Buddhists 'really are happier'

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Or so says the scientists.

They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people.

Paul Ekman, who carried out the study, said: "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek."

Their tests revealed activity in the left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners.

This area is linked to positive emotions, self-control and temperament.

Their tests showed this area of the Buddhists' brains are constantly lit up and not just when they are meditating.

This, the scientists said, suggests they are more likely to experience positive emotions and be in good mood.

Now, here is when it gets interesting. Normally when a person says that believing in a Christian God makes them happier, the proper response would be that that has nothing to do with whether the belief is true or not. However, the Buddha taught only suffering and the end of suffering, so would evidence showing Buddhists to be happier be considered evidence for the veracity of Buddhism?

 

[tsg]

Define "happier".

They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people.

Because this fits the description of a friend of mine. He wasn't Buddhist, he just didn't give a ◊◊◊◊.

 

[MelBrooksfan]

They found that experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people.

Of course. When you spend much of your waking time half-asleep, you grow a little numb.

 

[nosho]

Of course. When you spend much of your waking time half-asleep, you grow a little numb.

Why would you think that meditation involves being half asleep?

The capacity to experience pain without suffering is not the same as being numb to pain.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Self-selecting sample?

 

[Kopji]

hehehe, must be hard to concentrate with a two ton cat scanner following you around.

 

[Kopji]

...Dr. Paul Ekman, the professor of psychology who has become the world's most famous face reader, is much in demand these days.

The Dalai Lama and Dr. Ekman, who have met twice, found such synergy in
their understanding of human emotions that the Dalai Lama gave Dr. Ekman
$50,000 in seed money to learn how to improve emotional balance in
schoolteachers and other people in high pressure jobs...

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/8/4_2.html

Not to sound too cynical, but...

 

[Dancing David]

Of course. When you spend much of your waking time half-asleep, you grow a little numb.

That's not meditation, and if it was true pot-heads would be very happy people.

 

[Dancing David]

Or so says the scientists.





Now, here is when it gets interesting. Normally when a person says that believing in a Christian God makes them happier, the proper response would be that that has nothing to do with whether the belief is true or not. However, the Buddha taught only suffering and the end of suffering, so would evidence showing Buddhists to be happier be considered evidence for the veracity of Buddhism?

The Vast Buddhist Consipracy Rules!

No first we have to look at the study and see the sample size and how they generated the samples and trial groups. Then we can debate the definition of happiness and how it would be measured.

I will look for the New Scientist article.

Likely they are small groups compared to the mean in some other study, and it could be that they use a survey tool to determine happiness.

Likely they are small groups compared to the mean in some other study, and it could be that they use a survey tool to determine happiness.

 

[MWare]

Really, the only way to test whether people are happy (and that they even know it) is if they clap their hands.

 

[tsg]

Really, the only way to test whether people are happy (and that they even know it) is if they clap their hands.

I beg to differ. Stamping your feet and shouting "hooray" are also accepted methods for expressing happiness, and data collection should take into account that some will do all three.

 

[Dancing David]

Really, the only way to test whether people are happy (and that they even know it) is if they clap their hands.

 

[Dancing David]

I beg to differ. Stamping your feet and shouting "hooray" are also accepted methods for expressing happiness, and data collection should take into account that some will do all three.

 

[Complexity]

It would be 'hand', not 'hands'.

Buddhism makes many of us happy, Buddhist or otherwise, because it really pisses off Yrreg.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

It would be 'hand', not 'hands'.

Buddhism makes many of us happy, Buddhist or otherwise, because it really pisses off Yrreg.

 

[tsg]

It would be 'hand', not 'hands'.

Buddhism makes many of us happy, Buddhist or otherwise, because it really pisses off Yrreg.

"If you're Buddhist and you know it, clap your hand."

 

[JetLeg]

I still don't understand your opinions - do the studies prove that buddhists are happier, or not?

 

[Ryokan]

I still don't understand your opinions - do the studies prove that buddhists are happier, or not?

We can't say, we know nothing of the studies. That's the problem.

 

[TuftedPuffin]

Or so says the scientists.





Now, here is when it gets interesting. Normally when a person says that believing in a Christian God makes them happier, the proper response would be that that has nothing to do with whether the belief is true or not. However, the Buddha taught only suffering and the end of suffering, so would evidence showing Buddhists to be happier be considered evidence for the veracity of Buddhism?

How do they measure how likely they are to be surprised, flustered, etc? Because it sounds like that's a long term measurement, not a CAT scan. I would assume that they measured it via surveys, in which case you can't really expect a different result. Buddhists either are happier, or they won't acknowledge being unhappy, and either way they give better survey results.

 

[Andronicus]

I recommend two books on Buddhism which talk about happiness, and which may appeal to skeptics.

Zen and the Brain, James H. Austin, M.D., (MIT Press, 1999, 5th printing 2000). The author is a brilliant neurologist who while on sabbatical in Japan wanted experimented with Zen mediation techniques. The book is quite dense and expansive and footnoted. For those who want verification the author mentions multiple studies, his own experiments, and often suggests experiments to be done. For those who want a “dissection” of Buddhism starting with the brain (and a great crash course on neuro-anatomy) this is best book I’ve read not because it is the only book I’ve read on the topic, but because of its scope and brilliancy.

Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism Without Beliefs (Riverhead, 1997; The Berkeley Publishing Group, 1998). The author presents himself a western born former monk who trained in Buddhist traditions and eventually became an agnostic. From the book: "The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks. Only as Buddhism became more and more of a religion were such grandiose claims imputed to his awakening. In describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsion of craving." (Quoting page 5 of the paperback edition.) This book is less "crunchy" and more "self-help" than Dr. Austin's book.