This sounds like more feel-good pseudoscientific hogwash.
Is there any evidence that "not talking" can actually lead to an improved life, or is this yet another fad that makes people feel good about themselves?
What exactly do you mean by pseudoscientific? The article was not really presenting a scientific claim. What we saw was a story about a person who did thing X, experienced thing Y, and is now describing his experience while thinking about what it might mean for someone else. Where does science come into the picture?
You sound like one of those annoying fellows who would dismiss the works of Dostoyevsky as pseudoscientific, or the music of Beethoven as hogwash. Get out of your limited perspective every once in a while and see that there exists a whole world out that that does not require classification in mathematical models to appreciate.
It's more than not talking, though. It's extreme meditation. If you didn't have to worry about anything in your life for ten days, where to sleep, what to eat next, the next project, proposal, email, significant or insignificant others, where would your mind wander?
I don't think it's feel-good anything, and not claiming to be scientific. I think it's stressing the mind in a way that it's typically never stressed, resulting in outcomes that others have never experienced. And because of that, they want to share it -- as is human nature.
It's always a good thing to question. Unless of course you belong to the camp who choose to be wilfully ignorant and closed in light of overwhelming evidence.
I know a number of people who've done Vipassana retreats, and there do appear to be material changes in their lives after. How long those benefits last seems to correlate pretty strongly with whether they continue to meditate upon returning home.
So, yes. Anecdotally, anyway. Leaving entirely aside, you know, all the research on the benefits of meditation, ever.
From what I recall, meditation has proven physiological effects on the body, so there's that. I would not be surprised if 10 days of the lifestyle described in the article would change the way you think about things, at least for a little while. Whether or not this is related to an improved life, who knows, I imagine your mileage will vary.
The "not talking" part is basically just there to help you stick to the code of discipline [1] which is:
1. to abstain from killing any being;
2. to abstain from stealing;
3. to abstain from all sexual activity;
4. to abstain from telling lies;
5. to abstain from all intoxicants.
With "not talking" you automatically follow number 4 :)
The report concluded, "Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." (p. 6) It noted that there is no theoretical explanation of health effects from meditation common to all meditation techniques.
You're citing from one meta study out of plenty. Also, it's ten years old. Many things have happened since then, especially things to address those weaknesses – MBSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness-based_stress_reduct...) has been developed further, and is a method of meditation that is in part designed so that you can do science on it.
Scientific research has shown that modification of behaviour and perceptions can be achieved without surgical or pharmaceutical intervention. This goes by the name of psychotherapy. In particular, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) has been shown to work in randomized controlled trials [1].
As such therapies involve only guiding and helping people to think differently, it demonstrates that such guidance has have scientifically measurable effects on the mind and body.
It follows from the above that the likelihood that practices such as meditation could have non-zero effects is high. Whether Vipassana itself does so could therefore be tested in the same manner as CBT was, and perhaps that is what should be done...
The western lifestyle, simply put, is messy, and you get pulled in many directions, with the most important side effect of losing attention to yourself.
Meditation simply restores (quite forcefully, in this case) at least part of that attention.
If you find hard to grasp the concept, you can imagine it as being the analogue of being "in the zone" when programming (or anything else).
I don't think it would actually be too far-fetched to think "the zone" as a form of meditation.
Umm, it is pseudoscience inasmuch no real study has been conducted (it isn't 'exciting' enough ...yet). So, yeah this is anecdotal but that doesn't make it false. A number of people I know have been through the vipasanna course and express the same sentiment. I wonder why it is popular now to expect ^someone^ to do the research and present ^evidence^ before they can even begin to become curious about something.
Does scientific curiosity these days hinge on someone else having done the tests ?
Does it automatically qualify as hogwash because there isn't and evidence yet ? or because we have a tendency to doubt things not deeply rooted in numbers and double blind tests, /even if/ the reason for that is a simple -- nobody has bothered to do this yet.
Is there any evidence that "not talking" can actually lead to an improved life, or is this yet another fad that makes people feel good about themselves?