[taeric]

I don't know. This still feels heavy in the propaganda realm. Which... to be clear, propaganda works. Turns out, telling people directly how and what to feel is more effective than makes sense.

That is, looking at it as 2500 years of successfully developing what works is hiding a lot of the failure that has accompanied things in that same time span. Is akin to saying that the religions that avoid certain foods are on to something, because no way something like that would stick without a solid reason.

To that end, the folks you know that had a mental breakdown. Is there a counterfactual world where they did not have a breakdown by avoiding meditation? Or by picking it up with a new religion? My priors are low that that is the case, but I would be delighted to learn more.

[bowsamic]

It’s very new to us, why would we assume we have a perfect system for understanding it? It isn’t a toy to play with. Far more scientific research is needed before it’s safe to do in a secular context.

[taeric]

Isn't this true of all frames? I feel that I could claim the same for science and religion as things, as well.

Note that I'm fine pushing for caution on folks wanting to take up any practice. This would go as well for folks that think a running practice will help them. Maybe. At best.

[bowsamic]

I think we should treat it like a psychedelic treatment

[taeric]

In what way?

[bowsamic]

It should be done only under a very experienced guide

[taeric]

What sort of accreditation process do you put forth for the guides? My gut is that the vast majority of the experienced guides out there are also terrible and unlikely to dramatically alter the outcomes. Unless we are in a scotsman debate about "true guides would prevent bad outcomes." :(