Employees who practice mindfulness meditation are less motivated, having realized the futility of their jobs

That’s almost exactly the stated reason the authors conducted the present study. They state in their introduction that there’s literature on positive benefits, so they wanted to examine possible negative outcomes.

The problem is, your stated benefits don’t conflict with the findings of this study. You specifically state it can increase motivation for things people want to do in life, and move towards a life worth living. That in no way conflicts with people being less motivated to do their jobs. For a sad majority of people, I’d say being motivated to live a better life would be associated with quitting their shitty job immediately. Indeed, the benefits you cite would seem to predict the outcome of the present study, rather than argue against it.

To be clear on a few additional points: I agree that most of the literature indicates that meditation can be helpful, and I see no compelling reason to doubt it. That being said, it’s easily possible that meditation is no more effective than a variety of other things, some of which may be easier to implement, so it’s important to consider. Also meditation may have negative consequences that haven’t been considered, given that most research studies are looking specifically for benefits.

Finally, critiquing the methodology behind a study is fine, but saying that it goes against established literature is problematic. A good example is research on ego-depletion. It too was highly replicated, and meta-analysis seemed to support it. File drawer issues and poor methodology don’t just go away because you’ve gathered a lot of them. As one researcher said “meta-analysis are fucked.”

ETA: In the interest of backing up my somewhat general criticisms, here’s a review of some of the issues in meditation research Has the science of mindfulness lost its mind? - PMC I could cite several other studies and such, but most of them are cited in the above, so it’d be a bit cheap of me.

Of course, I went out looking for studies that confirmed issues, because my stance is that the next person who tells me I need to take up meditation is getting punched in the throat. I imagine it’s the case that you’re a fan of meditation and, likewise, looked for confirmatory studies (though I don’t know you, so possibly not.) I’m not against meditation exactly, but I worry that it’s effects may be overstated due to the level of enthusiasm people have for it. Studies with “sexy” findings like that are often problematic, and overlooked because the researchers tend to have such enthusiasm for said findings that they can be less critical. That’s okay. Science doesn’t rely on researchers being impartial. It just relies on there being assholes like me who hate joy and want to shoot these studies down. If we can’t, then you’re on to something.

2 Likes

If the mindfulness training was done longer (e.g. a typical 8-week course perhaps, so that the person is trained to practice on their own as well), then it is possible that people might begin to enjoy their work because mindfulness can be practiced all the time one is awake – it doesn’t have to be siting meditation. Without mindfulness, people usually may do their work with a lot of negativity and resentment.

Regarding meditation being “no more effective than a variety of other things” – this is not true at all because as I said earlier, several studies (longitudinal studies and mediation analyses using techniques such as structural equation modelling) have shown that the benefits of meditation are mediated by reductions in rumination. For this too, I can provide several references.

I scanned through the article you have posted. It recommends the need for comprehensive theories – regarding this, please take a look at the following theoretical article, and you will see that meditation is not a mere belief system:
Karunamuni, N., and Weerasekera, R. (2017). Theoretical Foundations to Guide Mindfulness Meditation: A Path to Wisdom. Current Psychology, 1-20.

Also, if you read the article you will understand that mindfulness cannot be magically “induced” in a few minutes, and that it is an intelligent ongoing process that requires contemplation and training. You will also understand the reason why some people experience negative effects (mentioned in the article you posted) is because they have a poor understanding of what actually constitutes mindfulness/meditation practices.

I get your argument, however people who designed this study had no idea what mindfulness is, and also didn’t know that mindfulness cannot be magically induced in a few minutes.

I didn’t say it didn’t work. I said it wasn’t more effective than current treatments. Your argument for “it works via this method” doesn’t make any statement as to how well it works, or its effectiveness relative to other treatments.

I just provided you references though. The meta-analysis I mention is covered by the article I sent. You’re saying that my references are wrong… and you know it because you have references. We can whip out our references sections and compare sizes all day. What we have is a situation in which the literature is mixed. Why? Well, among other things…

You don’t seem to like the idea of comprehensive theories of meditation… but you argue that there’s problems because people don’t understand it. That sounds like a case where we could make sure everyone is on the same page as to what meditation is by… introducing a comprehensive theory. Comprehensive theory doesn’t mean one paper. It means a model explaining not just what it is, but the mechanisms by which it works which are commonly accepted. Without that, everyone is doing different things, making the results unreliable and unstable.

The reason the article said comprehensive theories are needed is because different researchers have different ideas about what constitutes meditation. That’s a problem across the board, and especially in meta-analysis. Hell, these researchers Meditation for Psychological Stress and Well-being reviewed reviewed 18,745 citations, and only found 47 trials that met strict criteria for treatment evaluation. They also found meditation was effective, but no more so than other treatments, by the way. In addition “We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight.”

There’s also various issues with psychological research in general, which most meditation research would qualify as, or at least share similar issues with, being based on mental states. There’s a very high amount of variability, which can make means deceiving. You mention structural equation modeling? Big problem with modeling anything is that as you toss in variables, you will always either reduce or leave your error the same. There’s no mathematical penalty for it. The more you add, the better the model fits the data. Problem is, the over fitted models don’t translate to other data. I’ve already mentioned file drawer issues. I’d also be curious to see what the distribution of significance levels is like. It’s not uncommon to see evidence of p-hacking. If you want to see more, I recommend checking out Sanjay Srivastava, who writes a lot on the various issues in research, and how we can go about fixing them.

The point I’m trying to make, is that you keep saying you have lots of citations. Mass of citations does not science make, however, and if you go and look for dissenting opinions, you’ll find the research is far more mixed. The evidence of meditation is not nearly as strong as you would like it to be. I’m sorry about that, but that’s how it is.

2 Likes

I don’t know about ‘mindfulness medication’, but I have been practicing TM (Transcendental Medication) for over twp years now. There’s nothing ‘woo’ about it, it works. Try it yourself and see. This morning I was transcending for a good long period. It’s not like telling someone you saw bigfoot or a UFO and have no evidence. Anyone can do it and you can find out for yourself.

edibles or Jim Beam?

3 Likes

Haha! subliminal messaging! DMT?

1 Like

Mankoi:
You say that I said “You’re saying that my references are wrong”- did I say that?

By the way, when I said I can provide several references – I was referring to the sentence “benefits of meditation are mediated by reductions in rumination.”
Perhaps you can also take a look at the following reference:
Querstret, D., & Cropley, M. (2013). Assessing treatments used to reduce rumination and/or worry: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology, Review, 33, 996–1009.

Also the following recent study found that mindfulness may motivate individuals to exercise:
Kang, Y., O’Donnell, et al. (2017). Dispositional mindfulness predicts adaptive affective responses to health messages and increased exercise motivation. Mindfulness, 8(2), 387-397.

If you read the theory paper I provided very carefully (please take your time), you will understand that it does describe in detail “the mechanisms by which meditation works.”

The meta analyses (Goyal,2014) you have provided used a highly heterogeneous group of meditation styles (i.e., not just mindfulness meditation) – this is a MAJOR limitation of this study. The other meta analyses (that I listed) overcame this limitation – perhaps they were not available at the time the article you provided was published.

It looks like you doubt scientific methods (statistical methods) themselves – I thought you were defending science – those criticisms belong elsewhere.

Also, please realize that it is possible to criticize ANY field of study. For example, do you know that physical activity interventions almost always use a wait list control group - yet they are never criticized for that?

Mankoi: I wanted to add a couple of other points.
When non-experts in a field of study conduct studies in an entirely different field of study, they make significant fundamental errors with incorrect assumptions. This study that tried to ‘induce’ mindfulness within a few minutes is a typical example of this. It is like someone hearing that there is something called ‘fitness,’ promoted through physical activity, and then going and asking a bunch of inactive people to exercise for a few minutes, and after that labelling these individuals as ‘fitness-induced.’ This is very dangerous for genuine scientific progress.

Additionally, you mentioned that mindfulness is no more effective than other treatments. Please check out the following references that strongly suggest otherwise:

Alsaraireh, et al. (2017). Mindfulness Meditation Versus Physical Exercise in the Management of Depression Among Nursing Students. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(10), 599-604.

Cherkin, et al. (2016). Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 315(12), 1240-1249.

Costa, A., 2016. Turning towards or turning away: a comparison of
mindfulness meditation and guided imagery relaxation in patients with acute depression.
Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 44, 410–419.

Fissler, M., et al., 2016. An investigation of the effects of brief mindfulness training
on self-reported interoceptive awareness, the ability to decenter, and their role in the
reduction of depressive symptoms. Mindfulness 7, 1170–1181.

Kuyken, W., et al. (2016). Efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in prevention of depressive relapse: an individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized trials. JAMA psychiatry, 73(6), 565-574.

Yeah, and I’m going to need a smartphone or a tablet, and some baby wipes to help facilitate me achieve true “mindfulness”.

Yeah, ours was “guided meditation” led by the cheerleader squad with enough ripped off phrases and ideas to make you realize where their “mindfulness meditation” truly came from.

It was kinda Zen-lite. All the catchphrases with none of the actual realization!

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.