazine kind of interview. Wow- words suck at communicating, don't they?

::As for the sworn before a judge, you know what... I assumed that was the case, and boy have my assumptions been oftentimes wrong!
From the review.&nbsp;This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'.&nbsp;The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.


::So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does ] and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in. ] 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


•'''Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)'''
:I have a problem with Carroll's book: it's filled with errors. For example, he says that Bob Rabinoff did a study on the Maharishi Effect related to crime, accidents, and crop production. No such study exists. There is no record of it in any index of scientific literature. He simply has that wrong. And he misrepresents what Randi says in his book.] 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


T Krisanaprakornkit&nbsp;1,&nbsp;W Krisanaprakornkit,&nbsp;N Piyavhatkul,&nbsp;M Laopaiboon•"
::Boy, do I hear that Timidguy... i oftentimes don't like what sources say, disagree with them and sometimes find factual errors in them as well.


&nbsp;
::I am not willing to comment overall on Carroll's book, that is too big a subject for me to tackle.... What I feel moved to say is IF some of Carroll's book is cited AND you find another source that contradicts the specific item from Caroll's book, PLEASE include it as well. That's what wikipedia is for me.... not truth, nowhere NEAR truth, but a collection of cited claims. ] 02:17, 30 November 2006 (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.


:Good point, Sethie -- and nicely articulated -- and shows clear understanding of Misplaced Pages.


• '''Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)'''
:Regarding the proposed addition: it seems weak to me. It just doesn't seem like the sort of reliable evidence that can make Misplaced Pages strong. The affadavit is a 20-year-old document of no special authority written by a disgruntled former employee who last set foot on campus over 30 years ago; published in part by a heavily biased book that has many careless errors of fact; and filed in a suit whose allegations of infliction of psychological injuries and emotional distress were dismissed by the judge for lack of credible evidence.


Maria B Ospina,&nbsp;Kenneth Bond,&nbsp;Mohammad Karkhaneh,&nbsp;Lisa Tjosvold,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Liang,&nbsp;Liza Bialy,&nbsp;Nicola Hooton,&nbsp;Nina Buscemi,&nbsp;Donna M Dryden, and&nbsp;&nbsp;Terry P Klassen
::Timidguy, you and Sethie know more about Misplaced Pages so I'm mostly bowing out (just for now though!) However, I'd like to commment on the above...(1) The affidavit being 20 years old doesn't make it inaccurate, (2) the fact that it occurred some 30 years ago doesn't make it inaccurate, (3) DeNaro was corporate counsel to a TMO organization headquartered at MIU as well as an MIU instructor, which IMO gives his statements quite a bit of "authority", (4) Being "disgruntled" doesn't make him any less objective and accurate than someone who is "gruntled" (and although I know you don't mean it this way yourself it is a common form of attack used by cults to call whistleblowers "disgruntled" as if that affected the accuracy of the whistleblowing), (5) Carroll is *certainly* no more "biased" than the TMO webpages that are often cited in the TM article, (6) Whether or not there are errors in Carroll's book doesn't of itself entirely invalidate the book as a reference, (7) The outcome of the suit doesn't mean that DeNaro's statements were inaccurate, (8) The *personal opinions* (and that's what they amount to) of a judge do not make DeNaro's claims inaccurate -- judges make mistakes all the time and as far as we know this may be one of them -- in fact it is extraordinarly difficult to obtain a favorable judgement against organizations where participation results in psychological harm because, for example, of the "they're just disgruntled" and "they must have had prior psychological problems" gambits -- a judge is just not professionally qualified to judge whether or not the problems instead might have been caused by, for example, excessive induced dissociation via TM practice many times a day for perhaps years at a time.


'''Archived'''
::In short, IMO none of this affects whether or not Carroll's quotes of DeNaro are citable. ] 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Archived for historical reference only


:I feel bad to always be opposing you guys. It's not my nature. And I do think there are some valid points that can be made. But it just doesn't seem like this is one of them.] 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


::I hear that .... and, my answer is: no.
::"I hear that" means I get your pain, dislike and concern about the source. "I hear that" means I oftentimes feel the same way about sources!
::"No" means I won't go there with you on this disucssion page. "No" means that for me, your or my commentary about a source is origonal research. love, ] 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


'''More recent review/clinical updates'''
::Dittos. I have pain, dislike, and concern about TMO sources. They are extremely biased and mostly contain only the personal opinions (that's what his "teachings" amount to) of MMY. But I accept that the TMO side of the story must be told, biased and *completely* unverifiable (except by quoting biased TMO sources) as much of it is. Similarly, I believe that the other side of the story must be given a "level playing field". ] 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


:I hear you. : ) ] 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


•'''Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses''' (2017)
Dr. Carroll's credibility has gone up, IMO. I wrote to him asking for a citation for his statement regarding Dr. Rabinoff's research. He wrote back: "Go to pages 99ff in James Randi's "Flim-Flam!" and the account of Rainoff's claims is found there. He made these claims in a talk at the University of Oregon attended by ]."


SooLiang&nbsp;Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
Which explains why it couldn't be found in a pub search. ] 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)




'''•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)'''
:Errrrr! Frustration!!! I am pretty sure about a year about I cited it! I could be wrong here....


Maria M.&nbsp;Steenkamp,&nbsp;PhD1;&nbsp;Brett T.&nbsp;Litz,&nbsp;PhD2,3;&nbsp;Charles R.&nbsp;Marmar,&nbsp;MD4
:Regardless, That's cool you wrote to him! ] 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
== Could you point to the content ==


Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
::Just a couple quick points. As I understand it, Denaro apparently never worked as legal counsel for the university. I've spoken with Steve Druker, who hired him. And I don't think that teaching a couple courses at MIU makes him an authority. (If I thought that an affidavit was a valid source in Misplaced Pages, I'd write my own, based on my 16 years of experience in the classroom here, and I'd rebut him.)


