In the most recent edition of The New Yorker, Atul Gawande has an absorbing article titled “Hellhole,” in which he reviews the effects of extreme isolation on the human mind. In particular, his article focuses on prisoners in America’s SuperMax facilities that spend upwards of 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. He also uses as examples, prisoners of war/hostages such as Terry Anderson and John McCain (who were isolated as a form of torture). American prisons purportedly use solitary confinement as a last ditch deterrent against the “worst of the worst”: that segment of the prison population which continues to commit crimes inside of the prison, gives the guards a hard time, or has successfully escaped previously. The problem is that the data shows that this approach simply doesn’t work. What’s more, it is as bad as any form of torture in that it irreversibly destroys the human brain:
Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, received rare permission to study a hundred randomly selected inmates at California’s Pelican Bay supermax, and noted a number of phenomena. First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind–to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,” he writes. “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair often result. . . . In extreme cases, prisoners may literally stop behaving,” becoming essentially catatonic.Second, almost ninety per cent of these prisoners had difficulties with “irrational anger,” compared with just three per cent of prisoners in the general population. Haney attributed this to the extreme restriction, the totality of control, and the extended absence of any opportunity for happiness or joy. Many prisoners in solitary become consumed with revenge fantasies.
…EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury. [Link]
<
p>I find that last sentence particularly important given our modern culture of incessant Twittering and Facebook updates. If you think the reaction of the brain to social deprivation is bad now, just wait until you see the next generation of prisoners who not only have their friends and family but also their Twitter circle stripped from them. The most disturbing observation that Gawande makes is that none of this is a revelation. On the scientific front, Harry Harlow and his cruel experiments proved in the 1950s what harm isolation causes in monkeys. On the legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court opined in 1890 that solitary was no way to re-habilitate a criminal mind:
Justice Samuel Miller noted… “serious objections” to solitary confinement:
A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others, still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. [Link]
<
p>The reason I was so completely absorbed by this article (and I really encourage you all to read the whole insightful and moving piece) is that I am personally very interested in the romance associated with self-chosen isolation. The sports I play, the vacations I take, and the career I chose all idealize a certain aspect associated with human isolation. It isn’t just me though. When you are raised in a Hindu or Buddhist culture or simply appreciate them, the idea of the ascetic sadhu who lives alone in the forest is held up as an (impossibly) high ideal. No parent actually wants you to live up to that ideal and go off into the woods alone (they’d much rather you be a doctor) but they do want you to believe that to do so would be noble and that in some subsequent lifetime you will muster the courage for it. Here is a passage I just lifted from a website called “Hindu Wisdom:”
By suppression of the passions and detachment from all that is exterior to him, the ascetic attains superior states of unshakeable stability which eventually end in mystical communion, in a state of Samadhi, with the essence of his soul. The state of Samadhi is the culmination of Yoga and beyond it lies release. It is a suspension of all intellectual processes that lead to instability. Samadhi, then, is a “state without apprehension”. The life of the soul is not destroyed but is reduced to its “unconscious and permanent” essence. Yoga is, properly speaking, union with the self. When thus “isolated”, mind is the same as purusa when it is freed from mental impressions “like a precious stone isolated from its veinstone.” [Link]
<
p>Note the stark contrast. The teachings quoted immediately above suggest that detachment from all of your surroundings and a suspension of intellectual processes will lead to greater stability and release. Harlow’s experiments and others cited further above suggest that such detachment and isolation leads instead to irrational anger and a host of other permanent psychological damage. Here is a passage from Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda:
“Sir, why don’t you grant me a samadhi?”“Dear one, I would be glad to convey the divine contact, but it is not my place to do so.” The saint looked at me with half-closed eyes. “Your master will bestow that experience shortly. Your body is not tuned just yet. As a small lamp cannot withstand excessive electrical voltage, so your nerves are unready for the cosmic current. If I gave you the infinite ecstasy right now, you would burn as if every cell were on fire.
“You are asking illumination from me,” the yogi continued musingly, “while I am wondering inconsiderable as I am, and with the little meditation I have done if I have succeeded in pleasing God, and what worth I may find in His eyes at the final reckoning.”
“Sir, have you not been singleheartedly seeking God for a long time?”
“I have not done much. Behari must have told you something of my life. For twenty years I occupied a secret grotto, meditating eighteen hours a day. Then I moved to a more inaccessible cave and remained there for twenty-five years, entering the yoga union for twenty hours daily. I did not need sleep, for I was ever with God. My body was more rested in the complete calmness of the superconsciousness than it could be by the partial peace of the ordinary subconscious state.
“The muscles relax during sleep, but the heart, lungs, and circulatory system are constantly at work; they get no rest. In superconsciousness, the internal organs remain in a state of suspended animation, electrified by the cosmic energy. By such means I have found it unnecessary to sleep for years. The time will come when you too will dispense with sleep.”
“My goodness, you have meditated for so long and yet are unsure of the Lord’s favor!” I gazed at him in astonishment. “Then what about us poor mortals?”
<
p>Atul Gawande uses his whole article detailing a mountain of evidence showing that extreme isolation affects the human brain in a manner similar to a traumatic head injury and leads to less control of ones thoughts and behavior. The Yogi above above uses this same “trauma” to try and attain samadhi, by its very definition “a state of complete control (samadhana) over the functions and distractions of consciousness.”
<
p>Whether studying a tribe of monkeys, a pride of lions, or a herd of elephants the observation is the same. Isolation from the group is a death sentence, not only because of predators, but because the animal itself begins to self-destruct:
Harlow noted, “One of six monkeys isolated for three months refused to eat after release and died five days later.” After several weeks in the company of other monkeys, most of them adjusted–but not those who had been isolated for longer periods. “Twelve months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially,” Harlow wrote. They became permanently withdrawn, and they lived as outcasts–regularly set upon, as if inviting abuse. [Link]
So then why is it that myself and many others still find the idea of lengthy and extreme isolation from the world (like the yogi in Autobiography of a Yogi) romantic? Every bit of data tells us that there lies the path to self-destruction of the mind. Perhaps that is what the Buddha realized in the woods when he returned to choose the Middle Way.
So I am rebutting the premise of the post that isolation per se is devastating. Reader was probably an fictitious example but note that meditation programs in US prisons have shown to be effective in this regard and many US prisons are trying it out and doesn’t have anything to do with the average intelligence of the prisoner.
There is a difference between meditation and forced 23 hours of isolation a day. No one is arguing about the ability to do wonderful things through meditation. Yes, Buddhist monks can meditate for years and years and they can achieve flat ecgs. Thats qualitatively and materially different from the forced isolation of prisoners.
Before arguing over belief vs. science, it is important to note that science is just an objective way of validating a hypothesis (belief). One requires another. There can be no inference without a preconceived assumption. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_bias)
I suspect there is a distinction between solitude and loneliness which people are ignoring here. Solitude restores body and mind. Lonelinesss depletes them. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20030825-000001&print=1).
The legitimacy of yogis or the intelligence of prisoners is not the point of debate here. I think the debate is about whether solitude causes mental harm or not. Most people would agree that it largely depends on whether it is by choice or by imposition/lack of opportunity. The research till now is only on the second group and it shows it is bad for that group. And nothing more and nothing less.
“There is a difference between meditation and forced 23 hours of isolation a day”,
If the person is falsly convicted “a wanna be sadhu” that might be possible, granting he/she has no qualm about the fact that they do not have any freedom, i.e. that does not distract them from meditating albeit knowing he/she is innocent…
It may not work in terms of psychological negative side effects but how else are you going to keep the prison safe for the guards and other prisoners from the hardened, violent ones ?
Malathi@46,
I didn’t mean to say that humans are all about sharpness. I just said social interaction is one way to keep the sharpness in tact, and that people who are alone also can keep their sharpness through meaningful utilization of their time. I would think that lack of emotional well-being would occur for people who are alone because of lack of opportunity, but not because they wanted to be alone.
Abhi, of course these are all beliefs. I never said otherwise. And I gave my reasons for holding them and why the current experiments do not preclude them. I would be happy to change them when new data comes.
25 · Budugu said
passed down wisdom = dadis and nanis telling us that ginger is good, astrology is good, butter is good, marrying as early as possible and having boys is good, rock and roll is bad, eating meat on tuesday is bad..etc
some of them are valid and make sense. they do come under what you label as ‘multi-generational observations.’ but a lot of them are BS. we tend to believe those teachings because it’s our parents/grandparents telling us and we look up to them. being cynical of what they say is just not in our nature. what many don’t try to think about is that dadi was also taught by her dadi about how the world works. and nobody questions that.
science, however, takes out these variables and biases. it takes what dadi said and tries to test it in a lab or through imperical studies to see if the theories stand the test of numbers. of course the current scientific methods still cannot account for all the variables…but we are working on it. it’s success rate is higher than anything achieved by ‘passed down wisdom’.
It may not work in terms of psychological negative side effects but how else are you going to keep the prison safe for the guards and other prisoners from the hardened, violent ones ?
We need to have a fundamental shift in our theories of punishment and how we deal with prisoners. Most of our theories of criminal justice, punishment, retribution, deterrance, recidivism our based on as some commenters from here might say ‘multi-generational observation’.
We have only clipped the outside boundaries of the inner workings and complexities of the brain. As neuroscience makes rapid advancements, most of our current criminal justice theories will end up being completely discredited. Even concepts like ‘mens rea’ or criminal intent which is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system will see dramatic changes when we fully understand the neurological underpinnings of concepts like ‘free will’ or ‘intent’. Combine it with advances in genetics, mathematical models of social science and the criminal justice system will look entirely different 100 years from now.
For interested people, check out some great lectures on the intersection of law and neuroscience at beyond belief 3.0 on science networks.
PAFD, We haven’t got any solid evidence about crapping (no pun) but there is this boy that we hear of who supposedly doesn’t eat while meditating. Ergo, no faeces. Evidence is scant about passing flatus. The gut should go into paralysis after such sustained inaction, but I am sure some air is swallowed during breathing that would find it’s way out. No one is allowed too near him, so I doubt we will ever know. Physiologically impossible to explain, but absence of evidence is not evidence in itself.
Physiologically impossible to explain, but absence of evidence is not evidence in itself.
However, you are making a positive assertion and the burden of proof is on you to put forth some evidence. I can of course rebut it with my own. The standard position in both science and law is that the onus of providing evidence is on the person making the positive claim 🙂
i’m not sure why it’s such a big surprise that prisoners forced into isolation in ugly surroundings suffer mental injury. even animals caged in isolation or with their fellow animals start behaving abnormally, such as hitting their heads against walls and repeating behaviours over and over again. they’ve been forced into an abnormal, unnatural situations/environments and they are fully aware that they’ve had something taken away from them initially. some animals are solitary by nature.
however, i’m not sure how this can be extended to:
“isolation causes harm and thats a demonstrable fact. Yogis allegedly practice similar isolation. It is not unreasonable to posit that Yogis who self isolate might also suffer from the same problems.”
yes, this one study showed that isolation of these particular people who were thought unfit for social interaction and who probably committed abnormal crimes (who were anti-social to begin with) causes mental harm. it does not demonstrate that all people suffer harm in isolation. how is a prisoner being forced to isolate themselves in a sterile environment as a known punishment (some with no hope of release or redemption) equate to “yogis practice similar isolation”? and are the prisoners really isolated when they have a TV in their cell? and perhaps the type of programming they see on TV affects their mental state. do they then also have books to read? how is their isolation similar to that of the yogis? unless the yogis are kept in exactly the same circumstances, with all hope stripped from them (but they can still have a TV apparently), how can one say that?
yes, some yogis who isolate themselves (and they’ve chosen to do so and are not being shunned as a punishment) may not deal with it well – just as some people are better at dealing with isolation than others. why do some people choose a holiday at a crowded beach resort and others choose long, extended hikes or vacations where they rarely see another human being? some people are innately self-isolaters, according to my experience, and are indeed, happier in the company of as few people as possible. you might feel lonely at times, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that your brain has suffered a traumatic injury.
one can show disdain for the claims of yogis without saying that people are “science-bashing” for questioning whether it’s right to tenuously extrapolate between this specific study and the alleged mental state of yogis or anyone else who wants to self-isolate. i also think cultural attitudes to isolation play a part in both the prisoners’ view of their own situation and others’ views on whether isolation causes harm or not. americans tend to looks at people who want to isolate themselves as weirdos – some are and some aren’t.
No, you got me wrong. As far as the limits of yogic feats go, I remain sceptical, but with an open mind. I was merely pointing out there might be some truth in the boy’s case, enough for world media and serious researchers to show interest in it (even though he himself has shown no interest in being studied or in any publicity. He just wants to be left alone.) This is probably a very difficult topic to study. Something analogous to the observer effect in particle physics.
Yogis cannot be compared to incarcerated prisoners, because they have a specific objective in mind while undertaking their isolation. They have their own training regimen to approach the superconscious state that they hope to achieve, and very importantly, they are extremely motivated. Prisoners just experience forced sensory deprivation. A bit like a skilled sailor going out to sea, versus person abandoned in a shipwreck, or a trained athlete running a marathon versus a man unaccustomed to running forced to run several miles at gunpoint.
That meditation does not equal isolation was underscored by this bit of trivia on the Dalai Lama by Pico Iyer (on a show with Mary Hynes on CBC; there is a podcast link): the Dalai Lama meditates for about 8 hours a day but he eats his breakfast, watches the morning news, gets on his exercise bike, and does some other routine things while he meditates.
Jujung said:
To me the definition of ‘meaningful utilization of time’ is a tricky part. I do understand where you are coming from: I too believe in the virtues of periodic solitude (gives personal strength, self-awareness, self-confidence, etc) to a certain extent. But I think people, social creatures that we are, are in general, programmed to balance desire for solitude with desire for social interactions; to balance our self-awareness with the awareness of our place in the larger world, universe. Take writers for example. Most claim to be solitary creatures; they admit that their writing is usually done in isolation. But I wonder: without the tantalizing promise of a readership in the near or distant future, what would they do, where would their motivation come from?
Another professional group that I am familiar with, that is at risk for periodic isolation from society as we know it, are wildlife biologists. Most that I know aren’t driven to their subject or research area merely because of their love of nature or their fascination with a particular species of animal but because of a complex set of reasons. Ultimately, whatever the reasons that prompted them to enter the field, the only ones who last in it and make a measurable and lasting contribution, as defined by our modern society, are the ones that aren’t in denial about their need for social interaction with other humans–be they family, friends, students, other educators or public policy makers.
Abhi,
a good amount of confusion regarding self-imposed isolation (or relative isolation–even a forest retreat can be abut similar retreats and different people seeking isolation for different reasons) probably stems from the likely predominance of urban, suburban and exurban commenters.
For adults the forest setting certainly seemed to select for individuals without a pressing need for status updates, timely news about their neighbors (yeah, even neighbors were unnecessary!) but not those with chronic antagonistic personalities.
For children it was a great deal more complicated. There were introverts, extroverts, those who preferred the ‘country pace of life’ and those who could easily plug into the fast-paced urban life cycle. Personally, I felt that not being forced (by proximity) to play with other kids did not have a positive effect on the development of necessary social skills or encouraged me to stop treating flora and fauna as friends, teachers and “pets.”
All of the anecdotally oberved developmental deficiencies of isolated child rearing (and yes I would include my own social anxiety, and irrational pessimism) certainly don’t preclude raising children in the boonies, and I may be a poor maladjusted example, but I do doubt that any adult who willingly sought isolation (say for the purpose of eliminating anger through meditation) necessarily still believes their ultimate goal for such isolation to be reasonably achievable.
why do some romanticize standing on one leg for 10,000 years? Probably because this kind of exercise is prohibitively difficult (not to mention impossible) and the terms used to describe such austerities are familiar to those whose knowledge of ascetecism (and ascetics themselves) doesn’t begin and end at Nieztche.
anybody looking for a cave? I’ve got one in mint condition, rent, utility and tax free.
“Yogis cannot be compared to incarcerated prisoners, because they have a specific objective in mind while undertaking their isolation.”
that’s an important point. anyone -whether isolated or not – without a purpose or goal in life can show some of the symptoms that these prisoners exhibited. one can be surrounded by people but still exhibit ” “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair.” one doesn’t have to be isolated physically to feel isolated emotionally or mentally.
“First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind—to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,†he writes.”
and there must be a difference between interacting in isolation with concrete walls and antiseptic furnishings and interacting in isolation with the sky, the trees, the breeze, water etc. and when one views oneself as a prisoner as opposed to viewing oneself as a free soul or person, that will alter one’s perception.
also, the link to the Harlow study of monkeys says those monkeys were isolated from birth (from other monkeys but not isolated from human contact presumably) and then reintroduced some months into a group of ordinary monkeys. what was the behaviour of those isolated-from-birth monkeys towards humans before they were reintroduced to their own kind as some sort of shock treatment? if i was raised by wolves i might be happy until i was reintroduced to my own kind:) naturally i’d feel more comfortable with wolves. how does that compare to humans who were not isolated from birth and were social until they were imprisoned?
And no white-nose syndrome?
Moornam @39: Don’t worry Abhi is not making me nervous, but he may be making lots of folks nervous – who believes in legends and old granny’s tales – As for me I think I would encourage such dialogue more often than they are occuring on SM. Oh one more thing. Yogi’s are born and not made is as laughable as saying genius’ are born, and not made. I do’nt think so.
For those of you who believes in legend, then you prabably have heard about the story of “Valio” bandit who later on became sage Valmiki (Guru of Bhagwan Ram), Maharishi Vishwamitra, through intense meditation promoted from Kshtriya to a Brahmin, and from relatively more modern times in area of Gujarat known as Saurashtra – a story about “Jesal Jadeja” who was a lifelong thief and murderer changed into a “sadhu” when he saw death eye to eye while seating in a boat tossing into ocean…. The point of the post is, as someone said “does isolation have any longlasting effects (positive or negative) on human mind” ? The answer is may be. Our mind is a masterpiece and we have not quite fathomed the intricacies of it yet! The jury is still out there.
Haha, I know one such person. Brilliant bloke, but a silent master. No T.V. or mobile phones for him. According to folklore, he was once asked to describe his communication skills in an interview. “Good” was his answer.
Camille, do you see any similarity between yogis and some Nihang Sikhs?
The point I am making: Valmiki, Vishwamitra, Jesal etc were in face born yogis who took up worldly tasks due to societal pressure/influence (not too different from some gays who get married to the opposite sex to “confirm” to society). They realised their true self and purpose only after going through extreme circumstances. Didn’t Adi Shankara also realise his true self only after the crocodile tried to drag him into the river? Didn’t Ramanuja marry and only much later realise his true self? Didn’t Buddha’s awakening come only after seeing intense suffering on the streets?
How many times have you not seen people changing careers entirely in the middle of their life, doing something that they truly love? I personally know one investment banker who gave up his Wall Street job years ago to become a music teacher in a middle school (at 1/20th his previous pay). He used to be grouchy all the time – since then he cannot stop smiling (looks ten years younger).
Folks – Yogi is a profession. Much like an artist or a doctor. You are wired for it. Some realise it sooner and some later.
M. Nam
69 · MoorNam
Now outsourced into the Jungle where only the Bears live.:)
65 · Malathi said
that kind of cave would not be priced at recession rates.
i’m curious to see if anyone has actually lived a renunciate’s life and/or knows long term monks–the ‘failure’ rate for vow-breaking is pretty high.
if these monks were indeed “wired for it” I didn’t see much in the way of evidence (save for one who was a nun prior to becoming a swami) unless this ‘wiring’ also entailed the proclivity for breaking your ‘sacred’ vows (much as people ‘on the outside’ do.)
Moornam,
question for you: how are you so comfortable with tossing around “in fact”? I more-or-less lived the isolated life (with actual Swamis!) yet I am nowhere near as certain as you seem to be.
I thought we lock up bad people not because it’s good or them, but because it’s good for us.
Yogis as mentioned in the hindu scriptures don’t live in small concrete room. Its a hell lot different to be isolated in a forest/natural surrounding rather than a prison cell. I have known a couple people taking the 2000 mile hiking trail all by themselves. Yes, they do meet other people on the way and have some social interaction, but for most part they are by themselves. Somehow you have ignored the whole prison angle. Doesn’t the environment you are isolated in matter?
” I can’t help also think of the Robinson Crusoe story (or Castaway for that matter) — the Crusoe novel is based on real-life event. Again, isolation in a natural environment is different from being put in a concrete and steel cell.”
interesting article on the real “robinson crusoe”: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,605963,00.html
from the article: “Selkirk had apparently always had trouble getting along with other people, which was perhaps precisely why he endured his solitary confinement on the island so successfully.”
some people are just not people people. also the island was fortunately conducive to isolation.
The article is deeply flawed. How can you draw a general conclusion about the effects of isolation on human brains based on just monkeys and imprisoned humans? The author seems to have an agenda: to establish that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. His point is that even bad company is better than no company, which any intelligent person who has watched the scary TV documentaries on prison life in America will reject out of hand. Even in “free” life many people voluntarily choose to withdraw from the distractions and crude animality of social life to pursue higher truths. The Buddha is the most famous example. His voluntary isolation certainly did not damage his brain, or his social skills when he returned to society to preach the truths he had discovered in isolation. Bodhidharma is another famous personality who withdrew into isolation to meditate. Newton chose to be left alone to pursue his scientific interests. There are numerous other examples.
Monkeys and the human examples Atul provides (imprisoned criminals, soldiers etc) are social animals. They may wither in isolation. On the other hand the contemplative human such as a yogi, philosopher, theoretical scientist etc would probably thrive in isolation. To them being locked up in a room with free food, water, a bed and a toilet would seem like no punishment at all!
There are lots of comments here so someone else might have pointed this out. I think with the prisoners, put in solitary confinement against their will, there must be a lot of negative feedback and emotions in the brain: frustration, anger despair. All these are certain to have an ill effect on the brain. The yogis on the other hand are have a positive feedback going on. Whatever they are doing, in their mind, is good and worthy. All this will bring out positive effect on the brain.
Just my two cents. I think how we react to a situation has an immense effect on where we end up.
Are yogis allowed cell phones with data plan?
OK, I will attempt to explain the difference between the effects of isolation on a prisoner in solitary confinement and a yogi.
The easy case first: in solitary confinement, the prisoner has nothing to stimulate his mind. There is no outlet to engage his mind on anything. This engagement is a basic necessity for man. Even when someone decides to numb himself by sitting on the couch and watching tv for eight hours, that person is still making a decision to do so. He can switch to some other activity when he pleases. The prisoner on the other hand is deprived of even the most basic thing. Looking at the picture above, it seems there isn’t even a single thing in the cell that the prisoner can pick up and feel; everything is immovable.
Performing yoga is a way of keeping the mind alert and sharp. The goal is to be conscious of actions that you perform in everyday life. A yogi does this with the help of pranayama, asanas, concentration, and meditation, all of which help him achieve this purpose. A yogi meditates on his inner self during meditation. In Hinduism, God is not an external entity; everyone is part of the Supreme Spirit. You come to understand yourself and your place in the world and you will have understood God. That, I think, is the reason why yogis meditate. There can obstacles to meditating however. This can be feelings such as passion and physical things such as noise. A calm and isolated place is beneficial to meditation. On the issue of lengthy meditations, I think that they are probably unconventional, and if they do occur then they might be only for a brief period in a person’s life.
I don’t think that the philosophy is idealizing a passionless life or detachment from the world. All this says is that a person who wishes to be on a path to meditating on his inner self should not be controlled by passions or by relationships that can lead to “sub-optimal” actions. You don’t deny yourself participation in the world as a normal human being; freeing yourself of attachment is desirable and a goal, but it needs to be understood and not something attained by forcing it upon yourself.
I think yoga distinguishes between mind and the intellect. I don’t understand the difference to comment further.
From the introductory chapter on Light on Yoga: “The word chitta denotes the mind in its total or collective sense as being composed of three categories: a. mind (manas, that is , the individual mind having the power and faculty of attention, selection and rejection; it is the oscillating indecisive faculty of the mind); b. intelligence or reason (buddhi, htat is, the decisive state which determines the distinction between things) and c. ego (ahamkaara,…).”
The quote on which this comment is based is talking about samadhi which is the final stage in a yogis path to becoming one with God. Again from the book, “Samaadhi is the end of the saadhaka’s quest. At the peak of his meditation, he passes into the state of samaadhi, where his body and senses are at rest as if he is asleep, his faculties of mind and reason are alert as if he is awake, yet he has gone beyond consciousness. The person is in a state of samaadhi is fully conscious and alert.” The only reason behind quoting this is show that this state of complete detachment is only what a state called samaadhi feels like – it is not something that is requested of anyone (it cannot be had even if you want it and/or force it upon yourself).
Actually they get a TV and books. That is more than the Yogi gets. Also you are misunderstanding the comparison. It isn’t prisoner vs. yoga. It is prisoner vs. Yogi that supposedly lives by themselves for 20 years in a cave. Big difference. Many commenters keep coming back to this false comparison. This post has absolutely nothing to do with the efficacy of yoga or meditation. This is about sustained isolation.
You are welcome to your beliefs Budugu but I can’t argue with you. There is a reason scientists don’t engage Intelligent Design proponents. It would be pointless. One groups deals in beliefs that can shift like the wind while the other deals in facts which can be objectively proven or predicted.
Who would have thought that the average SM reader has so much invested in Yogis!
Arn’t we comparing apples and footballs here? How is isolation in a confined space compared to self-isolation in open nature ? Also, did hikers who went on long hikes (akin to many yogis), did they have traumatic injury too ? Thirdly, how long were the subjects in this study monitored ?
While cryptic and ‘scientifically’ indistinguishable from mumbo-jumbo – I think this points to the answer.
The extreme yogi does not start with a sudden years-long isolation but gets there very slowly and painstakingly.
That lasting effects of traditional meditation methods on the wiring in the brain has been observed in objective settings. See for eg: Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. While there is no data on samadhi-wallahs yet, it seems possible that the years of preparation leads the yogi to actually experience bliss in that isolation.
Give neuroscience a bit more time. We might see a few of these things answered in our lifetimes! A bunch of Nobel laureates are at it. 🙂
The point of the post is well taken. Prolonged isolation or penance may have lasting effects on any human, whether it is a prisoner of crime, POW,or a religious person. The person in charge of a Matham in our town used to talk funny and weird. As a young boy I checked with my parents why she talked weird. The answer I got was that she went to Himalayas and did tapas/meditation in isolation for a long time and lost her abilities to talk normal. No one thought less of her because of the new speech impediment. The town was Pamarru, Andhra and time 1950’s.
“Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury. [Link]
I find that last sentence particularly important given our modern culture of incessant Twittering and Facebook updates.”
Ditto. I remember a psych class from college where they discussed something like this, that human-to-human interaction is like sugar-water for the mind– the general idea AFAIK isn’t new, but the extreme damage revealed in the brain scans is probably a big advance. And as you say, especially today, I wonder if our “threshold” for isolation damage has been pushed even lower than before.
And on a sort-of related note, I wonder also if the nature of vintage 2009-era social interaction– with all the incessant Twittering and Myspacing– might be having a fundamentally different impact on the mind as compared to more traditional face-time interaction. IOW, the “social frame” has been changed to something that our caveman-minds might not have been adapted to. So is electronic-age interaction as good as the old-fashioned variety, or is thus just another (albeit much more subtle) form of isolation deprivation?
87 · Singin’ in the Baarish said
Reminds me of this BSG related comic from earlier this week:
http://www.pvponline.com/2009/03/24/no-thanks-mister-roboto/
It can be another form of social isolation if that is the main outlet for socializing. If it is part of other face to face healthy social interaction I say it increases socialization with people you may not have a chance to meet and share ideas.
I’m still looking for the guy who can objectively prove to me that we are not all plugged into a “matrix.” There are limits to human knowledge. The scientific method is a way for falsifying hypotheses. It’s not a way to “prove” facts. Only logic can do that.
My problem with arguments that revolve around “science says ” is that most of the people who use it don’t actually know the science they’re citing, so at best they are actually saying “a (few) scientist(s) say(s) _” and more often it’s “ignorant journalist who doesn’t understand the scientist he’s talking to thinks he heard them say ___.”
Most actual journal articles are not nearly so secure in their conclusions as the accompanying press-releases make them out to be. So while science is a valid method for falsifying hypotheses, making appeals to “scientists” as authority is every bit as bad as making appeals to parents, priests, or sociologists. . . especially sociologists. This is the kind of blind belief in “science” that makes people think Lipozene will magically melt their fat away and Enzyte will make their junk bigger.
Very much agree! Science with all its fits and starts often does not always lend itself to compelling narratives. The journalists want to tell a story and hence form a narrative where there might be none. Hardly anybody reads much less understands the real data.
This then forms the public image of Lord Science we all bow down to! Dogma replaces dogma.
A scientific experiment that ends up with the pronouncement that such and such thing is bad forces upon us caution, restraint, constraint, strait-jacketed sensibility, and all the rest of the conformity that is actually not a good thing. Besides yoga is about union. There is a huge assumption here that the feeling felt by a yogi is one of “sustained isolation.” (isolation is not necessarily about being literally isolated) To me it makes more sense to have romantic, mystical, adventurous, experimental and outright mad notions about yoga and to do the yogic experiment to find out how things stand, rather than to rely on some over-reaching scientific conclusions or extrapolations.
82 · Abhi said
Abhi, Seems like you know your case is a bit weak, if you have to equate your opponents w christian fundamentalists so soon in the debate. Just to keep things in prespective, people don’t give credence to “intelligent design” because evolution is a fundamental explanatory tool in just vast facets of biology and has been proven in these other scenarios. Whether humans in conditions of social isolation involuntarily imposed by others face complete mental breakdown seems like a much smaller empirical question. It does not seem to me reasonable to extrapolate from the results of a single study of prison inmates to argue whether alleged Yogis are mentally bonkers.
And before you invoke the holy name of science, let me add that I can add a few letters after my name if I wanted to, and in the appropriate disciplines as well; so there.
Intelligent design as an umbrella term is a perfectly valid philosophical idea to have. It’s not scientific because it doesn’t have any falsifiable hypothesis to work with but that doesn’t make it wrong.
I’m coming to this discussion extremely late, so I apologize for my untimeliness. Fascinating read nonetheless…thanks for sharing it! I think the key here is “choice”. Asceticism is NOT for everyone, even Yogananda says that in his Autobiography, as do many other monks whose works I have read. People have to “evolve” to that point, they also have to “want” to get to that state of mind, and have to train for many years in order to be given Samadhi. Even the yogis are aware of its premature effects on man.
Most prisoners are not choosing to be put into solitary confinement; they are doing it quite against their will; and it is clearly used and labeled as a form of “punishment.” One must wonder about the psychological effect of that alone.
91 · Yoga Fire said
Yoga fire makes a very important point here. Taking it back to first principles, all human beings gain knowledge broadly speaking in 3 ways. 1)Through direct observation and experience. 2)Through testimony from authoritative sources. 3)Through inference.
The best way to gain knowledge is through direct observation and experience. It is impossible for an individual to have direct observation and experience of every occurence or phenomena and hence we all rely on a variety of authoritative sources. For some it is certain books, for others it is certain individuals however selected, and for some it is certain methods of obsevation and experience validated by names like science, varieties of spiritual practice and so forth. All these are then discerned and discrimnated by the manas (mind) and buddhi (intellect) and distilled into inferences.
There is validity in this research showing that extreme isolation for these prisoners has been detrimental to them in many ways as shown by the research and testimony by Atul. The inference then that this would also be true for all yogis that undergo extreme isolation is not appropriate. I would suggest experiments for those that are interested in the effects of isolation on themselves. As others have mentioned, one would have to define for oneself, what isolation means to you. Is it a confined space or confined social interactions or lack of activity for body and mind? What physical, mental and social environment would that be? Does this come close to prison conditions of the prisoners involved in the above study? How about trying a 10 day experiment in Vipassana which is a form of meditation that experienced yogis could be using for much longer periods of time? These are the kinds of individual experiments that can answer these for oneself. For others, one would have to be content with other’s testimony and that can be from different sources and methods and hence with different observations and conclusions.
I wonder if studies have been done on how different types of social interaction might cause different outcomes. TV and Books are not technically interaction, since there’s no give and take. But I would guess if someone otherwise in total isolation had the internet, they wouldn’t be as affected. It probably also depends a great deal on the individual. However, I don’t think the point of solitary confinement is rehabilitation.. its more likely punishment and for the safety of the other prisoners.
95 · Yoga Fire said
That’s right. ID is not wrong because it is unscientific. It is wrong because it is wrong.
>>ID is not wrong because it is unscientific. It is wrong because it is wrong.
It’s not fascism if we do it.
M. Nam