Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Mindfulness and personal development

Hey everyone, I just added the introduction to the section on neuroscience discussing the importance of evidence from this discipline in producing knowledge about meditation. I will add details about specific research studies, and will focus on structural and functional changes which take place in the brains anatomy as a result of mindfulness. This section is primarily quantitative and many research studies use a reduced form of mindfulness called mindfulness-based stress reduction, which takes place for 8 weeks, rather than attempting to study mindfulness long-term. This goes with what we discussed regarding tensions between qualitative and quantitative disciplines, which we can possibly add into a section at the end of the article. Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * hey guys, so this is the real page we're working on... glad we figured it out!

This is all the stuff I wrote on the old discussion page!

Meeting 1

Discussed: Application: evidence for the personal development

Focussing on mindfulness in meditation because of its contemporary uses

Contention: belief in evidence only demonstrated when scientific disciplines created it/ contention in the way mindfulness is perceived now as separate from its origins and the evidence from the original discipline.

issue: evidence

Disciplines: Neuroscience Psychology Meditative disciplines/ philosophy Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Things we've found/ Meeting 2
Psychology - main point is looking at the evidence in psychology and how mindfulness is perceived by the discipline. As something that is becoming more and more incorporated, more studies are done to assess what type of meditation is effectively producing mindfulness in the sense that psychologically it changes the behaviours of the subjects - such as relieving anxiety, and increasing hopefulness. These studies are conducted by using a scale, one such study also tried to determine the subjects' perception of mindfulness as something that determined its effectiveness, thus the study took undergraduate students from Thailand (a country that uses mindfulness and buddhism as integrated practices in their lifestyles) and students from western countries (who may have never come across the subject) and performed a test. The test concluded that the Thai students had a 'more conceptualised understanding' of mindfulness. the evidence produced in western psychology is generally quantitative, in order for western scientific practices to understand the causation between mindfulness and personal development. however, this study specifically demonstrates that the effects of mindfulness might be more effective if performed as a more integral or permanent part of a lifestyle or culture, instead of something that is done irregularly and in short increments. Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Points of interest/discussion
•Interesting studies by The Science of Wellbeing department at Yale, demonstrate that meditators show differences in brain activity even outside of meditation, during baseline (these differences in brain activity equate to less of what psychologists call 'mind-wandering' which is connected with more unhappiness) -- studies citied- Killingsworth and Gilbert 2010, and Brewer et al 2011.

•Our minds wander 46.9% of the time (Killingsworth & Gilbert)... this is where mindfulness meditation is used as a practice- to reduce mind-wandering.

•Connection between disciplines- fmri scans (neuroscience) exploring a psychological phenomena (mind wandering).

•What is philosophy? Oxford definition- "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." We could draw upon the works of philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, alternatively, eastern philosophers like Thich Nhat Hanh (he doesn't claim to be a philosopher, but his life work as a monk, studying the nature of existence practically justifies his inclusion in this branch.) Remember- Buddhism is a philosophy. We can explore the evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness in Buddhism, also (Buddhist texts and teachings).

•Point on contention- the methodologies for exploring the evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness meditation in the east are primarily qualitative. They're based on practical application and personal experience. It's hard to measure whether someone has had an enlightening experience or not. In the west, the exploration is heavily geared towards mindfulness and how it relates to western contexts such as the stressful workplace. The disciplines, philosophy and neuroscience, are not in conversation with each other. Why???

•"When companies like Goldman Sachs start offering free meditation training to employees, and salesforce.com puts a meditation room on each floor of a San Francisco office building, it’s a safe bet that heightened appreciation of Buddhist metaphysics isn’t the goal. In fact, mindfulness meditation is often packaged in frankly therapeutic terms: “mindfulness-based stress reduction.” https://www.wired.com/2017/08/the-science-and-philosophy-of-mindfulness-meditation/ Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes one thing that I noticed was that in the sciences academics tend to focus only on the 'stress' based effects or the actual structural changes in the brain, but this does not necessarily give the full image, as (from what I read on the Buddhist origin of mindfulness) mindfulness is about a consistent state of awareness of our inner emotions and observation, rather than controlling distress. I think its also counter-productive for sciences to try and have participants quantify experiences such as 'acting with self-awareness', as, mindfulness places a focus on individual experience, so it follows that data may not be very accurate if it tries to standardise such subjective experiences using a single scale. This connects with the points of contention we discussed. Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pre-session 3
Hey! I'm reflecting on how we can tie this all together. From our meetings so far, I think our key points/findings are that the disciplines aren't really in conversation with each other. Additionally, it's also quite hard to measure the amount you are enlightened, or measure ideas of non-self (seeing as science is material and non-self is, evidently, non-material). From the perspective of philosophy, mindfulness helps practitioners to gain a better grasp on the nature of their consciousness, but as of yet, neither neuroscience nor psychology actually has a firm grasp on what consciousness IS, let alone how to measure it. I was reading that even within the research being made into mindfulness in neuroscience, there are questions and doubts WITHIN the discipline around how effective MRI scans even are for gaining an accurate understanding of the brain. Interesting... lots to explore!

Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot to sign off this contribution to the discussion.

Addition for Psychology
What is considered ‘mindfulness’ in western clinical psychology, is derived generally from the teachings of Buddhist monk Bikku Bhodi (Shapiro &Carlson, 2009; Wallace & Bodhi, 2006). There are two notable component definitions that lead the continuing studies on mindfulness and personal development. The first references awareness by mindful practice, whereby the individual focuses their mind on their own internal presence. The second details the intentional practice of openness and caring attitudes outwardly and towards others. (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009). The definitions of mindfulness are key for developing methodologies in order to evidence the affects on the individual. Psychologists recognise the multidimentional nature of mindfulness but as of yet, through the evidence of individual studies, have found that incompletely conceptualising the fluidity by creating a binary, and attempting to measure it, creates a multitude of divided results. The outcome of these results as ‘personal development’, involves changes in behaviour, frequently mentioned to be positive; promoting hope and decreasing anxiety.

The methodology for understanding and obtaining evidence for personal development is both quantitative and qualitative in psychology. There exists two frequently used methods of analysis. The first is the Kentucky Inventory Mindfulness Scale (KIMS; Baer,Smith, & Allen, 2004). This scale has a self-reporting evidence scheme, and the shorter version of the methodology (KIMS-short) allows for repetitive replication to enable higher statistical analyses. The Mindfulness Awareness and Attention Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) is also a qualitative questionnaire, which is then accumulated to create correlative understanding. Pearce et al focussed on the two scales of mindfulness, examining the use of western mindfulness and their applications cross-culturally. Within this, they examined Thai and US undergraduate students. KIMS displayed evidence for a more cohesive understanding of mindfulness by Thai students. An analysis of this could point towards the immersion of mindfulness within Thai living and culture, which differs from the mindfulness experienced intermittently by western students through western psychology. However, the study also showed that the MAAS scale obtained similar results for the two groups.

The issues with qualitative analysis is the subjective understanding and analysis of oneself, probing the question, how do you know your mindfulness is the same as another’s? One might argue that it will never be the same, and that quantifying a subjective experience is futile and a broader conceptualisation is necessary. This already creates large disparities in the outcomes and evidences created in psychology, due to the lack of consensus surrounding the methodologies and the practices of mindfulness(cITE). The evidence created as a result of the deconstruction of the original ideology presents issues when analysis is attempted via the scientific method. A wider approach to the larger, more incalculable philosophical components can be considered to attain a more focused understanding of the positive effects on personal development. However, the diversity in studies and their differences may combine to accumulate a more well-rounded evidence of mindfulness practice and its causality with personal development.

This was written as a draft for the group to read and check through before adding it to the page Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Session 3
Introduction ideas- mention how mindfulness is defined differently in each discipline- already a tension between the disciplines in relation to evidence in mindfulness.

What we did in the meeting- read through each other's contributions, and cut and edited them together. Discussed ideas for the introduction and conclusion.

Order of the wikibook- start with philosophy- where the discipline started. Then neuroscience, to show the stark contrast in disciplinary perspective. Then psychology to bridge these two disciplines, which will run into our final conclusion.

Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot to sign off this contribution to the discussion.

Possible contribution to conclusion?
One might consider that the adoption of the understanding of mindfulness from the Buddhist monk Bikku Bhodi in clinical psychology is evidence for the benefits of interdisciplinary sharing and conversation. However, the cross referencing and shared definitions stop here, which arguably could be the reason for the formation of an incomplete conceptualisation of mindfulness, and thus the incohesive and dispersed evidence within the western clinical psychological discipline. In response to this Dr Shauna L. Shapiro discusses that in order for psychology to fully grasp the multi-dimensional nature of mindfulness, it must be evidenced with a consideration of its routes in philosophy but should retain the empirical nature of the scientific method (Shapirothis paper that i read). Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

multiple suggestions for conclusions were collaborated on, a lot taken from sections we wrote. Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

update on editing and collaboration
- we have created a shared google document where we each began to discuss and edit each others work. The main objective in doing this was to be able to increase the conciseness and reduce the word count by suggesting edits and alterations to each others work without irreversibly changing it directly on Wikipedia.

- This is a fully collaborative effort and each one of us is editing each others' respective sections, with the original writer then transferring the edits over to this page.

- This method of editing allows us to make sure that the edits are still expressing what the initial writer wanted to convey in their writing, but also incorporates the element of collaboration which Wikipedia contributions place a heavy focus on. Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for noting this down! I thought we could copy and paste some of the discussion/edits happening on the google docs as extra evidence for markers. I hope that's okay!
 * Example: A "I feel like you are reinforcing your point with this paragraph so you only really need to use one of these paragraph examples with brief mention of the other - my preference (as you know) is for you to keep the first and then have a few lines dedicated to brain activity, explaining the what how and outcomes of the study but not in so much detail."- Sunnday

"I prefer the second paragraph"- Zenzenya "To be honest, in terms of clarity and conciseness, I feel like the second half is better as it is much clearer and doesnt risk falling into the psychology discipline. Also EEG is a measure more commonly used in neuroscience. Maybe I can shorten the above paragraph instead?" - Freeshsalmon "yes of course, the one you prefer! so I'll suggest edits for the first one maybe so that its shorter."-Sunnday

Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 10:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

update for introduction
Hello team. I had another good look through the assessment guidance and instructions, to help remind me of specifics, and point me in the right direction in terms of tying our project together.

I've come up with this suggested introduction. Here, I briefly lay out the topic of our article, what question/problem we're exploring (how effective is mindfulness?), the issue we've chosen (evidence), the different disciplines we're looking through the lens of, and I touch on the fact that we'll be looking into the tensions that exist between those different disciplinary perspectives.

I'd suggest you give it a read and let's edit it together. I think it could be worth mentioning what those tensions actually ARE between the different disciplinary perspectives (briefly- word count in mind!) to keep the framing of the article specific and focused.

Suggested intro below:

Mindfulness was first recounted in the Buddhist Satipatthana Sutta, and has since developed as a technique said to improve personal development.

The question still remains as to how effective mindfulness really is in a practitioner’s personal development.

In this article we explore the different evidence gathered across the disciplines of philosophy, neuroscience and psychology, and the tensions that exist between the disciplines in terms of reaching a shared consensus for the effectiveness of mindfulness. Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great starting point! I would just change some of the grammatical features to make it more concise, etc. Can you put it on the page so we can start editing? Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

update on neuroscience
Hey everyone! Just added the edits we collectively worked on (in google docs) for my section- its at 340 words now! Do you guys reckon I should add a closing sentence to summarise the section (no more than 10-15 words)? Alternatively, I'd be totally fine with one of you guys adding the sentence if you guys think it is needed and want to do that to increase our collaboration! Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

last session: notes from our penultimate zoom call
- We need to weave the different sections together to lead to the conclusive point- how does evidence in philosophy lead to evidence in psychology? How can we tie these disciplinary perspectives together- how do they relate to each other? Where are the points of contention?

- Write the introduction and conclusion together today.

- "Identify some tension between those different disciplinary perspectives" - what are those tensions?

- Check referencing consistency.

- "Identifying tension between disciplinary perspectives means identifying where people working in one discipline fail to agree with people working in another discipline. This need not mean that they disagree; it may also be that they are unaware of each others’ work." - Philosophy- there is a growing awareness in modern philosophy for the scientific evidence for mindfulness. Yet there tends to be a preference for personal subjective experience- if they believe it's effective for them, that's what's important, whether or not there exists MRI scans or psychological surveys to support that experience. They stress the limitations in scientific testing- MRI scans can't necessarily measure Nirvana, for example.

Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * these notes summarize our meeting very well- we focused on discussing tensions between the discipline to create a link between all the disciplines we discussed in the chapter Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i agree, proposing that we weave in the necessary relationships between disciplines throughout the piece was good, it was strengthened by the introduction and conclusion. working altogether on the zoom call was very efficient and produced a great draft - only thing left are the micro-edits.

Meeting 4: submission
ready to submit, going through final changes and the addition of a few pieces of information and grammar changes. We checked the word count and similarity report. Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)