"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
::Yes, I have Randi's book. It doesn't say that Rabinoff did a study. Carroll has that wrong. It's a good example of a half truth. Rabinoff may have made claims at the University of Oregon that Randi wasn't able to substantiate (as is mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on the ]). But Carroll then twists that to say that Rabinoff did a study. Then Carroll writes that Randi concludes that Rabinoff made up the data. Randi doesn't conclude that. The way that Carroll presents it, the reader comes away with the impression that Rabinoff published a study and made up the data. He misrepresents in small ways what Randi says, and to my mind it conveys something untrue to the reader.


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'm not accusing Carroll of deliberately doing this; he may simply have misread Randi. Or not read it carefully. But it's one of a number of instances where he's inaccurate in the TM article. And I believe that that affects the reliability of his book as a source.


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.
::Also, I believe that "the TM side of the story" is verifiable, because there are 160 peer-reviewed studies. (I don't, however, deny your experience with TM.)


We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
::In any case, I'm pleased that you read closely what I wrote, especially that you attended to the point about the judgment of the appellate court. I've noticed that often in these discussions we often just scan what the other person says and respond quickly. I've been guilty of this.] 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
:::Would you be willing, Timidguy, to cease posting your thoughts and comments about a source, here, and instead post actual citations that refute the claims of that source?


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.
:::If you are not willing or able to do that, would you be willing to explain to, how your pesonal thoughts/feelings/views/response to a source, are not origonal research?] 18:27, 1 December 2006 (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.
::Hi, Sethie. I don't quite understand why you're asking me to cease posting relevant information about a source. I thought that was the purpose of the Talk page. And I don't understand the sense in which what I've posted constitutes my personal views. I thought I did a good job of presenting facts about affidavits, etc.


] (]) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::And I don't undertand why I can't research some of these points in order to determine the merit of a source. I thought the purpose of the Talk page is to bring to bear relevant facts to determine whether or not a source is reliable. And doesn't the guideline on original research just apply to the article itself? ] 20:31, 1 December 2006 (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)
:::I have a buncha' responses, but I'll wait and listen to you guys discuss this first. ] 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


::I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. ] (]) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::By the way, given that you're more experienced with Misplaced Pages than I am, it would be great if you could explain the merger process to me sometime. Do we simply wait for a length of time and then if no one has come to discuss, go ahead and do it? Thanks much. ] 21:00, 1 December 2006 (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)
::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)


:::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)
::::Thank you for asking. And my answer is still no. If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic.
::::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)


::::And so, let me make my request more clear, would you be willing to cease your origonal research HERE and find a REPUTABLE source (sorry I don't consider you or me to be one) that shares your disdain for the skeptics dictionary?] 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


===Reversion of date with out summary comment===
::Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on ], it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
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)
::Also, I was just noticing that the specific paragraphs that Tanaats proposed to add don't appear in the Skepic's Dictionary.


: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)
::I think this has been a useful discussion, and I appreciate the contributions of both of you. I'm learning a lot. It feels like we've reached a bit of an impasse. It might be interersting and educational to try the dispute procedures. We could do a formal ], following the guidelines given.] 12:52, 2 December 2006 (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)
:::First, I would like to thank you for moving the disucssion away from your thoughts and towards wiikipedia policy and the actual article... hence I find more willingness to dialogue with you.
:::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)
:::I would also like to say you are correct I was in error- the same material is not covered in both sources (trancenet and skeptics dictionary). For me this discussion is about using material from the Skeptics Dictionary.


:What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. ] (]) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm cool with that! :) ] 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sire what point you're making?

:::WP:V is a peace of cake for me in this case. If you are able to, please let me know how "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is an issue here? It's not like I'm saying, "Denarro said MMY is an alien from Mars." I would say, Denarro said xyz, cut and paste from the skeptics dictonary, and add citation.
::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.

:::My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR (i.e your thoughts about Denarro, the situation, affidavits, and the Skeptics Dictionary).

:::You are welcome to do a Rfc. This page has had roughly 4 in the last year. I don't believe a single one drew in any outside comments. ] 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, Sethie. I'm glad you feel the discussion is moving forward. And it's good to have your longer-term insight regarding the effectiveness of RfC.

::The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.] 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

:::If you are willing, please show me a wikipedia policy which say "The burden of evidence lies with that person."] 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on ], "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

:::Your response does not answer my 2 question. Are you not willing to answer it? Or are you not able to?

:::Your allegation 2 paragraphs above say that this "burden of evidence" in WP:V means "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source." I asked you to refference this claim. You did not. You just cut and pasted a quote. Please try again, or say, "I cannot answer your questions, because not such policy exists." or "I cannot answer that question, because I cannot find such a policy." ] 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::See your question #1. You asked me to cite a Misplaced Pages policy for the statement "The burden of evidence lies with that person." I can't find anyplace where I said that. I assumed you meant the instance in which I quoted this from Misplaced Pages: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So I provided the citation for that.

:::Incorrect, Timidguy, if you go in sequential order, my first question was ":::If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

::Yes, I was responding to your second question.] 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::If you cannot find where you said "that" I reffer you to, well, you, where you said both statements that I questioned. In fact I just cut and pasted your exact words: "::The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.] 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

::I think you're right that my paraphrase of that guideline may not have been apt in this situation. I need to look at the guideline and consider it futher. (Can't do it now -- am heading off to play tennis.) I was just looking at the Misplaced Pages guideline on ]. Let's give that some attention.

:::As for apt paraphrase or not, my only comment is that I cannott (and thus far, neither can you) find any wiki policy which says: "it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person."

