The Value of Veterans in Startups - <AUTHOR>

My company brought on someone this past week to do some technical work. This person is a U.S. Army veteran, former military intelligence, trained as a translator, and graduated magna cum laude from a very respected university, receiving multiple achievement awards for academic performance. However, this person was only able to previously find work as a clerk at a local store because of the stigma associated with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder).
The moral of this story is that there is an immense pool of talent out there just waiting to be given a chance, but which is being blatantly overlooked by corporate America (and, all too often, startups as well) because of certain stereotypes associated with military service. I personally have been discriminated against because of my background, but was able to find my way to success because of a couple people out there who took a chance on an ambitious but inexperienced vet. I utilize on a daily basis the leadership, critical thinking, and strategic planning skills gained from my military background, and so will others.
It shouldn't be so hard for veterans to prove their worth by constantly battling ill-informed stereotypes after returning home. I challenge and encourage all startups to prove wrong these negative perceptions of military service by finding and hiring people like the one I have described and give them a chance to prove their worth. You will be rewarded with a team of immensely talented, innovative, creative, and driven folks whose potential has been generally underestimated by other companies. That right there is the best definition of a "competitive advantage" I can think of.
This approach has served us incredibly well, and given us some of our most loyal and productive employees to date. <comment><USER2> The places I've worked at have generally viewed military service as a positive in hiring decisions - it indicates discipline, focus, and an ability to stretch yourself. The problem is that the hiring market is pretty competitive _anyway_ , and so if all you bring to the table is being a veteran, that doesn't qualify you for a job. Folks who can demonstrate useful skills _in addition_ to their military service usually do just fine; it's just that the "useful skills" part trumps the military service.</comment>


Ask HN: Why the jealous negativity at HN? - <AUTHOR>

I'd like to preface this with two things.
1. I ask this question in all legitimacy.
2. I am sure that there are many exceptions to this rule...  There are definitely many great, helpful members around HN. Perhaps I'm speaking only about a vocal minority.
But why is there so much pettiness, jealousy, and negativity in HN???  You know exactly what I'm talking about.  Someone will post about a helpful service that has gotten great traction + people love, and he'll get a response of "what?  no search??" (Just saw this today).  A man could post about how he saved a kitten from a tree, and someone will post about how he was an idiot for not using a standards-compliant ladder.
Why is there so much negativity around HN? Is it jealousy? Pettiness? I seriously think the attitude turns off a lot of people to HN and keeps it from being a great community. <comment><USER2> I assume you saw the same thread I just did. Or maybe it was a different thread regarding another comment about search. I didn't read it as negative (although it very well could easily be interpreted that way). I guess interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. I personally try not to read or react too much to stuff written online. You can't hear the expression behind the words sometimes and things can easily get misinterpreted. That isn't to say HN doesn't have its fair share of negativity.

In regards to the thread I just saw, I looked at it as a valid question in reply to the response comment above it. I didn't see it as a negative reaction. In all honesty, it was a valid comment (disclaimer: I've never used either of the services the debate was regarding so I can't tell whether or not search was lacking and this isn't a reply about that). Regardless of what the product is or whether or not we're talking about the same thread, if someone suggests something, and someone else feels there is an inefficiency (perhaps base on how they use it), those comments may not be valid for some readers but they are valid for others.

For example, I use Yelp more times than I can count. I think its a good service and solves a need on some level. But even I have to admit the search function on Yelp is beyond stupid. There are times when I've done a search for something like Chinese Restaurant and will gets result for things like an American Yogurt Shop or a Grocery Store. If someone else is trying to build say a Yelp competitor and posts a thread on here about it, and another person comments about Yelp being a competitor and links to them, I don't think its invalid that I bring my frustration about Yelp's search problem. Both can be helpful in their own way. It's just a matter of how you choose to perceive the comments.

Or in the case of your specific example, perhaps it was worded rudely but you can try to perceive it as a way of giving feedback. I personally try not to take offense on small things like that. It's not really good for your health.

</comment><comment><USER3> When people are asked for their opinion, I think they switch into judgement mode, and that mode seeks out problems to report.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm... I almost hate to say this, in this context, but... sometimes we see what we're looking to see. Or maybe, just what we're particularly sensitive too.

I don't really notice any particular degree of jealous negativity here at HN. That's not to say that I never see _any_ negativity, but nothing that jumps out at me as being especially prevalent. If anything, the discussion here still strikes me as being more reasonable than the majority of the forums I frequent.

Then again, maybe I'm just especially de-sensitized to it or something. <shrug /></comment>


Show HN: The first automated weather watching service via SMS - <AUTHOR> https://www.smsforecast.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey everybody, I'm a senior in university who became really interested in web development the past year. I've put about 5 months into this project and am really happy to finally be able to show it off! If anyone has any questions on my stack, i'd be happy to share.

</comment><comment><USER2> Congrats on launching. I had a side project by it was via email. You would schedule an email to you every morning and advise you what kind of clothes to wear for the day. How are you sourcing your weather data?</comment>


Can Portland Avoid Repeating San Francisco's Mistakes? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The problem this article (and others) make is assuming that "progressive" policies are good for housing affordability. For example, the "There are limits to urban white liberalism" lament from the Community Alliance of Tenants. He's apparently upset that people don't follow through with their politics, but, as far as I can tell, there's no requirement that, in order to be liberal, you have to support specific housing policies.

Maybe some of your liberal friends are in favor of ACTUAL affordability, rather than a litmus test of policies that you need to support to get street cred, but don't actually do anything for housing?

</comment><comment><USER3> A truly odd article. The posited question is whether Portland can avoid making SF's mistakes, but then it goes on to lament that Portland isn't committed to the same "progressive" housing policies that SF is (rent control, "affordable housing" minimums, stronger lease termination regulation). In fact, I don't see anywhere that SF's mistakes are even enumerated, so maybe the headline was just written by editor who wished that the writer had explored them.

<comment><USER4> It almost leads you to suspect that these policies have been an utter failure in San Francisco. A rational person might suppose that to avoid the fate of San Francisco, that Portland should try something different. Perhaps something that recognizes that supply and demand are real, and that setting price controls at a level below the market-clearing price will lead to shortages.

<comment><USER5> There is almost no evidence that rent control is the primary, secondary or even tertiary cause of San Francisco's woes. As [https://medium.com/newco/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years- of-...](https://medium.com/newco/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years-of-for-rent- ads-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-sf-housing-prices-bd61fd0e4ef9#.r7qldtd56) shows, the long-term price curves barely change in 1979 when rent control came into existence.

The three things that matter are the amount of housing, the number of jobs there are, and the total salary paid for those jobs. See the article for the formula. I am sure that a similar formula applies in San Francisco. The result is that having or not having rent control is immaterial. Being unwilling to build housing is a problem.

<comment><USER6> Rent control helps the well connected, not necessarily those who need it :

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122126309241530485](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122126309241530485)

and ties up existing inventory. I know people here in SF who have an apartment, and own a house or two outside the city, but will never give up their apartment because its just so cheap. Rent control definitely ties up supply.

<comment><USER5> In theory, absolutely!

In practice the effects seem to be small.

<comment><USER7> The evidence presented in the article you linked is really not strong enough to support your conclusion with reasonable certainty. It's using a massive "post hoc ergo proper hoc" fallacy to prop up a weak argument.

"Ties up supply" is also a statement that is not necessarily connected to "increases price". I'm not entirely clear on the economic theories behind rent control, but from what I understand, it affects availability more than it affects price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "But there has been pushback on these efforts, too. Many Portlanders say they don't want more density in their neighborhoods, that they oppose big housing complexes and in-law units in neighbors' backyards. (There is a similar attitude evident in some San Francisco residents' responses to that city's housing crisis.) Some neighborhoods are actually trying to downzone to decrease density."

Good economy, affordable housing, NIMBYism: pick two.

</comment><comment><USER9> As a long-time Portland resident I've seen how the city has grown. It's said Portland is a "hot destination", inspiring a continuing influx of new residents. In any case, we knew increased density was inevitable given state- wide stringent constraints on sprawl via urban growth boundaries. A building boom has been going on for some years now with little sign of abating.

Despite the construction happening all around, housing prices have been rising, quite a hot topic here now. There's a political problem insofar as many are convinced that elected officials didn't force developers to create the number of lower cost housing units as promised when the building projects were proposed to the city.

Furthermore many citizens believe that overall the governing bodies have also not looked after the interests of the community, for one thing, allowing real estate developers to do what they want regardless of effects on neighborhoods. There is also dissatisfaction with deterioration of infrastructure, massive increase in traffic congestion, demolition of historic structures, loss of small businesses and overall reduced quality of life.

Whether this replicates San Francisco or Seattle or not, when growth-related problems are greater than necessary there's something wrong with the process. FWIW it is an election year, I suspect the views of the electorate will be clearly rendered and overdue changes made.

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER10> "Despite the construction happening all around"

How much construction is there, really? Politicians in SF talk about a "big construction boom", but 2014 was the first year since the 1960s that SF construction even kept up with the US's baseline population growth (~1% per year). So it's "booming", but only in the sense of returning to normal after a decades-long depression.

"allowing real estate developers to do what they want regardless of effects on neighborhoods"

This might not bear any relationship to reality. Many people believe this in San Francisco, even though SF is the #1 most development-hostile major city in the world.

<comment><USER9> It's different here since much of the construction is happening in areas that have been vacant. We have the Pearl district, Slabtown and others in which many new structures are going in. Even in downtown Portland, there are plans to build on street level parking lots, adding to the structure inventory. There is a real expansion going on in this region.

Population of Portland proper has actually grown substantially, >= 7% in the last 10 years or so. The entire metro area may have increased even more, I'm not sure about that. Portland State University maintains a demographic study center with the data but I didn't check there for this comment.

The necessity for constructing more housing units isn't questioned, but there's a lot of discussion about projects that the city planners allowed to exceed the originally planned height restrictions without the issue being open for community input. The lack of procedural transparency in these cases has evoked the ire of concerned citizens.

As far as neighborhoods go, close-in areas have experienced marked "gentrification", displacing lower income populations to the "high number" districts of east Portland where housing is less expensive. So indeed development has had substantial effects on some neighborhoods, whether that's "good" or "bad" can be debated, but it is a reality.

<comment><USER10> "without the issue being open for community input"

Are you sure this is an accurate description? Many neighborhood groups will ignore opportunities for input, sometimes for years, so they can later block the project and retroactively claim they "weren't given a voice".

For example, when San Francisco put bus-only lanes on Mission Street a few months ago, neighborhood activists said:

""SFMTA's red carpet bombing of the Mission was a surprise attack and is wholly unwelcome," Raeleen Valle-Brenes, an activist from the Cultural Action Network told the board."

Mike Schiraldi describes what really happened:

"Actually, the MTA took out multiple ads in 8 different local papers, notified 31 neighborhood and merchant groups, 8 schools, neighborhood senior centers, posted on Twitter and Facebook, rode the 14-Mission Bus to distribute 1500 postcards, handed out 1700 flyers, and mailed out more than 25,000 more postcards.

They also had these community meetings:

Public Open House #1 (2/18/15)

Mission Merchants Association (2/18/15)

Mission Bernal Merchants (3/9/15 & 3/27/15)

Calle 24 (3/10/15)

Mission High School Principal (3/12/15)

14 Mission Rider Open House @ 24th BART Plaza (3/25/15)

MEDA (4/16/15)

Public Open House #2 (4/21/15)

Public Open House #3 (5/30/15)

Public Hearing (10/16/15)

SFMTA Board of Directors meeting, with public comment (12/1/15)

Prior to all that, the Chronicle wrote about it in 2014: [http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Muni-overhaul- spe...](http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Muni-overhaul-speeds-up- with-route-changes-ahead-5316083.php)

And before that, they wrote about it in 2012: [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-transit-agency- s-p...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-transit-agency-s-plan-to- speed-Muni-service-3422561.php)

And that last article says they'd been trying to get this done since 2008."

(source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/4i5n66/critic...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/4i5n66/criticism_of_busonly_lanes_in_the_mission/))

<comment><USER9> > "without the issue being open for community input"

> Are you sure this is an accurate description? Many neighborhood groups will > ignore opportunities for input, sometimes for years, so they can later block > the project and retroactively claim they "weren't given a voice".

I'm sure that's happened here though ATM I don't remember particular instances. What I had in mind are decisions being made by the city council or bureaucracies with little or no notice to the community. Portland has many active neighborhood associations that try to speak up on relevant issues, but their voices are often unheeded.

As an example, my neighborhood association recently succeeded in getting some attention from the city concerning traffic/safety issues. Without going into the gory details, the salient point is that the neighborhood had been trying for _> 15 years_ to work with the city to find a solution before something was done.

So that kind of history is more or less the inverse of the situation you described. IMO the lesson in both cases is that problems within a community aren't going to be solved unless all participants are willing to listen to, and work with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Surely Portland won't wind up like SF.

First, look at a map. SF has Vancouver WA across the river. Portland itself can also expand more easily. SF is a Peninsula and so it's much harder to expand around the place.

Secondly, Silicon Valley is a well known global hotspot for IT. Everything else is miles behind. The pressure of all that money in the Bay Area is huge. It's worth noting that these problems were not nearly as bad during the 1980s or 1990s boom. It's only been after multiple booms that the SF real estate market broke. Portland isn't as likely to have multiple booms to the same degree.

Portland and Austin are certainly seeing the price of real estate going up substantially. But surely it's a sign of success and is largely a good thing, unlike the super pricey real estate of SF or Sydney of Melbourne AU, NYC or London.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I don't understand how Portland will be the next SF or even the next Seattle. SF and Seattle are years ahead in economic growth. Further, SF and Seattle have solid schools and universities. Portland is quite mediocre in that respect. The local universities in Portland and in wider Oregon are eminently mediocre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> probably not. The only real solutions are discouraging enough people from moving that population remains static over years, or making it super easy to build as many units as needed to cover the influx of new residents.

Anything else will just result in downtown portland and the nearby areas becoming unaffordable for anyone who isn't rich.

</comment><comment><USER14> > It's all the newcomers, some say. They're driving prices up and they're > pushing long-time residents out.

Well, there has been a _massive_ influx of investment [1] in the Portland housing market, driving up overall prices. While this wouldn't be happening if people didn't want to move to Portland, simply blaming it on 'Californians' seems to be a bit naive.

[1] [http://invw.org/2015/04/17/portland-cash- housing/](http://invw.org/2015/04/17/portland-cash-housing/)

<comment><USER15> The fundamentals that create an opportunity for speculative investment is a lack of supply and an excess of demand. It's very rare that investment itself, in a vacuum of demand, will result in a price surge. Sure, it can happen, but the basics is that Portland is attractive and, like San Francisco, does not build enough to support the new demand.

<comment><USER16> It sounds like you're saying that investment alone doesn't make a bubble. But investment (or speculation) is another kind of demand, and it's well known that speculation can create bubbles when investors predict future demand that turns out not to exist. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at?

<comment><USER15> Real demand for housing is here in Portland and in San Francisco. It's not created by real estate speculation. Real people, by the thousands, come to these metro areas, faster than the housing stock grows to accommodate them.

Before asking ourselves if price surges are created by the smokes and mirrors of speculation, a second-degree hypothesis, we ought to look at the simpler hypothesis first: is there a real demand for housing? Yes, there is. Is the housing stock growing fast enough to satisfy that demand? No, it is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not right to be squeezed out of a city you call your home but "weird people" will find/build new places hopefully.

I am sure there are up and rising places similar to the previous forms of SF and Portland that are kept off the radar?

<comment><USER18> Sure. Places like Detroit are very affordable for "weird people" looking for a challenge. It's a shame that cities like San Francisco have decided to raise the drawbridge on future inhabitants and set their current density rate in stone.

<comment><USER19> The shame is that they waited so long to do it. There's very little San Francisco left.

<comment><USER20> San Francisco is more in its people than its buildings. By constricting the supply of housing, they've inadvertently pushed out the very 'weirdos' they were trying to keep; it's pretty easy for the rich to outbid the poor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [deleted]

<comment><USER22> How does this anecdote contradict that Portland is more affordable than Seattle?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It is just me or do these startup hubs also happen to be hipster hubs as well? San Francisco, Portland, Austin, Seattle etc.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm not worried about SF. The boom will be over soon. After the last dot-com crash, about 40% of the twentysomethings left.

<comment><USER25> People keep saying this and year and year it keeps "booming"

<comment><USER26> Reminds me of a saying: The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

<comment><USER24> We're getting past that. Look at TWTR stock for the last year.[1] Twitter tried to pull a Myspace - the number of users started dropping [2], so they increased ad density to try to get revenue up. It's not working.

Twitter is so highly visible in SF that when they tank, it will shake up the real estate market.

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=TWT...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=TWTR&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) [2] [http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/twitter-declining- month...](http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/twitter-declining-monthly- actives-1201702526/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mindfulness and meditation can worsen depression and anxiety - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2251840-mindfulness-and-meditation-can-worsen-depression-and-anxiety/ <comment><USER2> It's important to bear in mind that meditation is a religious practice specifically aimed at causing ego-death. Yogis writing about the practice (before it became big business) freely admit all sorts of horrible-sounding mental side effects, but couch them in religious terms (and encourage the acolyte to push through until they achieve "enlightenment", which they describe as a profoundly nihilist state of being). This whole idea of it being a casual activity that's good for the soul, or that it can make you a more effective person (on this plane of existence) is 1) new and 2) only modestly supported by the science.

It may hold some value, but it strikes me that there is more pro-meditation dogma than anti-. Scientists will hold an open mind, but "gurus" who charge money for fancy retreats will insist in its value without evidence. As a general rule, there are no panaceas - major changes in cognition can go either way. Be careful!

<comment><USER3> "which they describe as a profoundly nihilist state of being."

This is very important to point out and I think is actually the big trap when approaching meditative practices. I fell into this nihilism trap when I was starting meditation in college and I abandoned my practice almost completely for the next 10 or so years.

It's very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self. The latter is an extreme view that leads to nihilism. At least in the Buddhist traditions I'm aware of, nihilism is a wrong view and the teachings are explicitly not nihilistic.

Yet it's exceptionally easy to get confused and fall into it if you're just meditating without any real notion of what the teachings are. All the corporate "meditate for productivity" that has invaded the dialogue in the west I find at least misguided, and at the worst actually harmful.

For anyone that is interested I'd suggest reading Thich Nhat Hanh's translation and commentary on the heart sutra called "The Other Shore". It clears up a lot of the teaching on emptiness and will help you not fall into the nihilism trap.

(It's also useful to note that the modern vipassana movement that is so popular in the west comes from a tradition that doesn't emphasize the teachings on emptiness, even though they are in fact there in the Pali cannon.)

<comment><USER4> > It's very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of > self.

I think part of the issue is that the words/concepts really don't translate into modern english well at all. Another example is how frequently the first of the Four Noble Truths is misrepresented as "Life is suffering". We don't have good ways of saying or explaining shunyata or dukkha that preserve the nuance of the concepts.

Edit: Thich Nhat Hanh is always a solid recommendation. I'll have to find his commentary on the heart sutra.

<comment><USER5> Is there a longer translation that gives more nuance than "suffering"? Often times we settle for less precise words in favor of pithiness/conciseness.

<comment><USER6> I prefer "unsatisfactoriness" rather than "suffering".

"The word is commonly explained as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride."

<comment><USER7> Sounds like a better translation would be 'slipshod'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Reading through the comments I'd like to help clear up some of the misconceptions/confusion when it comes to the use of the terms meditation and mindfulness:

There are different meditation practices, mindfulness meditation is a special type of meditation (popular are Headspace, Calm, the work of Jon-Kabat et al. and many more).

There are other types of meditation not aiming primarily at mindfulness, popular examples being Transcendental Meditation, visualisation type exercises, and many more.

Mindfulness (in the scientific sense) refers to a state of mind characterised by various qualities (which are slightly different depending on the author), in short being in the present moment, or "not on auto-pilot".

In a mindfulness course, meditation refers to the formal practice of catching your inner auto-pilot. This is usually complemented by applying mindfulness to every-day situations as well as some form of psycho-education.

As a last comment, a 10-day Vipassana retreat is a completely different beast than doing a 10 minute guided mindfulness meditation every day, especially in terms of risks. As has been mentioned by variosu posters, there is a small, but real risk, that the retreat can trigger psychosis. In my understanding this is significantly different to the worsening of a pre-existing condition as described in the article.

<comment><USER9> The free 10 day vipassana retreats are really quite dangerous IMO. They're often attended by complete beginners with no prior knowledge, since they're free and sort of marketed as a boot camp. The actual instruction is given on decades old tapes and videos. The "instructors" there are given explicit instruction not to advise anyone and just get them to listen to the tapes (which are very much steeped in religious Buddhism). So anyone who's struggling, in a weird mindstate, and unsure what's happening to them, and goes to a course leader for advice, won't get any advice other than to buckle down and listen to the tapes, and that often results in misapplying the technique, buckling down too hard, and not relaxing enough, which can cause the mind to... snap, I guess.

Goenka's method is very inflexible and quite divergent from his lineage and peers. The method of insight meditation outlined by Ledi Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc, is really quite simple, but there's a lot of misinformation, marketing, and fraudsters out there trying to convince people it's more than it is.

> In a mindfulness course, meditation refers to the formal practice of > catching your inner auto-pilot. This is usually complemented by applying > mindfulness to every-day situations as well as some form of psycho- > education.

This is true and about as far as most people will get or want to get with it, and it really does have that benefit. You're right, these longer retreats are designed to essentially deconstruct your self-world boundary, and that isn't usually disclosed to people, there isn't much informed consent. The people who are seeking that usually know what they're getting into.

<comment><USER10> When I did the 10 day I found it interesting that on the tapes Goenka told stories about how he interacted with people and gave them detailed advice during their sessions with him. But the retreats that are run in his name are totally cookie cutter and you get no individual advice other than basically just to keep going.

When I lived in Maryland I attended classes with Tibetan teachers for a few years and they always pointed out that you need guidance through the tough spots or either your meditation effort is often wasted or even harmful.

I guess us Westerners have a tendency to simplify everything to make it easier to sell. Sometimes it works but often it gets simplified too much as it happened with yoga (our "yoga" is basically just a milder form of aerobics without any depth) or now with mindfulness. There is some benefit but we completely miss the big point.

<comment><USER9> I have been told that the same thing happened to Goenka himself: he and his peers all got personalised advice, and so his particular body scanning method was what worked _for him_ , while his peers were given other techniques. So the dogma of the Goenka method is based on the assumption that you have the same kind of character as Goenka himself.

<comment><USER11> Daniel Ingram said this (dharmaoverground, mctb) in a recorded conversation on youtube a few months ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been practicing meditation for several years now.

The phenomenon described in the article is very obvious to every practitioner - it can happen that for some time you will feel worse (actually I'm surprised that it's only 8%).

It is related to psychological mechanisms of repression, which is weakened during meditation practices. That is why during serious meditation retreats (like 10 days vipassana) some people freak out and they aren't able to finish the retreat. It's perfectly normal and usually has positive effects in the long run. Although sometimes meditator is not able to work through the energies released - he should seek (any) professional help then.

<comment><USER13> I just want to add that for some people the 'freak out' is psychosis, or other serious mental condition that needs immediate treatment.

There are many people who come into meditation to fix something because they have a sense that something is going wrong with them. Meditation has become very popular and there is strong incentive to avoid mentioning possible negatives. Then you just ship out damaged people from the back door and make them think it was their fault.

Meditation if practised as designed brings also negative mental states as part of the process. It's not just feel good hum-hum. People should seek professional mental help if they need and not to try some intensive meditation retreats that drive them into the walls.

I go to long meditation retreats regularly, but I don't recommend them to anyone. It's not the same for everyone. It can seriously harm some people.

<comment><USER14> Psychosis triggered by a very unexpected and emotionally strong event doesn't need immediate treatment. You may put yourself back together in a short amount of time and actually getting help may be worse in the long run as you will probably start adjusting variables in your life, like taking meds or getting closer or more distant to particular people, that not necessarily lead to the self-improvement you need.

The whole point of those long retreats is to be able to push yourself to those limits knowing that you will have some days to rest after and that people that are used to handling psychotic people after they had a reveal or something will be around to help you.

Of course as mostly everything that involves a 10 day long gathering with idiosyncratic strangers you need to be careful.

<comment><USER13> > Psychosis triggered by a very unexpected and emotionally strong event > doesn't need immediate treatment.

People may come back without treatment but once you had a psychosis the propensity to get it again has increased. That's why it's usually good to seek help even if the symptoms go away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the equivalent of saying exercise is bad because "People who engage in physical activities sometimes experience unwanted muscle soreness and joint pain". Dredging up old repressed emotions is one of the first things I learned about meditation, and you're supposed to learn to deal with them instead of keeping them buried in your head forever.

<comment><USER16> What percentage of articles about mindfulness tell you that you're going to recall terrible memories and have to work to overcome them? Do the human resource departments that advocate mindfulness tell employees about this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is probably oversimplified, but it does make some sense. Some people are happily trotting about in their objectively miserable lives. Sit them down and let them think on it, and they just might realize how empty their lives are and how little control they have over their situation.

I've always been very "mindful" and depending on your inclination to cynicism, that inevitably means finding out that life is what it is.

<comment><USER18> Thinking about every aspect of my life in a very deep and logical way is what got me depressed. And what got me out of it was being busy enough that I didn't have time for that.

<comment><USER19> This is no different than using alcohol, drugs, etc.

AKA Workaholic. Just another way to distract oneself from the existential dread.

<comment><USER20> what's so great about existential dread? If you don't have it then you don't have it.

I read a book on Zen Buddhism once about 20 years ago and it made sense to me. I've never read or practiced anything related since which makes me a constant practitioner in a way. Maybe i'm blessed or cursed but, to me, the endless pursuit of meditation/mindfulness is the same as the endless pursuit of anything else.

<comment><USER19> > what's so great about existential dread? If you don't have it then you don't > have it.

Not sure what you're even asking here - everyone has problems. Would you advise them to ignore their problems and instead distract themselves with something else?

> Maybe i'm blessed or cursed but, to me, the endless pursuit of > meditation/mindfulness is the same as the endless pursuit of anything else.

So, in a word, nihilism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21>
        They found that about 8 per cent
        people who try meditation experience
        an unwanted effect

What does that even mean?

That 8 percent of people who try meditation experience something "unwanted" within a certain time afterwards?

Is that different from a control group? Which control group? When you look at 100 random people people with the same situation and instead of letting them meditate let them go for a walk instead - what percentage will experience something unwanted?

We would need to look into the study to figure out if it has more info.

But the article seems to provide no link to the study. No DOI, no nothing.

Based on the name "Miguel Farias" mentioned in the article, it might be doi 10.1192/pb.bp.116.053686 from 2016:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353526/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353526/)

<comment><USER22> At the end of the article it says:

"Journal reference: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, in press"

So its not available yet. You'll find it here when/if its accepted.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/16000447/0/ja](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/16000447/0/ja)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Mindfulness meditation is not about negating ego, but about observing, seeing what is in front of you, not judging, it is about perspective, about patience (sitting in silence, not running after every thought or desire you have), about learning to be gentle and patient with yourself and others. It is about waking up to your current reality, to the present moment. About coming from an illusionary state of mind to an accepting, seeing-current-reality state of mind. It's also about realizing that you are not your thinking mind (alone). Your thinking mind is a tool, and your thoughts are notions and models about the world. But there is also a level of perception that is meta-mind. A level that is beyond that. A mind that observes your thinking mind. When you don't equate yourself and the world with your thoughts. Call it intuition if you will. But it's more than that. Not dichotome as the thinking mind makes it. But holistic. - The Western notion about mindfulness practice is very distorted. Sometimes simplistic. Sometimes negative: "Buddhism is about killing your ego". No it is not about killing anything. It is about observing it, in a non-judging, patient way. - Mindfulness meditation is about practicing being in the present moment, nothing more than that. And about a set of principles that'll help you practice being in the present moment: Being patient, being non-judgemental, perspective, breathing, sitting in silence, observing the breath, observing the thoughts that come and go, not attaching to them, letting go, being in the present moment.

<comment><USER24> I find this subject very interesting. I'm an Indian with a typical understanding of the concept of meditation being about perspective, patience and such ideas.

But I have seen multiple times that Western culture somehow seem to try to extract something out of it. As if trying to commercialize meditation.

Peace with oneself, at one's current state is perhaps the only thing I relate with mindfulness. I have been in depression for years, have anxiety. And I started investing more into mindfulness recently, realizing I lost my roots.

The mind is a powerful tool, more so in silence. That's what I feel personally.

<comment><USER25> > I have seen multiple times that Western culture somehow seem to try to > extract something out of it.

I wonder what you think about yoga in the West? I think it gets competitive.

<comment><USER26> Western yoga has been evolving over the last couple of centuries. An age-old proverb says - Truth is one, wise express it in many ways. Indian teachers came to the West and Westerners went to India to learn about Indian Philosophy - Yoga. Ideally speaking, Yoga is free for all. Some teachers started charging a fee for making a living, which may be fine. Slowly dilution of purpose occurred and some worst-case teachers turned to be opportunists. The result is most of the Western Yoga schools/studios focus on postures, yoga pants for flexibility a few raise to teaching breathing techniques for a calmer mind, and _rarely_ few pickup the actual spirit of Yoga described in original texts Bhagavad Gita or Patanjali yoga sutras.

" The total structure of life requires of our total being to be united with it in a practical demonstration of thought, speech and action – this is yoga." [[https://www.swami- krishnananda.org/patanjali/raja_01.html](https://www.swami- krishnananda.org/patanjali/raja_01.html)]

If you want to know what yoga is, a good starting point is Aurobindo's "The Synthesis of Yoga "[[http://www.sriaurobindo.nl/docs/Sri%20Aurobindo/23-24TheSynt...](http://www.sriaurobindo.nl/docs/Sri%20Aurobindo/23-24TheSynthesisofYoga.pdf)]

Lastly, it is a happy coincidence people (including Indians) like _yoga_ exercises. Most of us will be happy with the results of the exercises resulting in flexibility and transient calmness in mind. Real seekers go after _Yoga_ for years and it is not available down the street or online. In reality, ultimate Yoga - a union of gross, subtle, and causal bodies - is very high-bar to reach.

Hopefully, it gives some people a glimpse of the original idea of Yoga. I'm sorry if this is too wordy and preachy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Mindfulness and other types of meditation are usually seen as simple stress- relievers"

That's the first problem. They are powerful "technologies" (okay, that's just a fancy way of saying "tools") of mind and self, not "simple stress- relievers".

Possible "negative" outcomes are not unknown in the cultures that originated these tools. Any powerful tool will have some potential metaphorical sharp edges.

Over 20 years ago, I took a yoga and meditation class (before or near the beginning of the U.S. cultural rise of non-spiritual "mindfulness"), and the instructor told us on the first class, something like:

"Sometimes people doing these techniques can experience odd things. You might have a negative reaction. Or see or experience something odd or scary. Or even think you are interacting with scary beings who aren't there or another plane of existence or something. I don't say this to scare you, it doesn't happen to many people. But so you can recognize it if it does, and just come talk to me. It happens sometime, it's not a big deal, but it's important you come talk to me if it does, left unattended/unguided it can become a big deal."

Because there are teachings/techniques from the traditions these tools orginate in to deal with some the sometimes negative effects too, that were also developed over generations in tandem with the tools. This is the danger of extracting "mindfulness" from it's cultural context, as just a "simple stress-reliever".

</comment><comment><USER28> Early in quarantine, I basically roasted my mental health with wellness practices. Strict diet, running, yoga, breathing exercises, strict sleep schedule, no alcohol, etc. etc. I felt great and in control for a few weeks and then slowly got more and more anxious, which is compounded by the helplessness of 'doing everything right' but not getting the desired result.

Last night I played video games and ate ice cream while watching a movie. Feel pretty good today :).

<comment><USER29> A couple years ago I moved to the mountains with my family and cutback on mindless tech consumption (social media, Netflix) and started reading more books and working out (power rack in my garage).

I feel my IQ has gone up a few points and I'm more in control over my behavior/emotions but my anxiety is worse. I'm plagued by my thoughts of the shortness of time and the temporary relationship I'll have with my children.

I think it's a natural part of the human condition and people escape for a reason.

Historically, religion remedied that in a lot of ways, which is why it was called "opium of the masses". People need a worldview-framework to overwrite their base firmware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I must be taking meditation way less seriously than most of the other comments. I thought it was basically quiet reflection; a chance to calm your body (with breathing exercises). I had thought it was a chance to see if that reveals something you've been ignoring or to help you ignore something momentarily so you can decompress and evaluate your well being more objectively.

That's how I've been treating meditation anyway. I thought zen ego death was just overzealous marketing but from the comments its fairly common?

<comment><USER31> Meditation in the way western people think about it is kind of like shopping mall yoga: it's a tradition with a long religious history that's been turned into an anodyne "healthy" practice for American consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Given that every time I've been depressed it has consisted precisely of detaching from the quotidian world somewhat, sitting still a lot, thinking, being aware of thinking, I'm not surprised by this result. It's too much 'yin'. I notice when the diagnosis is depression the first thing doctors reach for, before pills or anything else, is exercise, movement of any kind, which not coincidentally is a 'yang' thing. (Doesn't always work on its own since the patient has to have enough motivation to go do it.)

When your world is all crazy and on fire with hectic activity, that's when it's the most beneficial to stop and meditate. I think some of the meditation stuff as it's marketed in the West, is first of all done without much regard to the needs of (or actual effect on) those who buy the book/class/etc., and is secondly based on the implicit assumption that "our modern lives" are filled with too much activity - errands and dropping-off-the-kids and whatnot. But if you're depressed the opposite is usually the case.

</comment><comment><USER33> For a couple years I practiced meditation from 30 minutes to a couple hours per day. I was introduced to it when I started practicing the Wim Hof method for health reasons. I tried to adhere to a zen style of emptiness. It made me extremely happy, greatly increased my satisfaction with life and improved my relationship with my wife.

The downside for me came when I was driving or in public. I became very anxious because I would sometimes feel my thoughts drifting away as they did when I meditated and I feared I would lose my ability to control myself. I had some mild anxiety prior to meditating (never while driving tough) but it was greatly amplified during this time. I eventually stopped meditating due to some unrelated circumstances (basically not having enough free time), and my anxiety virtually disappeared. My overall happiness has decreased and I have resumed some self destructive behaviors (such as occasional binge drinking) . Not sure if I will ever pick it up again. I would probably be much better off if I had some actual instruction and someone to discuss these issues with.

<comment><USER34> Since you mention your happiness a coupe times I wonder: Can you explain how you go about gauging, assessing, calculating or feeling how happy your are?

Since you have practiced meditation regularly for a couple years, what do you think about the idea that chasing happiness is also something to let go of?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Exactly how it works for me. I tried meditation and my anxiety became much worse. Somehow the meditation itself unlocks many more things to worry about.

Conversely, I found out that doing things that are exactly the opposite (of mindfulness) do great for me to not worry that much: Play computer games, go to "pointless" parties, "waste" some money... and of course, physical activity.

Meditation centers my mind squarely at the things that I worry about the most (and I don't have great influence on): politics, diseases (like getting cancer), what people think of me, etc.

<comment><USER36> .. many would strongly advise against avoiding those emotions, and possibly getting help / ideas / guidance on how best to defuse their affect on you.

There's a significant difference between understanding the political horrors, or knowing that cancer is a problem - versus being terrified of thinking about these realities.

<comment><USER35> Well, yeah, I hear you. But for the past 5 years I have progressed from panic attacks and benzodiazepine dependance... to mostly "nothing" by just "avoiding" the anxiety. I sleep all night, I am much more happy with my work, etc. All of this, just because of taking the "right" decisions, which are mostly avoiding stress, like switching jobs, improving my physical fitness, allowing myself to be lazy etc.

Yeah, it may backfire in the future, but I am not going back there, if I am allowed to choose.

<comment><USER20> you are allowed to choose, don't let this thread or anything/anyone else convince you otherwise. ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Correct if wrong but this study sample included people who meditated at least once a week for at least two months? There's the problem. Meditation is a daily exercise conducted for at least 20 minutes. You won't be able to apply meditation-acquired skills, such as anxiety reduction, until a foundation is established-- at least 2 months, but probably more. Just as the benefits of a diet and exercise take time to work, so too does a disciplined meditation regiment.

</comment><comment><USER38> Yea... you know, surgery is extremely painful. It can sometimes be worse than whatever is the reason you're getting cut open. The recovery period is a nightmare too sometimes.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Non-religious meditation is sort of the same for your psyche. You bring things to light that have been plaguing you in the background. Once in the light, you have to painfully deal with it. Make peace with it, make amends, or corrective course of action. Over time, such actions become less painful and future issues affect you less because you have the experience and maturity to deal with them swiftly.

This article just spins it all towards negativity. That last cop-out paragraph was a joke. A guided meditation app? I am all for a pro therapist to help people talk through their problems and help better explain their own thoughts and actions... but an app? Seriously? The whole point to meditation is for you to have better understanding of yourself. Not for someone else to dictate your own thoughts. A good therapist doesn't guide you to a pre determined path. They push you to walk your own path.

Damn, these things piss me off so much. This whole article feels like the opening pitch to some asshole's self help app that they're going to charge a monthly subscription for.

<comment><USER39> Your ire is misplaced. This article is talking about the minority of people for whom meditation does the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

This reminds me of study done where, again, a small percentage of people who were exposed to sounds that are typically used to reduce anxiety had the opposite effect to. I am trying to dig up this study but it was posted to HN close to a decade ago, so who knows what happened to it. I think a number of HNers expressed the issues they faced listening to these samples as well.

<comment> blaser-waffle I mean I've known people who took LSD and instead of a fun trippy experience they had a really bad time. Totally shook them up.

In the long run it was good for them, spooked them enough to stay away from drugs permanently and, ultimately, turn their life around.

Meditation, like LSD, is only going to get you to a place -- what you find there is on you. If you blot out all distractions and look deep inside yourself... you may not like what you see. If you get someone with deep seated, repressed anxiety and make them bring it to the fore via meditation it's not going to make them less anxious, it's just going to make it more noticeable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I was part of a Zen meditation group for about six years. I did not personally notice members having psychotic breaks during retreats. What I did notice was that people were coming in with depression and anxiety, and that the mindfulness practice was not helping to drive people to manage the issue. They were just comforted by being in the presence of other people who had similar issues they could relate to.

What I found upsetting was that the leaders of the group were not interested in actually solving these issues either and were perpetuating the state of being present with the problems the meditators had. This created a vicious cycle of dependency. Anxiety and depression are not things you can just figure out and snap out of.

As a commenter mentioned earlier, the point of meditation (in the Buddhist context) was to facilitate ego death. Watching the self, knowing the self, and extricating the self, in order to be freed from the problems of self (which is thought to be causing the depression and anxiety). In our modern context most of us can't go into a forest refuge and isolate ourselves to do this practice.

</comment><comment><USER41> Today on Hacker News: "Not everyone needs 8 hours of sleep: new research" and "Mindfulness and meditation can worsen depression and anxiety".

Or more generally: "Exceptions to the rule exist".

What's the value of these articles?

<comment><USER42> Self-improvement clickbait works as well on HN as anywhere else. I do think that all of the orthorexic diet stuff has been downmodded over the last year or two, though (or the OCD weather in silicon valley has shifted.) It's been worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> When i exercise or try to meditate i just wind up thinking about things i need to do, and i typically abandon my workout to go do it. It can be as simple as picking up a dirty sock or putting away a coffee cup.

<comment><USER44> That is textbook ADHD.

My apartment is never more spotless than when I have to tackle some hard/complex piece of code that requires my undivided attention for a long stretch.

<comment><USER45> It's a pattern that is common for people with ADHD, but it's also pretty common for everyone else—just maybe not _as_ common. I'm sorry if it wasn't intentional, but your comment reads like you're saying that the above comment is a sign the commenter might have ADHD and that seems unwarranted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Meditation is ridiculously oversold as a magical solution to all of life's problems. The whole question of the relationship between meditation and the ego just strikes me as irrelevant if not made up entirely in the way that religions make up stories about the spiritual benefits that their practitioners can enjoy.

The most use I've gotten out of meditation is as a simple cure for habitual thoughts and behaviors. And I think the logic is incredibly straight forward: if you find yourself suspecting that what you're doing is not helpful and/or not deliberate, what better thing to do than to sit down and take an honest look at your thoughts and impulses? It's not rocket science and I don't think it's fundamentally a religious practice either (as some here have suggested).

Coming to the practice with an overinflated sense of what's possible will certainly lead to disappointment and maybe even depression.

<comment><USER47> If you are an awful person, it must be depressing to come to grips with that. But worth a try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Presenting meditation as something you can do every once in a while when you are feeling bad emotionally and want to feel better is like telling somebody that if they wake up feeling tired and out of shape, they should go for a quick three mile run and then they'll feel great for the rest of the day. It only works for people who are in decent shape already, and not only is it terrible advice for people who are looking for help, it's also presented in a way that makes people feel like something is wrong with them if it doesn't work for them like it supposedly does for other people.

</comment><comment><USER49> The term "meditation" has such a fuzzy meaning these days. It really refers to prolonged concentration on something. We do this all the time. Yogis or occultists refine the term further into 3 stages: a brief concentration, a prolonged concentration (i.e. meditation) on something real and tangible like a symbol, and meditation on the idea behind that something real and tangible. Knowledge workers are very familiar with meditation, although they don't recognize it as a special activity. However that 3rd stage is unattainable for most people today: ideas are qualitatevily different. Mastering meditation on ideas switches mind into a special state. From that point directing mind at things like sun, moon, light or more abstract ideas like the relationship between space and sound produces significant effects or just summons ideas and thoughts about them. This is how great scientists make discoveries: they direct their mind at some topic and summon ideas about it (they don't produce ideas with induction or deduction) and then they materialise ideas into more tangible math.

</comment><comment><USER50> Meditation will make you more sensitive to whatever you are feeling. If you are anxious or depressed you will feel it significantly more strongly and it will be extremely uncomfortable. As you continue the practice you will become desensitized to the negative aspects.

The whole point of vipassana is to break down what exactly is happening into its component parts. If your feeling anxious then you try to break that down into mental imagery, bodily sensations, mental chatter etc

You are essentially exploring your depression, anxiety or whatever else you are feeling and over time you'll be able to handle all these states of minds calmly.

One positive aspect of meditation is that it can start to make you feel very good. You can start off your meditation session with extreme states of anxiety and as you explore what it means to be anxious - anxious feelings all over your body can suddenly turn into extremely pleasant sensations sliding up your body. The more you do it the more persistent this feeling becomes.

</comment><comment><USER51> I liken it to exercise. Too much and you strain your brain past its ability to repair. Yes you can overtrain your brain. You also need to take nutrition into account. You can hit the gym every day but if you don't dial in your nutrients, you won't see any improvement or worse, a degradation.

</comment><comment><USER52> I started meditating weekly with a Zen Buddhist group about 4 months before I started taking medication for depression a couple years ago.

Mindfulness is emphasized in CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy). The idea behind this is that depression manifests as distorted thoughts (e.g. "Everyone hates me, I should die."), and the goal is to notice these thoughts and learn to substitute them (eventually automatically) with thoughts that are more productive/positive.

From what I've seen, most meditation practices are very helpful for the "notice the thoughts" part, but, especially in non-religious settings, tend to neglect the "substitute the thoughts" part. Usually what I hear is something like "notice the thought and let it go."

So if the thought "Everyone hates me, I should die" comes up during meditation, you just notice it and let it go. That often provides some relief in the short term (you're no longer actively thinking about dying), but you've done nothing to prevent it from arising again later, and you haven't learned any coping techniques for when similar thoughts _won 't_ go away (which can be a symptom during severe episodes). If you have depression or anxiety and want to get into meditation, I would strongly suggest at the very very least researching the principals of CBT in case you find yourself in this situation. I would recommend an app called Woebot. Even better would be to try some actual CBT if you are able.

All that said, I think that for me joining a meditation group was beneficial for me because of the social aspect more so than the actual meditation. This group emphasizes community (sangha) and service pretty heavily. A lot of people get social benefits from other religious communities, but as someone who didn't grow up in a religious household, I find Buddhists super easy to get along with. They tend to be very accepting, especially to newcomers, since they are taught not to make judgements of others. It's comforting to know if I'm going through a rough patch that at least I don't have to worry about people judging me for missing meditation that week.

</comment><comment><USER53> This website appears to be infested with ads that take over Safari on iOS, requiring closing the tab.

</comment><comment> rv-de Seems like every hacker and his uncle came to collectively share their unknowledge and misinformation about this subject. Please, _downvote_ this comment, go ahead - but I refuse to invest any more time in attempting to change this - this is just ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't have experience with meditation so I can't comment on that but personally I have been though some very tough periods in my life, battling with depression and anxiety and what has helped me a lot during those periods is physical exercise and eating healthy food. Even better if I manage to join a group sport or activity. It is sometimes hard to find the motivation to do it, doesn't provide immediate gratification and relaxation but if I keep doing it is much more rewarding to my mental health compared to all other stuff I have tried.

</comment><comment><USER55> I couldn't find the referenced paper anywhere, so the entire thing is probably made up by the writer.

Specifically I could not find any recent publications by a Miguel Farias in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

</comment><comment><USER56> There is rampant commercialization and distortion of powerful techniques. It takes a lot of experience and hands on training, and years of observing the guru teach others before one does it themselves.

So much so that there exists a term guru-sishia parampara, when the teaching of a school are perfected and handed down through the generations.

Another factor is a lot of us are perfectly aware of the pointlessness of our day to day activities, but are very frightened to break out of it. It gives us a kind of familiarity and is "normal" to be that way.

</comment><comment><USER57> That some people have negative reactions – including anxiety, hallucinations, & seizures – to intense meditation has long been recognized. Here's a story from 18 years ago in the SFWeekly:

"Bad Vibes- Warning: Meditating may be hazardous to your health" SFWeekly, 2002-08-28

[https://web.archive.org/web/20091114023754/https://www.sfwee...](https://web.archive.org/web/20091114023754/https://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/313883)

</comment><comment><USER58> This is similar to how yoga affects your body. The first step of mending something is awareness. If you know what's broken you can fix it. Many people who start doing yoga start feeling worse at the start, they realize what's wrong with their body, but if they push on, it gets better. Perhaps something similar can be said for meditating. Also, just blindly trying to meditate or other online ways are not actually meditation, but that's another discussion.

<comment><USER4> > The first step of mending something is awareness. If you know what's broken > you can fix it.

That leans toward something I was wondering about as I read the article. One of the things that was noted was "thoughts of suicide". Is the meditation causing that, or was it a thought pattern that was already going on made more obvious by practice? Not trying to diminish the danger of ToS or practicing without guidance and support, but I don't think there's quite enough to establish causality here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The end goal of mindfulness is to make you realize you have no free will and that you don't exist. I wish more people understood that. Losing the illusion you have free will is the real danger behind mindfulness, because the practice leaves you there with nowhere to go.

Having your mind "run away with bad thoughts," while it sounds bad, isn't directly related to the fundamental issue of mindlessness, and could happen with any type of meditation.

</comment><comment><USER60> Meditation and mindfulness practices reconnect you to your feelings. Fear (anxiety) and apathy (depression) are feelings. We disconnect from them through repression, suppression and escape. To move beyond any obstacle, you must first confront it. I wouldn't let the pain of feeling low vibration emotions discourage your meditation or mindfulness practice. When you confront and accept these painful feelings, there are greater, lighter emotions beyond.

</comment><comment><USER61> As one begins meditation one becomes more aware of their thoughts and feelings. If one has been suppressing "negative" thoughts and feelings those will start to come to the forefront and may seem overwhelming. As a potential solution the article recommends working with a guided meditation either live with a teacher, or a recorded one. This is a great ideas as one develops the capacity to become comfortable with discomfort.

</comment><comment><USER62> It's not a cure or a treatment in the first place. Like one teacher said: meditation is just a shower for the mind, simple hygiene.

</comment><comment><USER63> "when people are trying to still their thoughts, the mind can "rebel", she says"

Who told them to "still their thoughts"? Sure thing it will rebel since it's impossible task. One can't "still the thought" since at exact moment you FIND yourself thinking it means the thought has already GONE!

</comment><comment><USER64> The lesson here is all in the "CAN worsen anxiety".

Even if a study shows statistically significant result that meditation helps on average, the tails still matter. That is in health, individual responses to an intervention matter a lot. Sometimes a treatment helps most people a modest amount, but makes things much much worse for a small minority of people.

</comment><comment><USER65> This is a quite well documented phenomenon:

[https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv- insight...](https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv- insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/5-dissolution-entrance-to-the-dark-night/)

</comment><comment><USER66> There are lots of ways to do "Mindfulness and meditation" so I'm not surprised.

I've always found group meditations to be the most beneficial for me while solo meditations are harder and less likely for me to feel better afterwards (although I've had some really good ones)

</comment><comment><USER67> Heard about this before from this ppl [1]. As it appears, even meditation needs to be done in moderation...

1: [https://www.cheetahhouse.org/](https://www.cheetahhouse.org/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Another meta-study on other studies, which probably have many flaws (like almost all psychological studies.)

This is what passes for science these days. You can't draw any realistic conclusion from this, one way or another.

</comment><comment><USER16> I used to have mild tinnitus that I completely ignored (actually had to try to notice it) but after doing mindfulness it's loud constant ringing that's driving me insane.

</comment><comment><USER68> If you are feeling more fully, through removing your mental blocks, then the fear is going to increase. That is necessary for it to pass through and eventually go away.

</comment><comment><USER69> On safari, you can't reject the tracking cookies on that site. The only button that works is accept all recommended. Anyone have a link that lets you avoid that?

</comment><comment><USER70> Meditation is a powerful tool that probably most of the world can't use to its full potential, otherwise they'd be a literal saint, like Maharaj-ji.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is anecdotal, but I feel that learning to meditate has caused my mind to go blank much more easily during conversation.

Before I ever knew about meditation, it felt like my brain would always serve up whatever words and ideas were needed to keep the sentence going. I even felt like I was quite a quick-witted person. But now I'll often lose my train of thought and suddenly be left with a completely empty head. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this didn't happen in the pre-meditation days.

<comment><USER49> Meditation is prolonged concentration on something. Perhaps what you practiced was exactly "thinking about nothing and keeping your mind blank"? That would be the opposite of meditation and could be harmful, I guess. There are very subtle objects used in meditation, like light or space, but it's definitely not nothing.

<comment><USER71> > Perhaps what you practiced was exactly "thinking about nothing and keeping > your mind blank"? That would be the opposite of meditation and could be > harmful, I guess.

I mean, it requires prolonged concentration to clear one's head -- but I'll admit that I'm not a meditation expert. Perhaps I was taught incorrectly.

What thoughts should be running through your head while you meditate?

<comment><USER49> There should be no usual analytical activity in your mind during that time. Meditation is a lot like watching a still thought with your mind. Beginners pick simple objects like a black triangle on white background and try to keep their mind completely still, but with eyes open, with no other thoughts for 5 mins. People here that do software can easily achieve photographic quality meditation on simple shapes like that triangle. Then you increase complexity and start choosing proper objects like a little Buddha shape. The added complexity makes meditation difficult: the 3d image (which is a reflection of the object) gets blurry, dim or the attention is outright dragged away by other thoughts. It's like trying to balance on one leg with strong unpredictable winds. The goal is to develop strength to balance the mind and properly reflect complex static objects.

Then you switch from objects to ideas and that's a lot harder, but that's the actual goal. For example, you think a lot about the nature or idea of software. Once you think you've found this idea, you sit and spend 5 mins meditating on this idea. Ideas can't be drawn, they don't have shapes and our mind is not really suited for dealing with ideas.

