|
Ordering
The Blissful Brain
The Blissful Brain is published
by Gaia Thinking. For more information on how to order your
copy, please click
here.
Guardian
G2: Mind over matter by Andy Darling
"Neuroscientist Shanida Nataraja has
proven meditation does more than clear your head, it can put
both halves of your brain to work, improving your concentration,
memory, and decision-making...". To read more, please
click
here.
The
Times: Calm down dear by Angela Pertusini
"Claims by the neuroscientist Shanida
Nataraja regarding the benefits of meditation have been backed
up by rigourous scientific research and are explained in her
acclaimed book The Blissful Brain: Neuroscience and Proof
of the Power of Meditation". To read more, please click
here.
Just
this Day event: A Day of Silence and Stillness at St
Martin's in the Field on 23rd of November 2011
Shanida Nataraja will be participating in
this exciting event that aims to explore the power of silience
and stillness in our busy world. For more information, please
click
here or visit the Just
This Day website.
Mindfulness
in the Workplace: Brain based approaches to improving employee
resilience and productivity at Robinson College, Cambridge
on 10 February 2012
Shanida Nataraja will be speaking at this
day event that brings together leading experts in mindfulness
to discuss how it could help organisations improve productivity
& resiliance. Speakers include Professor Mark Williams, Michael
Chaskalson, Ruby Wax, Margaret Chapman, and more (for more
information, please see click
here.
|
Loss
of Objectivity Continued....
The
applicability of the object–observer interaction observed
at a quantum level to our everyday physical reality remains
controversial. There are two widespread phenomena that are
frequently cited as evidence of the existence an interaction
between object and observer in our everyday world.
Firstly, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests
that the expectations, behaviour, and biases of an experimenter
can influence the outcome of an experiment or the response
of an experimental subject. The so-called “experimenter effect”
is best illustrated by the research of Marilyn Schlitz, the
director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Schlitz designed a rigorous randomised trial that evaluated
whether blindfolded subjects could detect another person staring
at them from a distance. The study yielded statistically significant
positive results. The British psychologist Richard Wiseman,
sceptical of Schlitz’s results after failing to replicate
them, invited her to repeat the experiment in England. Two
parallel trials were designed, using the same subjects and
equipment, one run by Schlitz and the other by Wiseman. Once
again, Schlitz obtained statistically significant positive
results, whereas Wiseman failed to do so. It seems plausible
that the expectations of an experimenter can, either consciously
or unconsciously, bias the results of an experiment. The choice
of experimental apparatus used, the conditions under which
the experiment is performed, the precise time at which observations
are made, and the way in which the results are analysed and
presented can all influence the outcome and interpretation
of an experiment.
Secondly,
researchers have also acknowledged the fact that a patient’s
expectations can influence the outcome of treatment. Many
clinical trials use a controlled design in which the effectiveness
of an active investigative treatment is compared to that of
an inactive placebo treatment. As a result, researchers became
aware of a so-called “placebo effect”, in which some patients
responded to the inert placebo, either by exhibiting clinical
improvement or by experiencing side effects similar to those
expected with the active medication. It seems almost common
sense that a patient’s assessment of the effect of treatment
can be influenced by their belief that they have received
treatment and therefore should be expecting a clinical improvement.
Esther Sternberg, director of the US National Institute of
Mental Health’s neural immune programme cites the existence
of “mechanisms by which factors such as beliefs and expectations
may influence neuroendocrine and neural responses which could,
in turn, affect immune responses and disease expression or
severity”
This is reinforced by the observation that the interaction
between patient and medical practitioner has a measurable
effect in the brain. Injections performed in front of the
patient were found to be much more effective than injections
performed without the patient’s knowledge. The US National
Institute of Health have acknowledged the “remarkable body
of data regarding placebo”, and have pledged funding for research
into the placebo effect and possible methods of harnessing
it.
Back
to index
|
