How mindfulness could make you selfish

codesections 2021-08-17 09:36:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Buddhist and other thoughtful practitioners of mindfulness meditation are well aware of this phenomenon — which is why mindfulness meditation is usually paired with mettā ("loving-kindness") meditation as students progress.

(The article mentions mettā practice towards the end, but doesn't explicitly acknowledge that the need for this balance has been widely recognized).

As TFA says, this is much more of a problem of McMindfulness than of more traditional contemplative practices

pwm 2021-08-17 10:14:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

100% + when one goes deep into what "self" is the meaning of "selfish" will morph from its conventional definition.

villasv 2021-08-17 20:49:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> McMindfulness

TIL a new word, love it

tailspin2019 2021-08-17 09:49:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This. 100%

jazzyjackson 2021-08-17 08:38:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I’m interested in the thesis, because a lot of Buddhist intro texts I’ve got into warn about going down the rabbit hole alone and without instruction. Meditation practice (or certain plant medicines) can put you in a state of feeling you are one with god, but this can manifest as “I’m the one who is god” otherwise known as a psychotic break (mentioned in Ram Dass’s Be Here Now)[0]

But this study is something Paula Poundstone would have a field day with. Here’s my interpretation: students who were given the breath-focus-training felt like they got something done for the day and students who weren’t given anything to do didn’t want the day to go to waste so they figured why not, I’ll stuff some ads in envelopes.

Are these studies even meant to be published and taken seriously by the press? Sometimes I think these weak studies are just student projects going through the motions of how you might design an experiment.

[0] https://wikischool.org/_media/be_here_now.pdf

Edit: page 196 of the pdf, page 97 of the book is the dazzling art of the realized being dashing past the pews of a church shouting “listen to those words you’re singing! It’s all true!” - messianic complex

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:11:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Buddhist societies are not exceptionally just, despite thousands of years of attempting to achieve balance, and not least because there's a hierarchy that naturally develops among practitioners, and many injustices in daily life are written off as a result of dharma. Buddhism just abstracts reality into something slightly more palatable that doesn't require as much action on your part. Tip that into westernized self-help 'mindfulness' and you have a perfect antidote to the nagging guilt of self-reflection and responsibility for the state of affairs in the world.

brigandish 2021-08-17 10:27:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> are written off as a result of dharma

Dhamma is generally understood as teaching or nature. Kamma, (often mixed up with karma, a Hindu notion that is close in some aspects, but really not the same) is, in simple terms, cause and effect with respect to an individual. All injustices are a result of cause and effect (at least, I hope you think so) but where I will agree is that it shouldn't be the basis for doing nothing - unless doing nothing is the best choice, and knowing that is the trick, isn't it, Buddhist insight or not.

> Buddhism just abstracts reality into something slightly more palatable that doesn't require as much action on your part.

I can't say that's a good summation of what Buddhism is or does, it might be best to get the basics right (the terms above are a good indication) and then move on to telling others what you think a system is for, or its impact on society… I don't remember Buddha promising a societal utopia but perhaps my memory is deceiving me.

cjg 2021-08-17 15:54:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Minor nitpick - kamma and karma are the same thing, but different languages. Kamma is Pali and karma is Sanskrit.

To be even more detailed, karma is the action rather than the effect, which is called karma vipaka. The English word karma means something more fluid - depending on context.

brigandish 2021-08-17 16:18:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Thanks, I do know but in general English speakers use the word karma and then ascribe the Hindu reading to Buddhism, so I was answering that.

As to the cause and effect part, again, I wasn't about to start on a "there are no causes and no effects, only conditions…" path as it would only muddy the water for the person I'm responding to, but I don't mind the nitpicking, it's a good point and glad to see reasonable challenges in the comments.

Edit, I didn't mean to put this all on the English!

jazzyjackson 2021-08-17 09:41:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Karma is a hell of a justification ;)

My impression is that Buddhism, like all faiths, has that surface level of justifying why there is evil and how to get free of it - so there’s that inner peace [0] - but there’s also this call to action, to reduce suffering, to work on peace outside yourself - that’s compassion, and Jesus and Buddha were all about it, even if their followers sometimes lose the plot. (I’m too ignorant to speak of Muhammad).

As far as the corruption of religion into preserving social hierarchies goes, I like to think that the capacity to be co-opted by a state is a feature, not a bug: a viral transmission vector. These holy texts might not have survived without a corrupt state maintaining it.

[0] Nellie McKay has a song by this name on her album “get away from me”, it’s a fantastic critique of this focus on “inner peace”

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:54:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm highly skeptical of people who claim to have found salvation in Jesus, and righted all their former wrongs. I never know if they're telling themselves that, or just trying to convince me it's true. But I've lived in Buddhist countries and watched the same pattern of individual behavior juxtaposed with belief. And you're right, they both rendered unto Caesar and probably survived and propagated as a result. And to be clear, neither one is malicious or bad in its basic construction - telling people to be mindful or live according to ethical ideas. What does suck though is that both of them try to pretend that ethics spring from their written dogma, rather than teach people that ethical behavior is a rational and completely natural response. And by making it part of dogma they rob people of credit for having ethical impulses. So you want to help the poor - you're being "Christian" as opposed to being a rebel, or a good person. They deprive the individual of authentic agency in this regard. And an individual deprived of that agency passes down the dogma; and after generations it loses meaning.

mekoka 2021-08-17 11:19:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Buddhism, like any philosophy, is meant to be studied. I wouldn't assign to it what belongs to (mis)interpretation of its teachings. Even within Buddhist societies it's understood differently by different people, with many (most?) choosing not to practice any form of mindfulness, but rather preferring to worship. It doesn't matter that the superstition is discouraged, it's more easily accessible: status and amulets, offerings, people receiving blessings while on a submissive posture, women not allowed in certain areas, etc. And probably due to its nature, the philosophy meets the practitioner where the latter feels comfortable.

Bellamy 2021-08-17 09:45:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I respect Ram Dass and I have taken LSD a couple of times. Everytime I see Be Here Now referred or I open the book I always laugh and think about how much LSD that guy took while writing the book.

jazzyjackson 2021-08-17 10:02:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

lol it’s a miracle that he held it together long enough to put it in English, I’ve met a few acid heads that have seen the other side and lost touch with what other people will understand. Ram Dass I guess was wise to give so many lectures, that’s a lot of good feedback for whether your ideas are gobbledegook

Another prophet that I think is talented at articulating truth is Duncan Trussel - the boy has been to hell and heaven and back again and just loves talking about it. His show on Netflix is called “midnight gospel”, I think any ram dass fan would enjoy it and the psychedelic/religious art style

2021-08-17 12:20:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

hrnnnnnn 2021-08-17 08:47:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Whenever I've looked to Buddhist sources for meditation instruction, they've usually stressed the importance of "metta" or "loving-kindness" meditation. This practice involves generating empathy towards yourself, those close to you, neutral people, and enemies or "difficult" people.

This seems designed exactly to counteract the self-focus tendency the article mentions.

kar5pt 2021-08-19 01:22:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm not sure that meditating on loving-kindness results in actual action though.

brundolf 2021-08-17 22:05:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It's a question of resource-management. Mindfulness is selfish like a rate-limited API is inaccessible. Opening the floodgates and crashing and burning helps nobody. Put on your own oxygen mask before helping your neighbor with theirs, etc.

raxxorrax 2021-08-17 08:00:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Interdependance on a whole societal level is an illusion. The mechanism at work is peer pressure. The most independent nations are the most charitable, so that puts into question the interpretation of these findings.

I believe the underlying demands of people that meditate are clear and people react selfish in response.

If "mindfulness" triggers a panic attack, it is probably due to underlying issues.

> you learn to open up your own vulnerability

Towards whom? Being vulnerable isn't desirable. To have no illusion about it is certainly healthy, but this sounds like a cult to be honest.

atoav 2021-08-18 05:47:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Interdependance on a whole societal level is an illusion.

Where do you get your food from? Who maintains the water pipes? Who the electricity powerlines? Who the internet infrastructure you are currently using? Who made the computer you are typing this on? Who the house/car you are sitting in? Who the tools with which all those things where created? Who the food/water/cars/houses for them?

Not being dependent on others is what neoliberal rich kids trick themselves into believing in their wet dreams. Even if you build, maintain and everything that you use yourself, unless you have been abandoned in a jungle at birth you will always build on what is there: knowledge, tools, other people, infrastructure, etc.

What is this if not interdependence? What is this if not vulnerability?

Of course we are vulnerable because of that dependence on others. There are people who realize this and become preppers in an (usually futile) attempt to become truly independent, and there are people who realize that we are society and try to give back to their surroundings, and improve said society.

