In any case, one problem with comparing the two articles is that much of the risk from meditation seems to be at extended retreats, while the pro-yoga article seems to be about ordinary amounts of practice.
″. Regular group yoga classes are not recommended for patients with psychotic symptoms, but private yoga sessions with a qualified yoga instructor or yoga therapist can help alleviate symptoms and improve a schizophrenic patient’s quality of life.” from the pro-yoga article, seems to me to indicate the same sort of concern that the meditation article indicated. It certainly seems credible that high-intensity and novel experience, combined with poorly understood philosophy promoting something that sounds vaguely loss-of-affect style psychotic symptoms, might encourage the development of those symptoms in people inclined to develop them and even in some people not so inclined.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the subtleties of your phrasing, but I read those sources as contradicting each other, not as allowing fine deduction.
I’m not sure what you mean. “Fine deduction”?
In any case, one problem with comparing the two articles is that much of the risk from meditation seems to be at extended retreats, while the pro-yoga article seems to be about ordinary amounts of practice.
″. Regular group yoga classes are not recommended for patients with psychotic symptoms, but private yoga sessions with a qualified yoga instructor or yoga therapist can help alleviate symptoms and improve a schizophrenic patient’s quality of life.” from the pro-yoga article, seems to me to indicate the same sort of concern that the meditation article indicated. It certainly seems credible that high-intensity and novel experience, combined with poorly understood philosophy promoting something that sounds vaguely loss-of-affect style psychotic symptoms, might encourage the development of those symptoms in people inclined to develop them and even in some people not so inclined.
Yes, there are differences between the claims, so that both articles could be true, but most likely at least one is false.
What I meant by “fine deduction” is that to believe both, you must draw a very specific (ie, fine-grained) conclusion.
Yes, there are subtle differences between the claims, so that both articles could be true, but most likely at least one is false.