「練習靜靜觀有助管理情緒」只係醫生同心理學家s嘅鳩噏？

https://youtu.be/eGooWburZTY
二百幾人sample size好似係唔夠
利申：唔識統計，唔知sample size幾大先有代表性

https://youtu.be/YyG9CVAP8YE
精神科駐院醫生

https://youtu.be/3Mht8LeqhA0
呢個臨床心理學家直頭啊，已經證實咗有效醫治抑鬱症、焦慮症、長期痛症、一啲皮膚病同埋一啲免疫力嘅病

https://youtu.be/3O-jAUFvezo
能夠強化腦前額葉對杏仁核嘅壓抑，從而調節情緒

https://youtu.be/Yi7wijvrC-4
臨床心理學家推廣靜觀認知治療

https://youtu.be/lI839PpPo7A
改變大腦嘅結構同運作，例如促進大腦前額葉皮層嘅活動同發展/減少杏仁核活動，令我哋冇咁易受情緒影響

全部都係無根空談，言過其實？

https://youtu.be/EKT1nZ7v5uo
香港大學心理學葵芳交收反對靜觀，但係佢嘅理由係佛教嘅禪修本來就係wor，根本唔需要用科學去包裝證明

老實講,靜到落黎仲洗鳩去睇醫生咩

係靜到
但唔係一朝一夕
要勤修
因為你未試過
所以唔知點講
但我地呢D試過
由個腦好多voice到而加完全靜晒

笑死，你都會撐啲冇實質證明嘅嘢，俾啲唯物科學撚寸返轉頭

其實靜觀唔需要放空，唔需要壓制念頭/要求自己唔諗嘢

同埋，靜觀認知治療係其中一種心理治療

冥想？

用柏拉圖洞穴比喻，啲人對太超出佢地日常經驗、思維模式嘅嘢就會當係9up，除非佢地自己親身理解

唔出其
到而加呢個年代都有人信地平說

而家水原千鶴指出靜觀並唔係想像中咁有證據支持

因為佢嘅睇法如果係真嘅話，靜觀就唔係想像中咁有實證，我貼啲女子裏面嘅專家就係推崇緊偽科學

「練習，靜觀有助於管理情緒」只係醫生同心理學家s嘅鳩噏？
- 分享自 LIHKG 討論區
https://lih.kg/3292025

激動到開足兩個 post, 好似信仰被質疑咁款 你將佢變成信仰有幾 scientific 各位自己諗啦.

懶得覆曬你所有廢片, sample size 唔係唯一嘅指標, 你有冇考慮 clinical trials 方面嘅 design 呢? 正常 undergrad 統計學應該都有教 clinical trials 同 meta-analysis 嘅 我就建議下你睇吓呢張圖, 然後再反思吓你一直反駁嘅俾嘅例子係幾無說服力. 我上個 post 甚至發現你連 false discovery 同 placebo effects 相關概念都冇, 實在令人驚訝.


Scientific American 係美國最知名嘅科普雜誌, 其中佢引用嘅論文指出咗所謂嘅靜觀 (mindfulness) 嘅studies 至少有 3 個問題:

Yet many psychologists, neuroscientists and meditation experts are afraid that hype is outpacing the science. In an article released in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 prominent psychologists and cognitive scientists caution that despite its popularity and supposed benefits, scientific data on mindfulness are woefully lacking. Many of the studies on mindfulness and meditation, the authors wrote, are poorly designed—compromised by inconsistent definitions of what mindfulness actually is, and often void of a control group to rule out the placebo effect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wheres-the-proof-that-mindfulness-meditation-works1/

我地一齊睇吓 DS Black (美國其中一個著名關於 mindfulness 嘅醫學研究學者) 嘅一份引用次數較多嘅論文, 入面用 systematic review of RCTs, 佢得出嘅結論係只係對免疫系統嘅運作可能有保健作用, 但需要進階研究. 換言之, 啫係證據微弱, 都冇見有治療嘅作用.

Mindfulness meditation may be salutogenic for immune system dynamics, but additional work is needed to examine these effects.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26799456/

呢度係 Scientific American 所引用嘅論文

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5758421/

之後我引用一份 University of Wisconsin-Madison, 美國 top 50 之一關於 mindfulness 對腦部結構嘅研究, 啫係你上個 post 企圖含糊其辭拋 terms 反駁嘅主題. 你之前打曬飛g 嘅咩靜觀改變腦部結構係一個 flawed research 嘅 conclusion, 人地 update 返發現係證據不足.

New research shows no evidence of structural brain change with short-term mindfulness training. A team found flaws in previous research that purported to show meditation could alter the brain's structure.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520144651.htm

See also:

Absence of structural brain changes from mindfulness-based stress reduction: Two combined randomized controlled trials

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abk3316

甚至英國 the Guardian 你都可以搵到新聞質疑 mindfulness 嘅可信性, 當然呢啲新聞唔係好似你咁9流流亂 quote, 入面有齊論文嘅資料. 當然佢地唔否定 mindfulness 對情緒管理有幫助, 例如運動同瑜伽一樣對情緒有幫助. 但係呢, 對心理問題係冇用的, 同樣對多數學生係冇用.

“They also show that the idea of mindfulness doesn’t help – it’s the practice that matters.” Those students that did engage improved, he said, but most did not. “On average they only practised once over 10 weeks of the course. And that’s like going to the gym once and hoping you’ll get fit. But why didn’t they practise? Well, because many of them found it boring.”

“Mindfulness can be helpful in managing emotions, but it won’t be enough for those children and young people who need support with their mental wellbeing, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/12/mindfulness-schools-does-not-improve-mental-health-study

同樣 systematic review 搵咗呢 16 年間嘅 studies, 呢堆所謂 mindfulness 研究論文喺 research methodology 方面完全冇顯示出有足夠嘅改進 只係製造垃圾論文. 入面用咗 6 個 indicators: using active control conditions, larger sample sizes, longer follow-up assessment, treatment fidelity assessment, and reporting of instructor training and intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses.

Across the 142 studies published between 2000 and 2016, there was no evidence for increases in any study quality indicator, although changes were generally in the direction of improved quality.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187298

你真係得啖笑. 無知嘅人永遠吠得最大聲.

唔識research嘅人最可悲就係咁 睇唔明research就自已亂噏