Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have no problem believing that religion may serve useful social and cultural functions. Unfortunately, this article is founded on findings in social psychology, and we already know that social psychology is largely bunk[0].

What are the chances that this "meditation leads to kidness" result (with a total of 39 participants) would actually stand up to attempts to replicate it? The claimed effect size - "8 weeks of meditation resulted in such a large effect—increasing the odds of acting to relieve another person’s pain by more than 5 times"[1] - defies belief.

[0]: https://replicationindex.com/2020/01/05/replication-crisis-r...

[1]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52853b8ae4b0a6c35d3f8...



I read the paper, and agree with your impression of its quality. With training, it is possible to navigate a shaky field like social psychology, so I'll provide my estimates here.

The paper was written in 2013, so it's not pre-registered.

The sample size of 39 is suspicious given its date. People became upset about junk papers two years before, so the authors should have known better. However, I would hesitate to draw conclusions about the integrity of the paper's authors, because each participant was paid $60, which makes expanding the sample size somewhat expensive.

The authors declared no conflicting interests, but I looked up the first author and he has major conflicts of interest.

The last author, DeSteno, is ranked very poorly at https://replicationindex.com/2021/01/19/personalized-p-value....

Combining these factors, I'd adjust the p-value from .02 to .45, if it were a pre-registered paper which you have pre-committed to read. This paper is worthless.


Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion.

They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death.


> They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death.

While I agree with your main point, that they are equating things that and not the same, you seem to be to be making the same mistake. None of the things you list are required for religion either.


I think you have the sense of things reversed. The point is that mythology, sacred texts, and afterlife beliefs usually aren't a thing unless religion is involved.


> Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion.

Meditation and fasting are both integral parts of Sanatana Dharma (called hinduism by westerners).

Dont mix these with you perception of Christianity.


Intersection != Equality

I fast. I meditate. I'm not religious.

One may be religious and not fast nor meditate.


It’s bogus. Social scientists are locked in their own need to be social by seeming to be scientific.

A problem of sociology that now extends to our public-policy-facing sciences, as well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: