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 00:10, 24 October 2010 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,280 edits Discussion← 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}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Notice|header=Other subpages|
*]
*]
*]}}
{{British English}}
{{afd-merged-from|Transcendental Meditation research|Transcendental Meditation research|15 November 2013}}
{{afd-merged-from|TM-Sidhi program|TM-Sidhi program|14 November 2013}}
{{FailedGA|05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Psychology}}
}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index |mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 33 |counter = 43
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index|mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=no|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template location>}}{{talk header|search=yes}}
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{connected contributors
{{Rational Skepticism|class=C|importance=high}}
|User1= Littleolive oil |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start}}
|User2= TimidGuy |U2-EH=yes |U2-otherlinks=
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{WPReligion|class=Start|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}}

{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|class=Start|importance=Top}}
==State of the research==
}}
{{Controversial3}}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=21|dounreplied=yes}}
{{notice|header=Other subpages|
*]
*]
*]
*]}}


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.
== RFC: Lead sentence ==


'''Problematic sources'''
"Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
===Comments from involved users===
:The lead sentence should make clear what the article is about. There is an article on TM movement. This article has been about the TM technique. Stylistically, placing both TM movement and meditation technique in the opening sentence must mean that the article is about both. In fact it hasn't been about both. Although there is content on TM movement, the article itself has not been on TM movement. Further, TM as a meditation technique is the most common usage. Literature on research on the TM technique dwarfs other literature. The primary issue here is what this article is about, once that has been established what goes where will proceed logically. The decision for deciding what this article is about can't be a unilateral one, but should be considered by all editors interested working on this page. And again before considering the sources... what is this article about? (] (]) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC))
:As well. The technique has a trademarked name. Should that name be used. If not, why not? Right now the official name of the technique has been omitted from the opening sentence of the article. What purpose does it serve to exclude the name of the technique?(] (]) 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC))


::We at Misplaced Pages do not dictate word usage. We are here to reflect the usage of the scholarly community at large. So yes TM should refer to both the movement and technique. To do otherwise would be contravene ]. If the article historically was not about both this is something that must change. As it stands now though it does appear to deal with both adequately. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:::So Doc it seems you've decided this article is to be about movement and technique, is that right?(] (]) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC))
::::I have no idea how writing an article about a technique violates NPOV, or for that matter how writing an article about two topics is more neutral than writing an article about one. (] (]) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC))
:::::NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view on a topic. Artificially limiting a topic to only certain points of view would be a violation. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the trademark issue: The details of the U.S. trademark filing have limited applicability to a worldwide movement. It is a very narrow self-description whose sole purpose is to fulfill certain legal requirements to prevent competing uses of a word or phrase. FWIW, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System reports that the current trademark on "Transcendental Meditation" covers " G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES-NAMELY, CONDUCTING COURSES AND SEMINARS ON PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT." (Anyone interesting in verifying will have to conduct a fresh search - there's no ability to directly link to a record.) There is no mention of a specific technique. Even if there were, Misplaced Pages articles are not constrained by U.S. trademark filings. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


•'''Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)'''
:::::I'm not talking about a trademark I'm talking about common sense. The technique has a name...what is the objection to using it.(] (]) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC))
::::::I don't understand. Is the technique not called "Transcendental Meditation"? If so, that is also the name of the movement or organization, according to sources. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It's a servicemark, not a trademark. What is servicemarked is not the technique. What is servicemarked is the use of the term "TM" or "Transcendental Meditation" for the teaching of the technique. Taking at face value the claims of the Maharishi that the technique is thousands of years old and not his invention, the technique is not capable of being legally trademarked or servicemarked. Accordingly, anyone can teach the technique - so long as they don't call it TM. So, the argument based on the trademark has this exactly backwards; for purposes of trademark law, TM is ''not'' the technique; it is the method teaching of the technique, which is the TM Org and Movement. That being said, the argument based on trademark/servicemark misses the point entirely. ] (]) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
Transcendental Meditation technique is the name of the meditation, and the official name. Using TM to mean either movement or technique blurs specificity. I have to ask once again what is this article about. We have a TM movement article. Do we need another TM movement article? If Yes, why?(] (]) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC))
::To answer your question what we need is a TM technique article. Thus you would be happy yes? I will create one.] (] · ] · ]) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:I just looked at the page you linked. In big letters at the top of the page it says, "The Transcendental Meditation Program". The url is "http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques" - plural. According to this official site, it would appear that they call it a "program" covering more than one technique. Be that as it may, we aren't here to report just the official version. We're here to report all points of view, giving weight according to their prominence. This article isn't titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation techniques" or "Transcendental Meditation Program". What it is called is "Transcendental Meditation", and sources say that phrase refers to the type of meditation taught by the Maharishi and to the movement founded by him. Therefore we should reflect both usages in the lead. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::What do you mean by "reflect"? --] (]) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::"Include" may be a more direct way of saying it, as in "we should include both usages". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


'''Withdrawn'''
===Comments from uninvolved users===
I'm an outsider, having become aware of the differences here through Doc James' RfA. The solution which seems obvious to me is to have two articles:
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.
*] (or techniques or program or methodology) where the first line says ''For the organization and movement, see ].''
*] where the first line says ''For the techniques of Transcendental Meditation, see ] (or methods, methodology, program etc).''


This has probably been considered. What are the objections to it? --] (]) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


•'''Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)'''
:Thanks Hordaland:There is a ] article that was split off of this article... and this article had been designated as the the technique article or methods article. One concern is that this article will become another TM movement article, and of course Misplaced Pages doesn't need two.(] (]) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC))


T Krisanaprakornkit&nbsp;1,&nbsp;W Krisanaprakornkit,&nbsp;N Piyavhatkul,&nbsp;M Laopaiboon•"
::That's why the 2 names suggested above. (I know there is a TMM - I linked to it.) I don't see why there has to be a parent article to those 2 suggested. Most people will be looking for the one or the other of them (first). Is that the argument -- that there has to be a parent article? If so, it can be very short and summarize the other two, seems to me. ] (]) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


&nbsp;
:::Yes, sorry I realized you had linked to the article after I'd already hit save. I think simply renaming this article would solve a lot of problems... there would be two distinct articles with your solution. I don't think having a parent article is an issue in this discussion. The issue for me is to make sure that the articles aren't duplicated as could happen if the opening sentence of the lead refers to both TM technique and TM movement equally. I think its fine to have TM movement mentioned in the lead as I've said several times, but placement is important. And TM movement does link back to this article.(] (]) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC))
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.
::::Well then, you and I are in agreement. Where's everyone else? :) ] (]) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes think that is a great idea. I have moved much of the content to a subarticle. Some of the content overlaps and deals with both the movement and technique.] (] · ] · ]) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


::::::James. You have mistakenly misunderstood the points made here. There was no agreement to create another article. Agreement in which you included yourself was to rename this article. I don't consider that three of us constitutes a consensus. However in the middle of a discussion and RfC as well as a request for mediation you made a huge unilateral change very much against what you and two other editors agreed on. I ask that you un do what you've done and wait for editor agreement on whatever will solve the issues here. I assume good faith and hope you misunderstood the conversation. Thanks.(] (]) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC))


• '''Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)'''
::::::::Was this not what everyone was referring too? We have an article for the movement, now we have one for the technique. And we have one that acts a little like a disambig and provides an overview of both.] (] · ] · ]) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::My goodness you move quickly, Doc James! But why? I can't see that there needed to be yet another article (to clean up). I could see an argument for a '''very''' short intro article, summarizing and presenting the other articles. But the article you are moving(?) stuff from is still waaaay long. ] (]) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes a short intro article is what we are attempting to create. As we have an article on the movement and this article was getting too long, having an article on the technique was only fair for balance. I am unsure how to best split some of the remaining stuff. I guess the MVAH could be moved to the movement page. The school and corporate programs moved to the technique page.] (] · ] · ]) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Who are the "we" you are referring to Doc in your statement "a short intro article is what we are attempting to create?" Is this the "royal we"? --] (]) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Since no one here is a king or queen (or raja), I presume it's the editorial "we". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I was asking Doc for his answer with respect to "we". --] (]) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


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
== Moving further material ==


'''Archived'''
I have split up much of the material. Anything else which should be moved? BTW a bot will come around and fix most of the refs.] (] · ] · ]) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Archived for historical reference only




James. I suggest you stop. You are making massive changes in articles it has taken others years to create, in the first days of an RfC and with two mediations possible and in the instance of splitting off an article expressly opposite to what was being discussed. You are, as well as others here are bound by the recent arbitration. You do not ] these articles. There are other editors active on these articles and the changes you are making should have their input. Will do you support these unilateral changes. I f you don't perhaps you ought to say so rather than editing into the changes.(] (]) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC))


'''More recent review/clinical updates'''
::You and Hordaland suggested the split. I just made a few simple edits to create it. Will referenced the summary. It looks like we are making excellent progress. Hordaland suggested we shorten this to a semi disambig which seems like a great idea.] (] · ] · ]) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


:::No James we didn't.(] (]) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC))


•'''Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses''' (2017)
::::Lets give others time to comment.] (] · ] · ]) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


SooLiang&nbsp;Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
If I'm not mistaken, no existing text has been deleted or even altered significantly. It's just been moved around. The TM article was overlong, and there have been expressions in favor of an article focused on the technique. This seems like a logical split. I don't see any better proposals being offered. I think that editors who've made more edits to this article than all but one person should be careful about accusing others of ownership, as ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
:Will, your comment, very simply put, misrepresents what went on here. There was no agreement for Doc's extensive changes, and yes there was another proposal suggested by the outside editor.(] (]) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC))
::I could well be mistaken. It's happened on occasion. ;) Do you have a better suggestion for reducing the length of the TM article? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


::So I moved around some of the text to fit the titles best, and to group together like-topics. The "theoretical" stuff, is here, combined from a few articles. The old intro is split between the TM and TMT articles. Anyway, we've now got a "technique" article, which is what some folks wanted, and the overlong "Transcendental Meditation" article is brought back down to a readable length. Nothing has been deleted, and many improvements have been made. It's a work in progress, like always. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Was there a discussion here about the length of the TM article and consensus that it needed to be shortened? I did not see that discussion. I do not support the edits that Doc James has recently made to create the split of articles. --] (]) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
::::The ideal size of Misplaced Pages articles has been discussed extensively over the years. At one time, the technical limits of browsers required that we keep articles under 32k. That limit no longer exists, so now we're using the limit of reader's interest, etc. The upper limit mentioned at ] is 10,000, and this article was about 9200 words.
::::Further, editors have been asking for an article focused on just the technique. The only legitimate way of getting that is with an article titled "TM technique", so the options were to split the article or to rename it. Since renaming it would not have dealt with the size problem, and would have caused other problems, this seems like the better solution.
::::Are there any specific problems that can be addressed by editing? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


'''•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)'''
::::: Does the division of TM into TM movement and TM practice have social precedence, or are these categories superimposed for Misplaced Pages-related reasons? If the latter is the case, then readers might be confused, and believe that the former is truly the case. I think this confusion can be circumambulated in our edits. ] (]) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The movement distinguishes between the theory and practice of TM, a division that's reflected in the split between "Transcendental Meditation" and "Transcendental Meditation technique". Members of the movement refer to "the movement" or the "TM organization", as well as to specific elements of the movement. Outside observers routinely recognize the existence of a movement. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Just to be absolutely clear - I did not support the split of the article and there was no discussion or attempt to create consensus of this major change to the TM article. --] (]) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Are there any specific problems? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Specific problems? How about the fact that this is ridiculous: THREE articles on the exact same same topic? It makes no sense and was done out of the blue. This is very poor form, to say the least--] (]) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Are you suggesting merging all of the TM-related articles? I don't think they are the exact same topic. We've had one editor here say something to the effect that "a technique can't be a movement/religion/cult". The articles are about 3700, 6200, and 6000 words long. If we combined them we'd have an article with something like 18,000 words. Encyclopedia articles should not be books, in and of themselves. There is still plenty more to say about the general topic. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: I am saying that this was inappropriate and uncalled for. --] (]) 13:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::In the listing above I forgot the fourth spin-off article, ], which is currently about 3000 words but will doubtless grow to twice that before it's completed. 21,000 words is halfway to a novel. Anyway, I don't remember if you supported any of those spin-offs. Would you prefer it if we wrote less about TM? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Will, I believe you were the creator and major author of both the TMM and the History of TM articles. --] (]) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're welcome. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Misplaced Pages is based on reasoned argument. Please provide content based justification for your disapproval. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Maria M.&nbsp;Steenkamp,&nbsp;PhD1;&nbsp;Brett T.&nbsp;Litz,&nbsp;PhD2,3;&nbsp;Charles R.&nbsp;Marmar,&nbsp;MD4
== Rearrangement of text ==
== Could you point to the content ==


Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
I must say these changes have made things much clearer and more compliant with ]. Both the technique and the movement are given the equal weight they deserve.] (] · ] · ]) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
::You made these changes yourself despite other editor input except yours and Will's, and you ignored the RfC and misrepresented it as did Will despite the fact he had started it. Now you are saying NPOV has been served? Who are you trying to convince? You and Will highjacked these articles and that's not right or acceptable.(] (]) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC))
:::Nobody's hijacking nothing. ("Take me to <s>Havana</s> Fairfield.") It's just what was wanted; a special article on the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's all good. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


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,...
== The lead (or lede) ==


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.
The lead has at the moment 5 paragraphs. IMO the first and last of these are sufficient. The three in the middle are way too detailed to belong in the lead. --] (]) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:(Someday, sensible people may spell it "]").
:You're right. there are a few rough edges to improve. Let me see if I can move some of that to better articles, like TMT, and improve what remains. It needs a summary of the theoretical material, too. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::I hope this is an improvement. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
== Open discussion ==


The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
I'd like to request and open discussion first, on how this article was formed, and second on the article itself.


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.
*This article Transcendental Meditation (TM) was created by splitting off content into another article, TM technique, despite clear editor objection on the second day of an RfC and with another suggestion on the table. Threads: Is this an appropriate way to use an RfC, that should be a clearly collaborative, dispute resolution process. If not what can be done about it and this article?
*I have serious concerns about the article itself. Does anyone else have concerns?(] (]) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))
:Who are you that speaks thus? ] (]) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::I thank thee for thine notice.(] (]) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


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.
* This article in indeed the left over of an important content fork, which was not properly discussed. ] (]) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Olive, what are your concerns about the article, in its current state? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Let's not bypass the most fundamental of the issues here. How was a split of an article created on the second day of an RfC when there was another suggestion, and when editors did not agree-desctinctly did not agree. Unless someone can show me how this split was legitimate in the first place, that is, how it was collaborative per the TM arbitration, how taking this action was agreed on by the editors taking part in the RfC, how this is an acceptable way to deal with an RfC , then the two articles should be merged and the split undone. If someone can show me how the split was legitimate and with editor agreement, then I'd be willing to take the next step and deal with the TM article itself and its multiple concerns.(] (]) 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
:::::I'm interested in discussing the article. Whenever you're ready to talk about it I'll participate. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


:If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per ] it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from ] because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in ]. ] (]) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
How the article got here is discussing the article. It sounds as if you want to overlook that aspect. I don't want to overlook the input of several editors and a RfC that was cut off just as it started, and I won't pretend that this was a legitimate process. If you don't want to participate that's your prerogative. But I won't ignore the issue. If we need outside help to mediate this discussion to make it more comfortable for everyone, I will ask for help. Let me know if and how you want to proceed.(] (]) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
::::::Are you recommending merging both ] at 96,926 bytes and ] at 85,763 bytes into this article at 60,883 bytes? The resulting article would just be to big.] (] · ] · ]) 03:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::No. I'm suggesting undoing the split of the original TM article into TM and TM technique. I'm going offline for tonight but will continue later tomorrow. Thanks for the input.(] (]) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)) ::I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. ] (]) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. ] (]) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::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)
:::::::::That does not make any sense as it is neither fair nor neutral thus I strongly oppose this suggestion. TM refers equally to both the technique and the movement.] (] · ] · ]) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::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)


:::::::::Can Olive explain why she wants to merge the two articles? There have been significant edits to both articles so we need to look at this from where we are today, not the past situation. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Before the split there were two article - Transcendental Meditation with a primary focus on the technique, and Transcendental Meditation Movement covering more the organization around the technique. These 2 artilcle served nicely to cover the main themes. Now we have three. --] (]) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


===Reversion of date with out summary comment===
It appears that some editors feel that the split of the article was made without proper consensus and due process. For this reason they would like to discuss that here now. It would seem to me to be an appropriate place. Is there any Misplaced Pages guideline that says that once an article is split that the split cannot be re-considered?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
:The vast majority of edits to the two articles were made by those who engineered and supported the split not by those who didn't. The discussion that followed the split effectively excluded input from editors who did not support the split. At this point for the purposes of dealing with this article, how this split was even possible is not the concern in part because it brings into the discussion editor behaviour. I'd like to just focus on the article itself. The real question should be why was the content split when there was another suggestion made by an uninvolved editor agreed on by both an involved and uninvolved editor to rename the TM article TM technique. Even then any action with out agreement would have preempeted the RfC. So editors were waiting for further input.
:Merging the two articles and renaming the article TM technique was the suggested discussed solution of the RfC. The split was a unilateral edit but was supported by another editor. The question now is, which of these two solutions can be agreed on as supported by a consensus. By consensus I mean almost all editors from both sides of the dispute in agreement rather than stacking up editors on either side and calling that a consensus. I'd like to see a situation where both sides are happy with what we decide to go on with. If we can't get to that point on our own I'd like to bring in a mediator. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::I don't see any point in constantly rehashing the past. Let's talk about how we want to improve the articles in the TM topic. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:::We first have to decide what articles there are to deal with.(21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::::See ]. Since this is a multi-article discussion maybe it'd be better held on the project talk page. ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:06, 23 October 2010 (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 ] too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
====Editor input requested====
:::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)
If editors could point out which of these suggestions appeals to them most we could get a sense of where we stand on this issue and whether we can deal with this on our own or need and outside eye. As far as I'm concerned unless we have total agreement from both sides we should ask for help. I've notified the regular editors on the TM pages.


:What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. ] (]) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
We have several possibilities:
::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.
1.) Don't merge ], ]


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....
2.) Merge ] into ]


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.
3.) Some other re-configuration
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
These are always possibilities no matter what other decisions are made and are not mutually exclusive as the above can be:


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.
4.) Improve the articles


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)
5.) Delete them all and start from scratch


:{{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)
*Olive: '''#2'''...I originally supported the renaming of the article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcedental Meditation technique and still do.
*Bigweeboy - '''#2''' I think the 2 articles we had prior to the split were sufficient. --] (]) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


::You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
====Discussion====
:: 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.
I'd like to discuss this before we vote. I'm not sure the point of a vote anyway. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:: 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 ==
:Its not a vote but an indication of what people agree with and sets a bottom line on the discussion. Maybe we can all come to some agreement on how to deal with the article/articles in question. Discussion is ongoing and doesn't stop because we take a look at where we stand on this issue.(] (]) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
::What's the purpose of having a "bottom line" in a discussion? I don't know what that means. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:::We have to be discussing the same thing. Right now we're not. You want to discuss an article others don't think should exist. Until we can agree on whether this article should be here or not a discussion has no focus. Per the arbitration far better to go to dispute resolution than drag on a convoluted discussion which is what occurs when groups can't even agree on what the discussion is about. If we can come to some understanding on what we are discussing we have a chance to resolve the issues.(] (]) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
::::I still don't understand this "bottom line" concept. I said I'm not interested in rehashing this same old edit over and over, but you can do so if you want. I am interested in discussing improvements to this and other articles. If you don't want to that's fine too. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::So there is somewhat of an impasse... I want to discuss improvements to the article but think we have to establish first just what articles we are talking about... You don't want to discuss what articles we are talking about but would go onto discussing improvements with out that background in mind. (] (]) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
:::::::Aren't we talking about ] and ]? Those are the subject of the poll. Are there other articles we're talking about too? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:51, 23 October 2010 (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'm discussing the original article and the split of that article into two articles. You seem to be discussing the articles that exist after the split. Those are the ''articles'' we are discussing. Well think about it. I'm going of line for the night.(] (]) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
:What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --] (]) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) <span style="white-space: nowrap;">] (]・])</span> 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Yogic Flying ==
:::::::::So is this basically a discussion over whether to merge the two articles? If so, please apply the relevant {merge} tags to the article and start a thread on that explicit topic. See ] and ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." </nowiki> ] (]) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: A merge at this point would be a purely technical procedure, a remedy to a split that was not accepted, was not properly discussed, etc. What is the tag when a new article is created without consensus by article forking? This would be the only acceptable tag in the current situation. ] (]) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


:Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? ] (]) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
We have three articles. One that gives an overview ] one that deals with the technique ] and one that deals with the movement ]. This is a fair way to present the material. We could shrink the main TM page down to a disambig. But I feel that would be too small. We could join them all together but that would be to big. What we have now is just right. I have the impression of efforts to suppress information regarding the TM movement with a desire to give greater emphasis to the technique. While I hope I am wrong changes in this direction are not something I would support.] (] · ] · ]) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (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🔥 (talkedits) 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: