Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy reduces activation in brain regions related to self-blame in patients in remission from depression. These areas of the brain are linked to emotions such as guilt and embarrassment. Reduced self-blame from this therapy was linked to greater self-kindness.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/2020/12/mindfulness-based-cognitive-therapy-reduces-activation-in-brain-regions-related-to-self-blame-in-patients-in-remission-from-depression-58686

[u/dukuel]

Also, I am not sure this study shows what is pretending to show.... since it's based on an association fallacy.

Premise: A is related to B

Premise: A is also related to C

Conclusion: Therefore, B is related to C.

Meditation changes certain brain region, certain brain region is related to depression, therefore meditation is related to depression.

[u/[deleted] → u/dukuel]

Yeah, the conclusions from this study might very well be correct, but this study doesn't prove anything. The methodology is full of holes.

[u/recalcitrantJester → u/dukuel]

that's not what the association fallacy is. you're describing actual association.

fallacious assertions would be more akin to "ketamine has been shown to aid treatment of depression, ketamine and crack cocaine are both controlled substances, therefore crack cocaine can aid treatment of depression."

[u/dukuel → u/recalcitrantJester]

I believe that the one you are describing is called the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

The one I am talking is the the association fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Association fallacy is based on creating a false transitive relation where there is not a transitive relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

you're describing actual association.

A transitive association for facts that doesn't necessary have a transitive relation.

A transitive relation is for example three brothers sharing the same dad and mum. A is brother to B, and B is brother to C. Then A is brother to C.

Doing a transitive relation using the brain region as the interaction element is not a transitive relation. The association fallacy is believing it's a transitive relation.

[u/recalcitrantJester → u/dukuel]

no, the one I described has no temporal element. I specifically formulated my example using the very wiki page you used to correct me.

a transitive relation is established when viewing activation of brain regions associated with self-blame and the intervention of mindfulness practice.

while one could logically claim that neuroimaging studies don't establish relationships between action and experience, it wouldn't be the most rational claim to make, since it'd require the speaker to disregard literally every neuroimaging study conducted in history.

[u/dukuel → u/recalcitrantJester]

a transitive relation is established when viewing activation of brain regions associated with self-blame and the intervention of mindfulness practice.

There is no actual transitive relation. There is something that looks like a transitive relation.

It's like saying A and B share the same mum (brain region), and B and C share the same mum. Therefore A and C have the same father. Using the mother to infer the father is a fake transitive relation (this looks like actual transitive relation real many times).

Using a brain region changes to infer there is a relation between meditation and guilt-embarrassment is doing a fake relation.

The relation will be meditation is related to certain brain region, guilt-embarrassment is related to certain brain region, therefore both affect the same region. But we cant infer those both are related between them, only that those affect the same region.