Comment by Matthew Roy (matthew-roy) on Does the "ancient wisdom" argument have any validity? If a particular teaching or tradition is old, to what extent does this make it more trustworthy? · 2024-11-04T18:21:09.777Z · LW · GW

I would tend to give particular credence to any practice which pre-dates the printing press.

The reason is fairly straightforward. Spreading ideas was significantly more expensive, and often could only occur to the extent that holding the ideas made the carriers better adapted to their environments.

As the cost to spread an idea has become cheaper, humans can unfortunately afford to spread a great deal more pleasant (feel free to substitute reward hacking for pleasant) junk.

That doesn't mean failing to examine the ideas critically, but there are more than a few ideas that I once doubted the wisdom of, which made a great deal more sense from this perspective.

As for the particular practice of meditation that you reference, I tend to view spiritual practices as somewhat difficult to analyze for this purpose, as the entire structure of the religion was what was transmitted, not only the particularly adaptive information. To use DNA as an analogy, it's difficult to tell, which portions are of particularly high utility, analogous to the A, C, G, and T in DNA, and which serve as the sugar-phosphate backbone. Potentially useful in maintenance of the structure as a whole, but perhaps not of particular use when translated outside that context.

Which portions of Buddhism are which, I couldn't tell you, I lack practice in the meditation methods mentioned, and lack deeper familiarity with the relevant social and historical context.