::::Assume you understand that that was a paraphrase and that I wasn't quoting guidelines in that instance. (Which is why it didn't have quotation marks around it.)

:::::I never said you were quoting guidelines. I am said you said: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.] 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::As far as moving on to reliable_sources, I am willing to do that, if you are sure you are done with WP:V as an objection for the Skeptics Dictionary. Otherwise I would like to finish here before moving on. Please indicate clearly whether you are done with you contention that that including the Skeptics Dictionary violates WP:V.

::It's good we're discussing this. Thanks for sticking with it. Maybe once we have a good understanding of what constitutes reliable sources, we can scrutinize all of the sources cited in the article. ] 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ask me later, I may or may not be up for that.] 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::Regarding ], I think this quote applies: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In my opinion, Skeptic's Dictionary falls down on this matter. Carroll gets a number of facts wrong. I've given one example, in which he says,"One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa." Rabinoff didn't do such a study. I can cite other errors.] 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you for letting me know that you want to focus on wp:V right now.

:::Please show me a wikipedia WP:V policy which says, If a source gets one fact wrong (according to a wikipedia editor) , that source violates WP:V, and cannot be used. ] 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

<b>HEY:</b>
This discussion is ridiculous to the point of being embarrassing.

Misplaced Pages is not even asserting that DeNaro is correct, only that he made the statements, that the statements are relevant to the topic, and that he is a credible source.

The guy wasn't some homeless guy off the street who swore a crazy affidavit, nor was he just some "employee" like the janitor. He was the outfit's corporate lawyer--one of the insiders, one of the bigwigs--and he he blew the whistle on this racket. Like, DUHHH: that would be an authoritative source to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or anybody else writing about this.

On TOP of that, he didn't just give a press conference; he swore under penalty of perjury that he's telling the truth! AND: up until the day he quit in disgust, he was the LEGAL SPOKESMAN for this outfit.

:Had you read the discussion, you would have seen that it's a matter of dispute whether he worked as legal counsel for the university.] 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a credible source? That's exactly like calling Nixon's ex-lawyer John Dean not a credible source.

<i><b>---> It's not possible for a source to BE more credible</b></i>

What would it take for this guy to be credible enough for wikipedia? A lie-detector test? Winning the Nobel Prize in "veracity"? He ALREADY swore on a bible!

Or shall we only allow statements by his Holiness The Great Oz-Maharishi on matters like walking through walls, flying through the air, and making yourself invisible?

God DAMN, this is the stupidest conversation I've ever heard between people who weren't retarded.] 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for chiming in Sys Hax.

:First off, please remain civil, this page has been through enough shi-crap.

:The discussion currently is not about Denarro as a credible source. It is about whether the Skeptic's Dictionary, where his affidavit is quoted violates WP:V, so, are you willing, for now, to focus your attention there? And are you willing to reframe from deragotory and sarcastic comments like the last three? ] 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Dear Sethie and Tanaats. The comments of SysHax highlight what I like about you guys. You have both been honorable and decent and fair and civil.] 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::And now, to continue our discussion. Carroll has many facts wrong. Just looking at the sentence I quoted, there are two additional errors. Rabinoff hasn't been on faculty since the early 1980s. So the sentence should have stipulated that he was former faculty. And that he taught at MIU, not MUM. There are many additional errors.

::The Misplaced Pages policy says that sources should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Carroll has three errors in one sentence that just a small amount of fact checking could have corrected. It would only have taken one quick phone call. And I believe that one purpose of the Talk page is to discuss the reliability of souruces.

:::Thank you for refferencing actual wikipedia policy.

:::Now, please show me where the wikipedia policy says that the opinion of a wiki editor is how we make that determination. You keep sharing your opinion of the source!

:::So.... reliable or not.... On the one hand, the guy has a Ph.D., he is on the faculty for a community college, his book has been published by a company publishing books for over 200 years, appears to be a reputable publisher (they did publish Poe and Melville....) ] and the book itself has it's own wiki with no criticism listed!

:::On the other hand, we have a ], who has misquoted wiki policy during this discussion, (direct quotes from you: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable; it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."), looked to side issues from the start (is an affidavit a credible source? instead of is the place it is listed credible?; since it was filed out of court, blah blah blah; was his affidavit "superseded" by court decisions?)

:::And, other then you, there is no evidence that it is a source of dubious reliability.

:::I believe I have been paitent, and I have had enough of this dialogue. I'm going to put it in as a source. If you don't like it, find some other wikipediaians who believe in your cause, who are not WP:SPA's who have a little more experience then you and I'll dialogue this with them.] 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, Sethie. I believe my critical examination of the reliability of a source is exactly what the Talk page is for. If you disagree, maybe you could show me a guideline that says it's disallowed. And I've noted errors that anyone could easily verify with a phone call. This just isn't the sort of source that should be represented in Misplaced Pages, at least as regards what it says on Transcendental Meditation.

::And frankly, I do feel that editors should take great care in presenting sources that are reliable. That's the spirit of Misplaced Pages. And they should be grateful if someone points out that a source they'd like to cite has serious problems with facts. I think that it could be argued that that guideline does apply: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's saying that any information that's added should be sourced. And later it says that that source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. How can you sincerely believe that The Skeptic's Dictionary is accurate and has had the facts checked after I've pointed out three errors in one sentence? And earlier pointed out a fourth error in the same paragraph. That's four errors in just one paragraph.

::So what do you say -- let's do an RfC. We'll focus it on the reliability of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I'll invite two neutral Admins who've been here before to comment. We can each state our case. ] 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The fascinating thing is that you keep thinking it is your job to evaluate the CONTENT of the source, and not the source itself. The moment you leave out content and focus your attention where it belongs, on the source, on the author, on the publisher I'll discuss with you.

:::And by all means, invite LOTS of people here. ] 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Of course, one might argue that one evaluates a source by evaluating the quality of its content. And, yes I believe that's our job as edtiors.

::I'll work on documenting my case for the RfC over the next few days. It will be great to get some outside feedback. I feel like we've raised a lot of good points and have learned in the process -- all in the service of making Wikipedai better.

::I do wish you had waited until going through the dispute procedures rather than starting an edit war.] 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::It's true you believe that is your job here.

:::And if you want to look to the start of an "edit war" my reccomendation would be to look to the person who did the first revert.... and that would be you.

:::Concensus does not mean "everyone agrees." Tanaats, me and I'll give a half vote to sys hax outweight you're one vote.] 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::I went ahead and added rebuttals to this new section while I look into doing an RfC.] 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I just noted you think you need to "document my case for the RfC." Feel free to do the RfC the Timidguy way- and if you want to do it the wikipedia way, I suggest you read and follow the four simple steps ] ] 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, Sethie. Not sure I understand. I had looked at the steps, and I understood we create a section here on the Talk page in which we each make a statement regarding our point of view. Since I'm going to be arguing that Carroll has errors of fact, uses problematic sources, and has unsupported statements, I was just saying that it'll take a few days to write that up. I've asked an Admin whether RfC is an appropriate venue for this sort of documentation. It could be several hundred words.] 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


An RfC need not be hundreds of words long. Something like "Is the ''Skeptics Dictionary'' a reliable source?" would be sufficient. Then, on this page, everybody can (briefly) make their cases.

My own opinion is that Carroll is a notable critic. If we were dicussing something that he himself had said then I'd say we should include it with attribution. ("Carroll says that..."). The threshold for using him for 3rd-party information is somewhat higher. One editor here says that there are mistakes in Carrroll's work, which is probably true. Mistakes matter, but everyone makes them. I haven't seen any evidence that the Rabinoff assertion is actually a mistake, or that it has been brought to Carroll's attention for correction. Without more definitive information on those mistakes we shouldn't give the issue too much weight. Finally, the Misplaced Pages community has expressed a certain amount of confidence in the ''Skeptics Dictionary'' - the website is linked to from over a hundred articles and a couple of hundred talk pages. So my overall impression is that this particular use of the ''Skeptics Dictionary'' is appropriate, pending further information.

Separately, some of the editors of this page appear to be either involved in the movement or involved in active opposition to it. Such involved parties have a heightened responsibility to follow ] and ]. We're not here to prove that TM is right or wrong, we're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ] is a relevant guideline. -] · ] · 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks much, Will. It's great to have your feedback. And thanks especially for the guideline on Conflict of Interest.] 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This is the sort of feedback I was hoping to get by doing an RfC. So I don't think I'll take the time to document the problems with Carroll's article on TM. Sounds like it would be a hard sell.] 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dhyana? ==

While we're discussing the above, I'd like to start a new thread. I have a problem with the sentence "TM is considered a form of "dhyana", using the terminology of Patanjali." This is certainly disputable, e.g. the paragraph goes on to say that the TM meaning of "dhyana" is different from the generally accepted definition. Furthermore, it is too general. *Who* exactly considers it to be a form of dhyana? ] 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, Tanaats. I'd actually like to delete this because I don't think it is a form of dhyana. I don't think Maharishi ever presented it as such.] 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::Hi TimidGuy. Shall I go ahead and do it? It will also take out a reference to "effortlessness", but I think that point is made right at the beginning of the page. ] 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, please do. Thanks.] 12:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Ooops, I didn't see you edit summary comment that I should reference the Talk page in time. ] 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Is Transcendental Meditation a religion? ==

I propose adding the following to "Is Transcendental Meditation a Religion?" ...

The TM movement offers "yagyas". Also called a ], a yagya "is performed to please the ], or sometimes to the Supreme Spirit ]."

Official TM teachings include teachings about "God", e.g.: "All the Maharishi Yagya programs are with reference to Natural Law -- the Will of God. It is very necessary for anyone who is entertaining the Maharishi Yagya programs to align their life to the rules of purity of life, as they understand purity of life.". "The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator.". "God is found in two phases of reality: as a supreme being of absolute, eternal nature and as a personal God at the highest level of phenomenal creation!" (Science of Being and Art of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rev. Ed. 1967, p. 271). "The solution, Maharishi said, is groups of Yogic Flyers. The impact of the groups will be immediate and clear. 'A new destiny of mankind will dawn when Total Natural Law -- the Constitution of the Universe, the Divine Will of God -- which is present in every grain of creation -- rules the world of human beings as it rules the ever-expanding universe.'". ] 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:You have great sources there- the TM organization itself. I propose not creating a new section, just adding it under the current religion section. This material was there, including more of the Hindu/Vedic components of TM, well sourced, until someone removed them. ] 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, yes. I wasn't clear. I was indeed thinking to put it at the bottom of the current Religion section. ] 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Clearly this is not a reliable source!!! Just joking. : ) I think this proposed section is fair and could be added. (Though I or someone may eventually add a point or two to try to qualify the statements.)

:::The question is where to add it. Note that I've divided the Criticism section into two parts, those more directly related to TM and those related to other programs Maharishi has introduced. Maybe it could be divided between the two sections.] 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I think that it belongs in the "Religion?" section. Putting it anywhere else would make it quite a bit "out of context". Also it relates most directly to the "Religion?" issue. As for posting qualifications, of course the section should be NPOV (see, I'm learning the lingo!). ] 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\

:::We could create a new section in the "Other related controversies section" for the point about Yagyas. The heading could be "Are Yagyas religious ceremonies?" It would really be great if we could avoid confusing people by letting them know which controversies are directly relatled to TM and which are related to other programs. Yes, of course, any qualifying ponts would cite sources. ] 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Sounds good to me. Ok, as I understand where we are: "yagyas" go in the new section under "Controversies" and the rest of the proposed text goes at the bottom of "Religion?". If that's agreed shall I go ahead and make the edits? ] 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Are Yagyas religious ceremonies is a great subject for the Yagya page, Timidguy, if you want to pursue that topic please take it up there. The bottom line is the TM yagya website uses "religious" language. So keep it with the religions section. ] 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Ok, I've thought about this further and I'm going to flip-flop on this. In my very strong opinion "TM" does <u>not</u> just refer to "TM-the-technique". When people are taught TM-the-technique they are also taught the religous concept of "Cosmic Consciousness" during the 3rd group meeting after initiation. This is their introduction to "TM-the-religion". So TM-the-technique is <u>never</u> packaged apart from TM-the-religion, and I therefore consider the term "TM" to apply to both. Furthermore, I consider <u>everything</u> taught as part of TM-the-religion, including yagyas, to therefore be part of "TM". So I would like to see the "yagya" reference under the "Is TM a religion?" section. ] 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::It was already there and a (neutral) user by the name of Jefffire deleted it saying it was irrelevant. I think this is representing your personal point of view and distorts the logic of the article. A yagya is not Transcendental Meditation. Why confuse readers? It would be one thing if I were saying it shouldn't be in the article. But I've acquiesced. And I even suggested a subhead that used the word religion. This properly belongs in the Other programs section. I've worked hard to clarify the logic of the article by roeroganizing it. Please don't impose your logic and your POV. You're already well represented in the article, being quoted twice. There's a link to your web site. You shouldn't generalize your experience and opinion, and cast everything in terms of it.] 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Why on Earth would we give a sub-heading for something that will take up 2 sentences?] 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::For the sake of truth and logic?] 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Nice dodge of the question, with an implied insult. Try again.] 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry. Sethie, I didn't mean to imply an insult. I feel like I've given a rationale regarding the logical structure of the article and that we should address that point. In fact, if this gets added, I'd like to lengthen it a bit by given a brief context regarding what a yagya is. So it would be more than a couple sentences.] 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I added a clarification that judge Meanor was the lower court judge and that the appellate court judge determined that the puja was a secular ceremony.] 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::He did not DETERMINE it was a secular ceremony, he said it was. Big difference. ] 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Good point. I should be more careful with my wording.

Ok, since yagyas are not "TM", how about creating a "Maharishi Yagya Program" (or whatever its official title is) page, and I can put my "yagya" sentence there? And of course an exposition of what the offering is can be placed there as well. ] 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And I could put the rest of my "religion" stuff in the "Religion?" section in the TM article. ] 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Need reference to "SCI" ==

How about changing "...teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..." to ..."teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..."? Otherwise the reference to SCI will be a mystery to many readers ] 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Great idea. Please do.] 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Done! ] 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


==Added further info==

I have added a quot from a Canadian Newspaper by former TM teacher (and current wiki editor) Joe Kellet/Tanats. Nice interview Tanaats- I had not seen it before.

I also included a further refference from the cult abuse and policy research newsletter which clarified exactly what the judge didn't like about the puja. ] 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I have restored MOST of the well cited ideas that were removed.] 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Psychological training ==
The sentence "However, no TM teacher has the qualifications to accurately screen for psychological problems" is not 100% accurate since some of the zillions of TM teachers who were trained might have been psychologists or psychiatrists. So I've changed it to "However, TM "teacher training" does not include training on how to accurately screen for psychological or psychiatric problems". ] 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:You're a good editor. Earlier I noticed that maybe there should be a citation for this. I just added the tag. The first sentence should also have a source.] 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



==Move of indepedndent cognitive section==

The critic in question says the movement is a cult, not the TM technique, hence the rebutal doesn't fit. Also we have been seperating claim and rebutal into different sections- so unless a different modus operandi comes about.. ] 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, Sethie. I don't understand the last part of what you're saying here. But I do think the rebuttal fits. Hassan says explicitly "They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way." I rebutted that by presenting research done at Harvard showing that it fosters independent thinking. That study is unrelated to the point being made by Canter and Ernst. I don't think your move is a good one.

:I do think I could have put in a better transition to make the connection between what the study is saying and what Hassan is saying.] 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


::It is true you can dress it up.... and I am noitcing you did not answer my first objection

::And I will explain the second objection.

::Please notice that the article as it stands now, minus the German court study we do not have point-counter point right next to each other, they are divided into sections (for example the TM movement's claim about positive effects and critics. Now, would you be willing to answer my specific objections to the way the article was? ] 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Is it valid to cite allegations made in a suit that was dismissed? ==

At least twice this article quotes allegations made in a suit in 1986 alleging harmful effects of TM. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and made an award. The suit was appealed and the appellate court dismissed that particular suit. I wonder whether it's legitimate to quote these allegations when a court has ruled that they were unfounded.] 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:Did the court rule that the allegations were unfounded? Or were the allegations made, and the OVERALL case was dismissed? ] 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. There are a <u>number</u> of reasons for dismissing a suit <u>other</u> than "the allegations are unfounded". ] 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::As a matter of fact, I have been under the distinct impression that appellate courts do not rule on issues of "fact", but only on issues of "law". I could be wrong. ] 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== The guideline on consensus ==

I think it would be good to review the guideline on ]. I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity. It would be good to discuss first rather than just plowing ahead.] 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Your claim is too abstract for me. I am not willing to dialogue about something as vague as "I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity." Pick a specific point and I will dialogue with you about it.

