Talk:Ironic process theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ironic process theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Suggest the 2010 film "Inception" as another example.

"I say to you, 'Don't think about elephants.' What do you think about?"

"...Elephants."

129.138.30.223 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought Wikipedia would make me lose The Game. 68.40.58.27 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dohohohohohoho ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」「Dochira samaka?」)} 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - it makes me lose all the time. The concept "people bickering about whether a wikipedia article should be deleted or not" reminds me of the ur-example: has any article ever had its status changed more than the article about the game? --Adam Field (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The whole article is confusing. The first paragraph makes no sense - perhaps a diagram can help? The first sentence in the second paragraph references "this"??? RainBoxRed (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The Game

I'm proposing to remove the photo reference to "The Game." 'The Game' is a separate topic from the psychological phenomenon of "ironic process theory". Including as a primary photo reference, a picture depicting The Game in this particular article is not relevant, nor apropos. (As an illustration, you wouldn't expect to see a photo of the game "Monopoly" in an article on "real estate"; the two are separate topics). I am fine with including a reference to 'The Game' as already included in this article. So, if no one disputes this proposal, I'll remove the photo. Thank you.Ronsword (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts, or maybe Dave Berg

From Wikipedia:

...its most famous use in that respect is as the theme music for The Lone Ranger, so famous that the term "intellectual" has been defined as "a man who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger." The Finale is also quoted by Dmitri Shostakovich in the first movement of his Symphony No. 15.

From TV tropes:

MAD: In one of Dave Berg's The Lighter Side Of... two kids are shown watching TV, Leonard Bernstein is saying "What you know as The Theme to The Lone Ranger is actually a piece by Gioachino Rossini about William Tell. Now we are going to play The William Tell Overture...let's see how grown up you are — try to listen to it without thinking of The Lone Ranger. Next panel shows the kids squinting their eyes as the music plays, trying to listen only to the music. Last panel, cue the undershirt wearing, beer toting father walk through the room shouting "Hi, oh, Silver!"

You'll often hear that the definition of a person with a one-track mind is someone who can listen to The William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger. Dan Rather uses this as the definition of an intellectual.

My memory of this is from "Peanuts" (Schroeder says it, I think), but I may well have read it in Mad magazine.

178.38.31.151 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Pink Elephant Paradox

This phenomenon is also know as the Pink Elephant paradox 2409:40E1:24:F3B9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]