Meditation is addictive. Even at the early stages you'll notice the flow of something thru your body during meditation and the weird, but pleasant feeling of physically stretching out your brains. This addiction is considered an obstacle, so the usual advise is to do a few short sessions that stop once you start noticing that feeling.

Your daily thinking will become sharper as you progress, and you'll get this feeling of physical balance. If it's not the case, you're doing something wrong and you'd have to seek an in person advice.

One particularly dangerous mistake is trying to clear mind of thoughts and make it blank. Tsong-kha-pa wrote a good deal about this mistake in his books to warn people.

<comment><USER71> Thanks for this reply! I never quite understood what people meant when they said they were going to meditate on a thing or an idea. This clears things up a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> The only tools/processes that can't do harm are the ones that don't do anything. Knifes cut stakes but also fingers.

</comment><comment><USER73> Meditation is a process to calm the mind. Make it more lucid and reduce thoughts.

It's a tool to discover the inner self, one of the first steps in self realization, as per Hindu scriptures.

It has been studied for millennia and it's methods fine tuned.

The reason for meditating is not to improve productivity, solve depression / anxiety issues, and all the issues related to modern living.

It is a first step towards God Realization.

But why is it used so widely for the above mentioned reasons?

\- The initial stages of meditation bring about a calm and peace. Many people find health benefits to such a process. It might as well be true.

Meditation is supposed to be done and progressed under a realized guru. It's not a vocational course that someone takes and becomes an expert in it.It is not a tool to solve anxiety and depression. It is not a tool to improve the life we experience with this body. It is a tool to discover our true nature.

Of course you are going to get results that fall into a wide spectrum if you do it wrongly, under no proper guidance and with no clarity as to it's true purpose.

You cannot expect a person with depression and anxiety to sit alone in a room and meditate and not expect an aggravation in such thoughts.

To live a happy and healthy life, Hinduism promotes a way of life for the householder (one who is married and has a family)

\- Get up early. \- Exercise (This includes preliminary forms of _Hatha Yoga_ ) \- Eat healthy food \- Spend time with family \- Teach your kids \- Avoid vices \- Have a healthy sex life \- Spend some time contemplating the true nature of the world. Just thinking, no meditation, no process, no nothing. \- Sleep well \- Have a good circle of friends and keep good relations with extended family, to share your joys and sorrows.

In India, for every one of the above activity, there are a myriad of books, anecdotes, stories, proverbs, etc. A householder is never told to do meditation or try to be in peace by such methods. To glue the society together, there are festivals, rituals, cultural activities that are to be followed both by the individual and the society. Some by men, some by women, some by rulers, some by priests, etc.

Meditation and other related yogic methods are only taught to a person who has developed a certain aversion to the ways of this world and wants to advance spiritually. That too, a qualified guru will test him in all aspects and only then start training in meditation and yoga. Until then, no such methods are taught.

Western nations have misused and misconstrued everything about Yoga and Meditation, and then put out such articles.

Unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Once the researchers had excluded those that had deliberately set out to find negative effects" they did what?

</comment><comment><USER74> Kind of reminds me of Murphy's law:

1\. Things get worse before they get better. 2\. Who said things would get better?

</comment><comment><USER75> I remember reading something a long time ago about a study that showed that people suffering from depressive episodes made more accurate assessments of the true state of their finances, their relationships, etc., than people who were always happy.

What if, in the process of meditating, you've thought long and hard about your lot in life, and have realized that it actually is shit?

Maybe it's a mistake to strictly focus on the "depression is a disease" narrative. Maybe a lot of people actually do have a lot to be sad about _while also_ having nothing they can realistically do about those things. If a person is stuck in a dead-end job, in a place with no opportunity, with responsibilities that prevent you from taking risks, with no savings, then it's really hard to see how that person can be "happy".

I've struggled with depression for most of my adult life. The absolute worst period of depression I went through was when I was single, living alone, working a job I hated, in a city that was far too encouraging of drinking as the only viable past time (Philadelphia). I was very fearful of medication at that time. I had heard a lot of bad stories, not just about side effects, but about _effects_ , like the medication removing both the lows _and_ the highs of their emotional state. There were also stories of negative consequences for people's jobs: losing security clearances and the like (which are very old stories by now, but such rumors don't have a lot of respect for changing times).

I was able to get out of that state through career coaching. I was feeling bad because I hated where I was in life. Fixing that, I got a lot happier. It felt really good to put form to my woes, to put a target on them, and eliminate it, one by one.

I got married. I had kids. And then I hit another, big, depressive period. Work had been a mess going on 5 years by that point. My wife gently pressured me into going to see a doctor and get medication.

I did the medication for a while, and it helped at first, but I think it mostly just confused my own, internal understanding of my emotions. I started it about 2.5 years ago, in the middle of a hellscape of an office. After a year, it just stopped working. The doctor increased my dosage levels, but things never went back to square. I think what happened was that I just recalibrated my understanding of my emotions. I had physical cues before the medication: heart racing, running thoughts, a physical feeling of the floor dropping out from under me. Now, I lacked those feelings, but I actually recognized situations in which I should have felt them, and in some ways the lack of the feelings felt like stumbling, like taking a step for a stair that isn't there. I spent another year on the medication, under the belief that things would be a lot worse without it. There were some negative side effects that were also having a bad impact on my mood.

But I think the biggest positive impact on my mood was getting a good job where I'm respected and nobody brow-beats me over made up deadlines. Halfway through that last year of medication, I changed jobs. I noticed things getting better. I got so sick of not feeling like I was in control of my body, listening to doctors who had no clue what was going on just make guesses at what to do, that I told my doctor I was going to make my own guesses and quit the medication.

I've now been off of it for 6 months and everything is... as good as the best days when I first started the medication, minus the negative side effects, so better in every aspect.

</comment><comment><USER76> Nice try. Still going to be mindful and meditate.

</comment><comment><USER77> If you are stressed out from your job and turn to some capitalism mindfullness sponsered by Google(TM) with the (of course) unstated goal to have you functioning again I'm not surprised.

Meditation can be a delicate thing that has positive great effects if applied correctly but it's also a tool for sects since forever.

I really like the vipassana medition approach but the whole ideology around it and the things they'll tell you on the retreat turned me off.

Even if you do it for yourself without any objective target it can get worse as you may realize it's actually like in your surpressed fears.

Be careful what you subscribe to.

</comment><comment><USER78> They meta analysis only found 8% with negative outcomes. What is the base rate for comparison for the current standard of care?

</comment><comment><USER79> Depends on your object of meditation

<comment><USER12> No. For any meditation object one can have pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

<comment><USER80> Well, kind of.

If you do metta (loving kindness) you can cultivate equanimity and other positive qualities. These can act like resources that can help you deal with trauma resurfacing in a healthier way. They can also reduce the aversion towards the parts of you that carry the trauma and this can be beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Mindlessness can be bad too.

</comment><comment><USER81> These meta studies always seem suspect.

The conclusion does not seem to have any provable basis.

</comment><comment><USER82> I suggest that 12th person get a therapist

</comment><comment><USER83> That's the point of meditation.

Depression makes you think clear.

Anxiety pushes you to snap out of mediocrity and spark creativity.</comment>


Growth - <AUTHOR> http://robertgreiner.com/2015/01/growth/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. Not sure I agree. I like the directive but you're crossing industry growth (an economic term) with personal growth (a non-quantifiable, non-economic term). Personal growth may lead to economic growth, but lots of other things lead to economic growth as well. I like the idea behind the article, but only in so far as it spurs me to learn more. I don't think it stand up to rigorous analysis as a direct relationship between industry and personal growth.</comment>