:If you think it would be good to review the consensus guidelines, do it. If you think it would be good for ME to do so, please just come out and ask me to do it.] 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you wouldn't mind I think it would be a good idea to review the consensus guideline.

::Thank you- I recviewed it, and will let it sit. ] 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Other issues==


One example is moving the study by Alexander without first discussing. There's a guideline that I'm trying to find that deals specifically with article structure and whether criticisms should be integrated or in a separate section. Another example is the question regarding whether it's appropriate to cite allegations made in a suit that was found to be without merit and dismissed by an appellate court. Also, whether it's relevant to cite an award of a lower court if that decision was overturned by the appellate court.] 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:After your quest, pick ONE thing and I will address it. ] 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== The purpose of the Talk page ==

I would like to note, revelvant to an earlier discussion that touched on examining the reliability of sources on the Talk page, including discussing the accuracy of the content, that this is explicitly allowed in the guideline ]: "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references."] 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Please show me a place where I said it was not allowed.

:Please show me ONCE where you "compared contradictory facts from different sources!"

:TIMIDGUY, YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE. Time and time again I asked you to back up your claims with something other then your own thoughts or your offer to "make a phone call" and you would not/could not.

::I didn't offer to make a phone call. I said that Carroll could easily have corrected his errors if he'd made a hone call. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Now you are once again misquoting wikipedia policy which asks you to do what I asked you to do!!!!!!!!!!!!! which is compare contradictory facts FROM A SOURCES other then your OWN THOUGHTS and your OWN RESEARCH. You made all these claims about the innacuracy of the Skeptics Dictionary and NOT ONCE did you produce a source!

:I love it when you quote wiki policy, please keep it up. ] 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was examining the reliability of references. I was, for example, comparing contradictory facts from Carroll and Randi. I was comparing the absence of any mention of a study by Rabinoff in scientific indexes to the fact that Carroll says such a study exists.

And here's one of the instances in which you were critical if my camparing contradictory facts from different sources: " If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic."

I'm not trying to go after you. All I really want is to go back to the process that we had established earlier, of discussing things, achieving a consensus, and then making a better article. And if we can't agree, then I'd like to use the dispute procedures rather than plunging ahead and making changes that may or may not be improving the article.] 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:I stand corrected- in our dialogue, you did compare 2 facts, once. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT "examining the reliability of references!" As far as I am concerned, as soon as you step outside your thinking and provide a source, you are not engage in OR and I will disucss that with you.

:I have made some swooping changes.... though not really- they are mostly old things that had been taken out. They're done. If you don't like them, pick one and let's start discussing them.] 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:And I would like to point out that if you certainly are not teaching by example. Without disucssing it first, you just removed some unique facts which were not covered in the repeat paragraph. ] 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But you put it in without first discussing. And maybe some of those old things were taken out for a good reason. You have indeed made "swooping changes."] 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:It is true that I made the changes without first disucssing them. Why do you bring that up?

:Maybe they were taken out for good reason. Maybe they were taken out by brainwashed Mantra Zealots! Maybe Elvis and aliens came and took them out. Who the hell knows? Instead of posting a "maybe" find out! Feel free to browse through the history and see if you can find a "good reason."] 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to please try to keep this discussion ], and to carefully read the contents of the "controversial tag" at the very top of this talk page. Thanks! ] <small> ] </small> 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::It is totally true that for me, "Brainwashed Mantra Zealots" was a way out of line thing to say.... I went for a personal attack to make my point, in in this case weakened what I was trying to say. ] 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks Sethie. I just saw your most excellent ] to TimidGuy! Good work to both of you, and I hope you two can collaborate to make a great article on TM. ] <small> ] </small> 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Sethie. And thanks Dreadlocke for posting the tag and for appearing here to help settle things down.] 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

==I didn't see the repeat==

Thank you for pointing out that the study was already there. Instead of deleting the new insertion of mine, which took out a quote and a nice summary, I have combined the two and moved it to the new section. Thank you- I had missed that. ] 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Rick Ross on Canter and Ernst ==

Hi, Sethie. Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article. You shouldn't post what he says until we've had a chance to discuss. Thanks.] 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Is it true that Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article or did you do some serious misrepresenting?

:Rick Ross hasn't made any comments on the study, hence it is actually you who are misrepresenting Rick Ross. You think he has something to say about the Canter and Ernst article. Interesting thought. No basis in reality- and REALLY interesting.

:The only thing to disucss is: A) Is the source reputable? B) Did I accurately cite the source? C)Are their sources (which exclude Timidguy) which contradict what the source I drew form says?

:The rest is your OR and belongs on a blog. ] 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can present evidence that he's misrepresenting the study. But I don't see the point in doing so until we can agree on the purpose of the Talk page. Plus, I can't keep up with you here. I've got to turn my attention to other things that I've been neglecting. Will be back.] 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:YOU CANNOT present evidence that he's misrepressenting the study, because Rick Ross has never made a comment on the study!

:If you have sources, cite them and put them in the article!

:The talk page is for talking. ] 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't know where you got this quote because you don't provide a citation: "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." It's not from the abstract available online, because that says something different. And it's not from the article, because I have that. I believe it's from Rick Ross because that's exactly how he inaccurately characterizes the study on his web site.

:Thanks for telling the truth. I looked at the paragraph and it is a bit confusing- since two citations are used, so I added it in again.

:It cannot be from Rick Ross, since he has never written an article on it.

::He's repeated this verbatim a number of times. See, for example, this article. This is one of his favorite ways of dismissing the research. And it's not true.

I can demonstrate that this is an error by quoting from the abstract online. But I'm afraid that you'll again accuse me of doing Original Research. 1) Please tell me where this quote is from, and 2) and it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this. Thanks much. ] 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:I am HIGHLY skeptical that you can demonstrate that it is an error. You can quote from a source though and let the readers decide.

::Would the abstract of the study be an acceptable source?

:Ahhh- thank you for actually asking! It is from The Journal News/May 18, 2004 By Joy Victory. Time and time and time and time again, and again, right now, I have said that if you quote sources that IS NOT or.

:For the 2nd time (you were unwilling or unable to answer it the first time, maybe this will be different) Please show me where I said OR is not allowed on the talk page?] 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Quoting from Sethie in an earlier thread: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR". (But if you agree that presenting the absract is acceptable to the process on the Talk page, then we can drop this point.)] 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::I just reread what you said. I think I'm beginning to understand your point (though I'm not sure I agree). But for now, I think we can drop it if you agree that the abstract is acceptable evidence.] 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)



:::You said "it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this." I asked you to show me where I said it was not allowed. You replied by quoting me: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR."

:::When I read those words, I don't see me saying OR isn't allowed.

:::So for the third time, please show me where I said OR isn't allowed on the talk page. If you cannot find me saying that, would you be willing to clearly indicate this?

:::I said RR had not commented on the study. I was in error, you provided me a source showing me a source in which he does.

:::The source I quoted however does not say they got that information from Rick Ross, hence, the source for the quote I used was Joy Victory, a reporter for the Journal News.

:::Every step of this dialogue I have encouraged you to cite soureces. And now you want to know if it is okay with me if you cite sources?

:::Would you be willing to re-read everything I have posted in the last week and count how many times I have asked you to cite sources? ] 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Please, please, please, present the abstracts! ] 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::::"It is claimed that regular practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM) improves cognitive function and increases intelligence. This systematic review assesses the evidence from randomised controlled trials for cumulative effects of TM on cognitive function. Searches were made of electronic databases and the collected papers and official websites of the TM organisation. Only randomised controlled trials with objective outcome measures of the cumulative effects of TM on cognitive function were included. Trials that measured only acute effects of TM, or used only neurophysiological outcome measures were excluded. 107 articles reporting the effects of TM on cognitive function were identified and 10 met the inclusion criteria." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

==My recent reverts==
I reverted the last 2 edits by Timidguy because: a)he still not clear who the source of the article is, hence I do not belive he is in a position to evaluate it; b)it is a near direct quote from a source; c)I posted why I restructured something, and he did not respond to it. Instead he went ahead and has reverted it twice now (as have I). d) He has not followed the guidelines posted on this talk page, to disucss changes after they are made them for either of those reverts. ] 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I explain my edits above.] 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::When I look above I do see you saying why you don't like the cog section where it is- so I stand corrected, you commented on one of your 2 reverts. ] 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== Added citations for the Pagels quotes ==

The citations for the Pagels quotes were text (like "") rather than links. So I added live links as citations. Sorry, I forgot to log in before making the edits. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Thanks, Tanaats. I'd noticed that too and had it on my list of things to do.] 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== Offer their own techniques? ==

In the "Some TM teachers breaking away" section it says "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer their own techniques at much lower prices." I'm feeling a bit leary of the "offer their own techniques" part. I propose "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction in TM, or instruction in their own techniques that are offshoots of TM, at much lower prices." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Because "Transcendental Meditation" is trademarked, it's illegal for them to call it TM. And legally we shouldn't refer to it as TM here.] 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Good point. How about "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction on their own". Saying their "own techniques" falsely gives the impression that none of them are offering instruction that is faithful to their TM teacher training. ] 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:That's a creative workaround. But legally, we shouldn't even imply that it's TM.] 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::I disagree. The statement as proposed does not violate the "TM" trademark, and there is therefore no legal problem with it. ] 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:I can check legal counsel.] 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::TMO legal counsel? ] 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yes. I'd check with the General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management, licensee of the mark Transcendental Meditation. He also is an attorney for Maharishi Foundation, LTD, the U.K. charity which owns the mark.] 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Cool. But if you get a response that agrees with your assessment, I'll want to start the WP dispute resolution process.

::And FWIW, here's a quote from MMY that seems to relate to this topic...
::"30 or 40 thousand teachers of TM I have trained, many of them have gone on their own, and they may not call it Maharishi's TM, but they are teaching it in some different name here and there... doesn't matter, as long as the man is getting something useful to make his life better, we are satisfied". (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Press Conference, May 14, 2003)."

::There's an MP3 on Fairfield Life where MMY makes this statement. I'd want to include this statement if the TMO objects to my proposed rewrite. ] 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Clarification: I wouldn't of course cite an MP3 on FFL as a source. I just mentioned it as evidence to you that the quote is legit. ] 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


:::Timidguy you never cease to amaze me! Who cares if it is illegal for them to call the technique TM or not? What POSSIBLE bearing could that have here? In NO way, shape or form is that our issue. That is an issue for the General Counsel.

:::Our issue is WHAT DO THEY CALL THEMSELVES? How do THEY speak of what they teach.

:::"And legally we shouldn't refer to it as TM here." Knock it off! We are an encyclopedia. If they call themselves TM, we REPORT, hey, they call themlselves TM. If they don't we don't. If they kinda do, we report, hey they kind of do. It is really, really simple.

:::Instead of wipping out your Legal-talk-talk, and running to the phone, why not focus on wikipedia-speak? We can't "refer to it as TM here." because that would violate NPOV. WE cannot pass judgement on whether it is or is not TM, we just report what sources say.

:::So call GCfMUoM, Make phone calls, write letter, yada yada. This encyclolpedia however is SOOOOOO much simpler then that! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Those who have said they're offering TM have been sued, and have received a cease and desist order. They no longer call it TM. And I believe that Misplaced Pages shouldn't call it TM or imply that it's TM.] 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


::Misplaced Pages currently does not call it TM! Misplaced Pages does not imply it is TM. Misplaced Pages currently reports the following facts: former TM teachers, disgruntled, teaching their own technique.

::If the people teaching say, hey this is TM, then Misplaced Pages MUST say, "These people say this is TM." If there is documentation or offical statements by the TM organization saying no it isn't, then Misplaced Pages MUST say, "And these people say it isn't." Never, never, never, must we, however pass judgment, or try to convey through the article, this is/this isn't genuine TM. On that issue, we must remain neutral, or we stray into the land of OR, do you see? It is up to us to report facts from cited sources. Let us see how they call themselves. ] 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)




::As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and get the opinion of TMO counsel. Then, if they agree with you, we can go into dispute resolution. No problemo.

::As a side note, these have indeed been threatened with lawsuit and have put up a buncha' disclaimers. But these seem to be getting away with it. Maybe British law and Italian law are different. ] 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Misplaced Pages, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Misplaced Pages's dispute system.] 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== The Canteer edit ==

The deletion of "In a large-scale literature review published by the Middle European Journal of Medicine in 2003 reported that "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." " deletes a lot that isn't replicated by "Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." isn't represented fully by the Canteer quote that remians.

I propose replacing the Canteer quote that remains with the entire deleted section. ] 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

== Not a "sworn" affadavit? ==

In "Alleged Harmful Effects of Trancendental Meditation", why was "a sworn affadavit" changed to "an affadavit"? ] 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Is there another kind of affidavit other than one that's "sworn"? Seemed like it was redundant.] 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Dunno'. And neither will a lot of other people. A little redundancy won't hurt if it informs people who aren't familiar with the nature of affadavits. ] 22:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::When I hear affidavit- I think- something legal. When I hear sworn affidavit- I think- legal statement- that someone actually testified or swore is true. That's how my mind reacts to the two. ] 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Doesn't matter to me. I just thought it made Misplaced Pages sound naive.] 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've put "sworn" back in. ] 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Review of research on cognitive function ==

(1) Wasn't there a "counter-point" citation here previously? If so, wha'happened to it? If not chalk it off to me having a "senior moment".

:That was the study by Canter and Ernst, which Sethie moved when he created a new section about the validity of the research.

(2) The statement "Research on Transcendental Meditation suggests that it fosters independent thinking." is too general. It is supported by only a single cited study. I propose changing it to "A research study on Transcendental Meditation suggests that it fosters independent thinking." ] 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:There are other studies on field independence. But that sentence was originally meant to be a transition from the previous paragraph. But Sethie moved this study from where I had originally put this. As it stands, I feel like its pointless having it there and that it could be deleted.

:I wish Sethied hadn't moved it. I had put this into the article as a rebuttal in the cult section to the quote from Hassan: "They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions. They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person." This research and other TM studies on field independence suggest that TM fosters independent thinking. Psychologists have a range of standardized measures that they use, such as the embedded-figures text, to come up with a measure of field indepence.

:The guideline on NPOV says that both points of view should be represented. The cult section now represents only one point of view. I made that point in another thread, to no avail. And readers are leflt with POV.] 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


::No need to rebute! Let the facts speak for themselves! Readers are not left with a POV, they are left with facts! Cite people who directly say it isn't a cult, and then readers will have those facts too, not ONE study about ONE component of the alledged cult.

::I posted two reasons above why I moved it, and why I don't believe moving it back is not a good idea.

::As of now, you have responded to neither. Would you be willing to answer the objections I posted above before introducing new factors into the disucssion?] 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Move "Sthapatya Veda" to its own article? ==

Since the TM article is so long, and because "Sthapatya Veda" is essentially being given "special treatment" by appearing on the TM page rather than being a link under "Other programs offered by Maharishi", I propose that "Sthapatya Veda" be moved to its own article. The new article can be titled with whatever the TMO's official designation for that offering is, and can be linked to under the "Other offerings..." section on the TM page. ] 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:I support that ] 01:06, 8 December 2006 (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.
::Sounds good. Thanks for suggesting it. The article title would be Maharishi Sthapatya Veda.] 02:20, 8 December 2006 (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....
== Move some stuff to other TM-related pages? ==


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.
Ok...the TM article is too long, and there is a lot of stuff on there about things that are "not TM". So how about moving the following sections to other appropriate articles?...


The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
(1) Move "Marketing of herbal products" to ].


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.
(2) Move "TM-Sidhi Program and the Maharishi Effect" to ].


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)
(3) Move "Political activities of the TM organization" to ].


:{{tq|Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war}} &larr; 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)
(4) Move "Maharishi University of Management" to ].


::You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
(5) Keep "Tax-exempt status" where it is..
:: 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. ] (]) 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 ==
(6) Keep "Some TM teachers breaking away" where it is. ] 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


"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)
:I like this. I believe #2 and #3 are pretty much repeated verbatim in their respective articles. These sections were left as placeholders.] 02:23, 8 December 2006 (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. --] (]) 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)


== Totally disputed? == == 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." </nowiki> ] (]) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
At the top of the article there's this line: "1. REDIRECT Template:Totally-disputed". Whazzat? ] 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


:Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? ] (]) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:The tag is correct. May be a temporary Misplaced Pages glitch. I think for now we can leave it and see if Misplaced Pages gets the template corrected.] 02:24, 8 December 2006 (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 ] (]) 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.
Article policies
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.
Good articlesTranscendental 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:
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconTranscendental Meditation movement Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movementWikiProject icon
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYoga Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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)


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)

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)

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)

References

  1. 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.
Categories: