Meditation can help create compassion, study finds

[ZombieHorde]

Positive emotions such as compassion and loving-kindness can be trained with special meditation techniques, a study of 16 Tibetan monks by researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison found.

Published recently in the journal PLoS One, brain imaging using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to scan the brains of the monks who all had at least 10,000 hours of meditation practise.

The scans revealed that the limbic system of the brain responsible for emotions such as compassion showed significantly more activity among the Buddhist monks with many years of meditation practise.

The monks were compared with a second group of 32 people, who two weeks earlier had been instructed for the first time in meditation techniques.

----------
Link:
http://www.indiaedunews.net/Science/Meditation%5Fcan%5Fhelp%5Fcreate%5Fcompassion%2C%5Fstudy%5Ffinds%5F3990/

What do my fellow DUers think?

[Speck Tater]

1. Duh! Buddhists have known this for 2500 years.

Take, for example, the Sanskrit word "Metta", or "Loving-kindness meditation", a word that has existed for twenty five centuries, clearly demonstrating that this knowledge has existed for at least that long.

Why do modern scientists think themselves so clever for "discovering" something that the Buddha taught so many centuries ago?

Want to experience loving-kindness meditation? Here are approximately 133 different MP3 talks on metta, and guided metta meditation MP3s recorded between 1975 and March 2008. Pick one and give it a listen.

For example:

Mindfulness, Metta and Wisdom (47:33)

Mark Coleman Download

This talk explores the unity of mindfulness and the qualities of loving kindness, how they support each other and how this leads to living with wisdom and compassion in the world.

2008-02-11 Insight Meditation Society - Retreat Center (added 2008-02-18)

Recordings courtesy of the Darhma Seed Project.

[drmeow]

2. Fundamental potential bias

Within the quasi-experimental tradition, most studies are viewed through the lens of Campbell & Stanley's threats to validity. This study compares monks to non-monks. Two fundamental threats to validity (reasons not to believe the results):

1) There does not appear to be a before/after with the non-monks. Hence the results are unable to show an INCREASE in limbic activity, merely a high level. Without further data, one cannot conclude that the instruction two weeks early is responsible for limbic activity.
2) Correlation does not equal causation - the fact that monks show higher limbic activity than non-monks does not automatically support the hypothesis that meditation creates compassion. It may be that people with higher limbic activity are more likely to want to become monks.

Not a standard threat to validity but a criticism:
As cited in Wikipedia,(presumably) the journal's website states, "Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLoS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees" = while technically the member of the Editorial Board is a "peer" - this is not generally what is considered a "peer reviewed" journal article in the scientific community. In a peer reviewed journal article, the article is read by the editor who then sends it to at least 2 and often 3 "experts" in the field (people who have published on this topic before) for their review and criticism. The reviewers proceed to basically rip the paper apart (you have to have a mind bogglingly strong ego to survive in the cut-throat world of Research I academia). Most papers get a "revise and resubmit" decision ... aka - its got enough strengths where we think it should be considered for publication but it really needs some work first.

I'm not trying to say that its not possible, merely that the data reported in the article do not support that assertion.

To add, my lab is about to start a study examining the effects of specifically using training in loving kindness as part of mindfulness meditation. I would argue that meditation in and of itself does not necessarily increase loving kindness, specific training in loving kindness is required along with mindful meditation (the meditation may make us more open to learning/accepting loving kindness).

[Speck Tater]

3. Do you know ... ?

The blurb at the link says "special meditation techniques" (plural) and talks about "meditation practice" without specifying whether they are referring specifically to Vipassana (mindfulness meditation) or Metta (loving-kindness meditation). The plural of "techniques" suggests that they might be talking about both techniques, in which case they may have provided (to quote your words) "specific training in loving kindness" in addition to mindfulness.

Since the report at the link was so vague, it's hard to know how the study was actually conducted, and what "meditation techniques" were actually investigated.

Even so, the conclusion itself is ridiculously self-evident to any experienced meditator, and falls into the same category as "Breakthrough Study Proves Sky is Blue", or "Scientist Discovers that Water is Wet".

[John Gauger]

4. Did they compare with people who had done no meditation?

Further, they are all Tibetan Buddhist monks. There must be millions of variables that they have in common with one another that differ from the control group. That does very little to narrow it down to just meditation.

[Speck Tater]

5. "Anecdotal" evidence, i.e. the experience of experienced meditators

in non-Tibetan traditions (Theravada, Chan/Zen, etc.) demonstrate the same outcomes. Regardless of what was or was not specifically demonstrated by this study, the commonality of the experience is taken for granted among experienced Buddhists from all over the world.

As for the study itself, this correlation is something that only needs to be proven to non-meditators. Those who meditate require no proof, they have their direct experience. Just as you might need to prove to the color blind that red is different from green, while those who see color require no proof, because they have their own direct experience.

[John Gauger]

8. That's not how science works.

Everybody can "know" that red is a different color from green, but to the scientist that is meaningless unless it is proven through double-blind, peer-reviewed, duplicable experimentation. You can "know" anything from direct experience, but you can be wrong.

[Speck Tater]

9. I agree.

That is how science works. When I meditate, however, I am NOT doing science. Nor do I believe that science is the only thing to "do". Nor do I subscribe to the (unproven) assumption that science is the only path to knowledge. It is, of course, a tautology (and hence, essentially meaningless) that science is the only path to "scientific knowledge".

Ultimately, the only "proof" of anything is either personal experience or by accepting anecdotal evidence. If I work through the steps a Euclidean proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, then, by working those steps, and understanding each of them, I experience the truth of the theorem. If I do not understand the steps of the proof then I am not able to experience the truth of the theorem first hand, but I am told (anecdotal) that other mathematicians do understand the proof and are capable of experiencing the truth of the theorem. So I accept on faith that this anecdotal report is true.

I have never, personally, experienced the reality of the mass of the electron, but I accept, on faith, anecdotal stories from others who claim to have experienced, first hand, the derivation of the mass of the electron. These people have no reason to deceive me, so I accept their claims at face value, but it is still nothing more than faith on my part, and anecdotal tales to everyone in the world who has not personally conducted, and understood the import of the measurements in question.

If the large majority of scientists who claim personal experience agree on what they have experienced in their measurements and experiments, then I have a good reason to trust them, and accept what they tell me on faith.

If the large majority of experienced meditators who claim personal experience agree on what they have experienced in their meditations, then I have a good reason to trust them, and accept what they tell me on faith.

The two cases are not materially different. One scientist can replicate the observations of any other scientist. One experienced meditator can replicate the observations of any other experienced meditator. The only difference is that the scientist claims some kind of special status which he refuses to grant to the experienced meditator, even though that claim to special status cannot be justified in any objective, rational way, other than recourse to the meaningless argument that "As a scientist I declare that I will accept only scientific data" and "only science is scientific", therefore only my rules are valid and your rules are spurious.

But there is nothing that makes the scientist's anecdote more reliable than the meditator's anecdote. You might claim that science has the power to prove its claims to someone else, but this is not true. Either that someone else will experience the truth of what is proven for themselves, or they will accept on faith what they are told that science has "proven". Science is only a set of instructions for proving something to yourself. Likewise, meditation training is a set of instructions for proving something to yourself.

In the end, however, all proof is by personal experience. Anything other than that is pure faith. Unless you are a truly exceptional person (i.e., and experimental physicist), you accept on faith that neutrons exist. No has ever proven it to you. They have only told you it is true and you have taken what they said on faith.

[ZombieHorde]

10. But there is nothing that makes the scientist's anecdote more reliable than the meditator's anecdote

Someone who has no knowledge of science can still easily see scientific results. Their TV works, their car runs, pain killers ease pain, etc. Science has a visible, hands-on track record and there is no need for anyone to learn about science to experience them.

How can someone who has no knowledge of meditation see any results from meditation? There is nothing tangible for most people to examine. You must learn about meditation, and then practice it for a while.

You might claim that science has the power to prove its claims to someone else, but this is not true.

A working microwave is proof that people can build microwaves (which uses science), even though most of us don't have a clue how to build one ourselves. Though one could assert that microwaves are the product of the supernatural, that claim would have no basis.

The only difference is that the scientist claims some kind of special status which he refuses to grant to the experienced meditator, even though that claim to special status cannot be justified in any objective, rational way, other than recourse to the meaningless argument that "As a scientist I declare that I will accept only scientific data" and "only science is scientific", therefore only my rules are valid and your rules are spurious.

Science is science. Meditation is not science, though meditation can be examined using science.

As far as; "the meaningless argument that "As a scientist I declare that I will accept only scientific data" and "only science is scientific"", I don't think that this is meaningless at all. Why should a scientist except non-scientific data? That does not make any sense to me at all. It would be silly for someone to use non-scientific data when building a computer, or a new medication.

[Triana]

6. Of course. It also lowers blood pressure ....

...and has numerous psychological and physiological positive effects. The Buddhists have known this for 2500 years. You'll see MBSR (Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction) courses all over the place as part of Integrative Medicine - to help people with stess, anger, blood pressure, pain, disease, and other issues and illnesses.

It's not NEW. (Mindfulness includes meditation...) It's just that the Western world finally figured out what Buddhists have known for eons - that meditation works in many ways for many reasons - and they have tested and confirmed psychological and physiological positive effects of the practice - and so they are incorporating it into their integrative medicine programs all over the place now.

Google MBSR - you'll see it all over the place. It includes meditation, 'metta' (lovingkindness) practice, concentration on the breath, yoga, stillness, etc.

[TriggerGal]

7. As the saying goes ...

practice makes perfect.

[Speck Tater]

11. For anyone interested in another study showing the same results...

There are a couple of other studies discussed in this talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkKF9fWXHmY