Because you don't live in isolation. Like not at all. The fact that you even considered this to be true should make you pause and reflect.

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:46:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Just to address the really clear question:

>>> you learn to open up your own vulnerability

>>Towards whom?

Towards whoever is trying to control you. Only cults use your vulnerabilities as a tactic. And only very stupid cults skip even naming what those vulnerabilities are, and jump straight to "you're so vulnerable". This response against it is simply a measure of the antibodies that people have against being manipulated by brainwashed morons.

atoav 2021-08-18 06:12:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Towards yourself. We live on a society. The lady at the cash register in the supermarket you visit to get your food made by the labor of other people is not a person that you might deeply care about. But when she is gone and you can't get your food maybe you would.

This is vulnerability in the societal sense: if we try to see things as they are we can all live our lifes as we do because of other people. Yet many believe they are strong independent bastions that could survive in complete autarky.

This is a comforting lie. And there are many such comforting lies. Knowing them to be lies doesn't make you weaker, it makes you stronger.

Knowing your vulnerabilities doesn't make them go away, but not knowing your vulnerabilities is a safe way to get them exploited (or find out about them in a crisis).

The thing is: figuring out your vulnerabilities always means you first have to aknowledge you have them to begin with. This can be hard. But it is something that can be done alone, if one is afraid of being exploited (which depending on your environment can be a totally realistic fear).

ccity88 2021-08-17 09:11:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Calling Interdependence peer pressure is diluting the nuance of people's relationships. It has a lot to do with culture and societal norms, for example in my culture (Arab) there is a strong emphasis on family and community values, i'm expected to take care of my parents, even going so far as to ensure their financial stability during retirement (absolutely NO care homes!). It's an interesting insight into conformity, but it's clear to researchers that western countries have less conformity, and therefore more selfishness by default; it's a symptom of the capitalist mindset. Regarding charity, yes western countries are more charitable but isn't this just more conformity? Charity is always given the most when others are watching, when it's made into a game or a challenge (remember ALS ice bucket?). Using charity as a metric for interdependence is also an illusion. More charity does not necessarily mean more interdependence; we should be measuring (as best as we can) happiness and satisfaction in daily life, which coincidentally the US and the UK fall short compared to other nations.

Maybe what we can learn from this is that there isn't a be all end all singular mindset, and we can adapt our thinking to fit our cultural norms, whilst avoiding the pitfall of self indulgence.

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:20:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Coming from Judaism - our history was based on family and community as well. It's only recently in the US that the personal impulse has become more important than taking care of your family. The word for charity (tzadaka in Hebrew, I think the Arabic world is very similar), you know is not and should never be about showing pride or wealth. This is what our Christian friends actually wrote down in their bible... their prophet was some rabbi who pointed out that many other rabbis strut around pretending to look charitable, who are in fact selfish. Then they nailed him to a cross for saying that. This behaviour has not changed much in the last 2000 years, whether you're Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

raxxorrax 2021-08-17 10:12:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Calling Interdependence peer pressure is diluting the nuance of people's relationships.

True, it cannot always be reduced to that, especially within families.

It might often seem detached and of course elders always want to be visited more, but many also prefer that they can live in a special care.

The realities of modern work and family structures in western nations doesn't leave much room for care in many cases and it gives elders as their children more freedom.

It is true about the signaling properties of charity, although that is much more common in high society groups where it is indeed an expectation or a reason to come together. There are exceptions though.

smhost 2021-08-17 08:44:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

There's a difference between real charity and a charitable impulse. A charitable impulse is good and it's what's being measured here. Real charity as it exists in our world breeds horrible dependency issues and is responsible for keeping entire continents in a state of forced infancy.

t0rt01se 2021-08-17 08:53:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Nazis probably had great big charitable impulses towards one another and those that looked/behaved like them. If they were mindful they probably would've observed their biases.

smhost 2021-08-17 09:15:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

While you're gathering data for that counterfactual, you may want to look into how Japanese fascists used mindfulness to transform its army into perfect soldiers.

t0rt01se 2021-08-17 16:30:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Well neither of them were successful so we're both clutching at straws.

mvirani 2021-08-17 08:57:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Equanimity and balance is key. Anything in excess is bad for you, even mindfulness.

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:04:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I think mindfulness is garbage, but equanimity is not an ethos or a framework. Empathy - the ability to momentarily put yourself in someone else's shoes, and to think and dwell on that, is the basis for a social contract. Personal mindfulness is not and never has been the basis for anything other than self-aggrandizement.

whatev373857 2021-08-17 09:56:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]

If you think mindfulness is garbage, I think you don't know what it is. And I wouldn't blame you for that, because I think I've only ever heard one monk give a good definition of it.

Mindfulness is this: remembering to watch the movement of mind's attention. In other words, remembering to know which of the six kinds of knowing you are doing at any given moment.

Anyone who practices for a while can verify that it's true -- attention really does flicker rapidly between six kinds of knowing. We're only ever knowing one thing at a time, but it gets stitched together into an illusion that knowing is continuous and panoramic.

noduerme 2021-08-17 10:10:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm not saying you can't use 1/7th of your brain to watch the other 6/7ths. But why do there have to be six kinds of knowing? What if there are 14 kinds? What if there are only two?

What you're describing is a fetish for a master who taught you a way of categorizing your thoughts. It's nice that it works for you, but it isn't a real thing, and imposing it on the rest of the world as if it were the definition of being "MINDFUL" is a savage crime against humanity.

[edit] Just to explain why it's a crime: It's a crime because we also know what is real. And when you claim that you alone know what is real because you have six secret spices and ingredients in your chicken, and our chicken is not real chicken, I say NO, I don't think YOU actually are serving chicken.

brigandish 2021-08-17 10:37:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> But why do there have to be six kinds of knowing? What if there are 14 kinds? What if there are only two?

There aren't really six, it's just that that's the best way to describe it for those who wish to understand it better. You can chop it up however you wish, and hopefully with the intention of making it clear for someone since this is, after all, a teaching.

Certainly, if you actually read Buddhist texts you'll notice that they do a lot of re-chopping into different numbers as required. The map is not the terrain, models aren't reality, things can be described in many ways etcetera etcetera.

> It's nice that it works for you, but it isn't a real thing

You know that Buddhists are nominalists, right?

denton-scratch 2021-08-17 10:35:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> But why do there have to be six kinds of knowing?

Because Buddhists love lists! Why is the path "eightfold"? Why are there four "noble truths"? Why are there 6 paramitas?

These lists are study aids - they help you to memorise the teaching, and repeat it accurately. They are not meant to be taken as metaphysical statements about reality.

> we also know what is real

Oh, do we? I think you might have trouble finding many physicists that agree with you. Truth and reality are slippery concepts. Someone who is not given to thinking about these things might take the view that it's pretty obvious what is real and what is true.

I think that outlook is rather arrogant.

denton-scratch 2021-08-17 10:22:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]

"Equanimity" is also a practice (it's been mentioned up-comments). It doesn't mean "calmness" or "imperturbability", in this context.

One form of the practice would be to consider those to whom you feel most warmly, and reflect that in previous lives they might have murdered you. And to consider those you hate, and reflect that in a future life, they might be your mother. This is supposed to reduce attachment and aversion.

(That formulation depends on the idea of rebirth, but I'm sure formulations exist that don't depend on metaphysical speculations)

There is a whole bunch of practices that are supposed to work together with mindfulness. Getting the balance wrong can lead to depression, panic attacks and other disturbances.

> Personal mindfulness is not and never has been the basis for anything other than self-aggrandizement.

Well, that's an opinion, rather strongly expressed, but without evidence. I happen to disagree; like you, I decline to present evidence.

cnity 2021-08-17 10:30:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Speak for yourself. It's at least a fantastic sleep aid.

noduerme 2021-08-17 08:57:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]

'Mindfulness' is nothing but egotism. I don't want to throw around things like privilege and bored housewife, but it's just a self-help cult that taps into the same basic infrastructure as any other religion, then encourages people to feel proud of themselves for accessing relatively easy-to-access parts of their brains and gives itself credit for helping them overcome the psychological trauma and hurdles to getting there.

To me, the saddest thing about "mindfulness" is that it is to existentialism what the Taliban is to statues of Buddha. A very blunt tool for people without enough time or patience to examine reality or actually ask, "why is this thing here? Might it mean something?" This is pop-cultural garbage taken to cult level to overwhelm fragile peoples' minds, without giving them a chance to understand the historical context of their place and time or what reason they might actually have to be going through the things they're going through.

So mindfulness leading to egoism is a foregone conclusion, because it's a degenerated version of existential or Buddhist thought, intentionally turned into trifling horseshit for people who were born, live, and will die without any notion or care of anything that happened before them. And they were already egoists; and having a problem you can't frame in broader terms than your own ability to pay attention to it for a few minutes is having a pretty pathetic problem indeed.

acituan 2021-08-17 10:23:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Mindfulness' is nothing but egotism

Eh, I think this is reading too much into it. Mindfulness is merely a training in relaxing and finessing of our rigid egoic framing and thus be able to generate more insights. It is egocentric in the sense of being a training on the ego function but the telos is actually breaking out of default egocentricity.

It is the culture of narcissism that turns this into a tool of spiritual bypass and optimizing one’s own detached wellbeing. It uses mindfulness as an emotional regulation tool, not a frame expanding education in preparation to other practices.

Don’t get me wrong, everything you point out as missing is accurate, it is just it was never mindfulness’s burden to bear alone as it’s nothing but a single practice to be done in the context of Buddha, dharma and sangha.

jazzyjackson 2021-08-17 09:55:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is my favorite rant on HN yet

Buddhism was already distilled “Hinduism for Export”, it is foolish to distill it further. IMO the whole fad is a result of Americans mistaking Buddhism for religion, and not pre-western psychology, so in a bid to get the benefits without the baggage, and to be allowed to teach yoga in schools, mindfulness practitioners dropped the spiritual framework and just said “focus on your breath, it’s good for you”

noduerme 2021-08-17 10:06:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You said it better than I could have. I'm annoyed about the secondary effects of falsy beliefs, but I think you got more directly to the root of it. Lots of religions are more palatable upon export, is a good point. The Romans would have never picked up Christianity as a fashionable cult unless it had mostly dropped the whole monotheistic thing.

rozularen 2021-08-17 10:08:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

only when one is feeling nice with itself can share and spread love to others... I think mindfulness might be a great tool to achieve that stability

andi999 2021-08-17 09:30:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Looking at the founding story there are some analogies aren't there?

noduerme 2021-08-17 09:36:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]

One thing I like about cold-blooded Camus/Sartrean existentialism is, we're fucked up, broken creatures, so when we do occasionally get the best work out of ourselves, or even experience true empathy, it's a miracle. When you say you feel it too often it stops being true. Extend that to a whole culture where you have to say it all the time, and everyone's just a liar.

sdevonoes 2021-08-17 10:10:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> 'Mindfulness' is nothing but egotism.

I came to the same conclusion recently. I don't practice meditation/mindfulness as per definition, I just sit on my sofa and think about things like "what is reality?", "what is life?", "why things simply are?"... it's all just mental masturbation for me, and at the end of the day I feel like I'm so intelligent that my neighbours watching Netflix or the news are just like stupid monkeys. I do know, though, that at the end of the day I'm just another stupid monkey and that "thinking on higher things" means absolutely nothing more than mental masturbation.

t0rt01se 2021-08-17 08:42:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

A recent study suggests that the BBC uses phrases like 'a recent study suggests' when they actually mean there's some anecdotal evidence.

AdrianB1 2021-08-17 09:58:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]

In Romania we have a couple of expressions with very specific meaning:

- some guy asks on Radio Erevan (Yerevan, Armenia) => that is obviously a joke

- the UK scientists discovered that => rumors and unsubstantiated claims

ramraj07 2021-08-17 08:48:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Read the article. It's a decent controlled study.

xondono 2021-08-17 10:05:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

“Decent controlled study” might be a little of a stretch for something that’s basically self reported and has effect sizes this small (<20%).

t0rt01se 2021-08-17 08:55:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

A 'decent controlled study' suggests that 'decent controlled studies' measuring 'charitable impulses' are not all that decent or controlled.

kitd 2021-08-17 09:02:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Citation needed

t0rt01se 2021-08-17 09:09:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Ha! Good catch! My comment above won't do? Research funded by the University of Life.

mam3 2021-08-17 10:33:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Since when being selfish is a problem ? Anyone has a tendency to better solve a problem when it's "his problem" rather than waiting someone does it for him.

farazzz 2021-08-18 08:00:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Like everything, there needs to be a balance. A healthy amount of selfishness is necessary for self-preservation, but too much is just greed. I found this wiki page on "enlightened self-interest" that has some interesting info related to the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest