Talk:Magical thinking/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Magical thinking. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis vs. belief in magic

Another common form of magical thinking occurs when people believe that it is possible to suppress "bad" things or thoughts by suppressing the words that name them, or insisting on the use of euphemisms.

Since when did the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis become a belief in magic, hmm? Martin

Although I would not call this "magical thinking," I do think it refers to a real and interesting phenomenon -- and has nothing to do with the Sapir Whorf hypothesis (they were making an argument about cultures, not individuals) Slrubenstein

This is a very, very common phenomenon in historical linguistics. Look in an etymological dictionary for bear (Indo-European *rktos), wolf (IE *wlk^wos), or deer (originally, hart). All of these words have weird etymologies because of taboo deformations; or have had euphemisms substituted for the original word some time in the past; for "deer" within historical times. The Germanic word "bear" means "brown guy;" the Slavic root means "honey eater." By using euphemisms the evil goes away, or you don't jinx the hunt. This may be what some believers in Sapir-Whorf hope to achieve, but it's magical thinking nevertheless. (And it isn't really what the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis actually affirms, just what some have made of it.) -- Don Gustafson 23:16 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, so it's guarding against evil things? IE, "speak of the devil and he'll appear", or the prohibition against saying the name of God? I'll accept that as magical thinking - but I still don't accept that guarding against bad thoughts by selection of language is "magical thinking", in the context of this article, because it's not unscientific. Martin

It doesn't work though. Thinking of a bear as a big brown guy didn't stop that clown from getting eaten http://seattlepi.com/local/142982_bearattack08.html If something is 'scientific' it doesn't mean there's been an article about it in Scientific uhMerican it means it can be proven or disproved by experiment. 83.70.30.82 13:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Words ARE magical in that like pixi-dust of non-tangible ideas on top of the listener (or reader)'s head and those that are endearing, funny, profound, or "just makes sense" have attached themselves into the psyche of that other person. Take the morality stories of Pinocchio, Paul Revere and the Liberty Bell, or the Bible as classic examples of being careful of who you make friends with, or how to be patriot, or how to know God. Well crafted words are the fall and rise of civilizations as people cling to or despise authors such as the Manifesto of Carl Marx, the Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin, or the Federalist Papers. User:bwildasi Wed Jun 11 17:49:25 UTC 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does homeopathy belong in magical thinking?

This article may be going out on a limb with the claim that homeopathy involves magical thinking. It does now, to be sure. At the same time, when Hahnemann invented it, the world had just been introduced to the notion of vaccination. The idea that diluted doses of a harmful agent might confer some kind of immunity may well have seemed plausible at the time, especially given inadequate knowledge of germs and viruses. -- IHCOYC 17:03 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

The article is not going out on a limb at all. In fact, homepathy is the most explicit type of magical thinking found in alternative medicine. The fundamental principle of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), similia similibus curentur ("let likes cure likes"), is an explicit expression of a magical principle. In fact, three fundamental principles of magic are involved in homeopathy: similarity, power, and contact. RK

Why do you call the thinking behind homoeopathy explicitly "magical" when the thinking behind innoculation is not? 217.44.96.254 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy as a discipline has never shown through repeatable experiment that there is a causal non-placebo connection between taking a homeopathic medication and recovering from any disease or medical condition. With vaccinations, on the other hand, the causal connection is very well established, and has been explored in great detail. Anyone continuing to adhere to homeopathic theory given the enormous weight of evidence against it is engaged in either magical thinking or willful ignorance, or both. Gullibility and stupidity may also be involved. —Aetheling (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty locating references cited

Attempting to locate the references cited (at least the books) often leads to a dead end. Fred Bauder 13:29 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Birthday paradox

I think the 50/50 "birthday paradox" blurb is a little unfair. It is substantially less likely that one out of 22 other people will share YOUR birthday than 50%. Intangir 04:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-There's a 16.5% chance of it. And now, for a completely unrelated observation:

I am bothered by this little paragraphette:

"Another manifestation is the use of teddy bears to relieve separation anxiety, and the presence of imaginary friends."

Said paragraphette is NOT an example of magical thinking. It's an example of a child's tendancy to anthropomorphize inanimate objects or unreal people to achieve social comfort. A trained monkey could recognize this problem. I am removing said paragraphette.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.63.133 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

causal relations

I added a bit to the first parahraph, because I found it POV to say that magic, like science, seeks out causal relationships when in fact the vigor in reasoning and experiment in scientific thinking isn't comparable to that of magical thinking. Oftentimes those predisposed to magical thinking see connections where none exist, and toss up naturally explainable phenomena as supernatural.

Just balancing out the POV. Maprovonsha172 16:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

added thoughts to 'causal relations'

I have a problem with the formulation of

.. but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation.

How can science do that? Can a scientific experiment distinguish between these two concepts? How?

Or more directly: How can 'causation' be measured?

Wouldn't a reference to falsification be a valuable distinction between science and magic?

.. but that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived patterns and actual patterns.

Again: how can actual and perceived pattern be distinguished? How could that be done by a single human in everyday life?

How can it be done by a scientific experiment?

To use the word actual pattern implies that there is a way to proof certain hypothesis as 'true'. Following the thoughts of Karl Popper this can be seen as a problematic statement.

There is, admittedly, a complication in this view: the idea that scientific method is based wholly on attempting falsification, proposed by Karl Popper, is seen by most philosophers of science now as unsatisfactory.

Please give a reference. It is my impression that this is still seen as a very valuable thought in the philosophy of science see for example

Pietschmann, Herbert, 1990, "Die Wahrheit liegt nicht in der Mitte", Ed. Weitbrecht

Xxlhammer 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's trying to say that scientists can always tell whether a given correlation is due to direct causation; rather, it's trying to say that in science, correlation and causation are explicitly recognized as distinct concepts, and demonstration of correlation is not proof of causation, while magic doesn't not generally bother to distinguish these concepts.

I don't think that using the term actual pattern implies that we can know for sure whether a pattern is real; I think it implies only that there is such a thing as a real pattern. If you wish, you can take it as a Platonic ideal.

Falsification is definitely still the underpinning of the scientific method, but maybe the latter is no longer based wholly on attempting the former?

—Ruakh_TALK 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting answer.

I don't think that using the term actual pattern implies that we can know for sure whether a pattern is real; I think it implies only that there is such a thing as a real pattern. If you wish, you can take it as a Platonic ideal.

But to assume that is not part of the scientific method, or is it? Even if its, there is no way to reach that with scientifc methods, right?

Falsification is definitely still the underpinning of the scientific method, but maybe the latter is no longer based wholly on attempting the former?

I agree. Still it is, in my oppinion, still clear, that positive proof is impossible in natural sciences. It only is possible for formal sciences (esp. mathematics) and there the connection to 'reality' respectively the 'truth' cannot be proved.

Xxlhammer 10:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A scientific experiment can, for most intents and purposes, distinguish between correlation and causation. This is what negative control groups are for. If you run 500 samples in which a treatment has been tried, and, at the same time, run 500 samples in which that treatment has not been tried, and see very different results, you can be pretty sure that the difference in treatment caused the effect you saw. Now, it might not be the difference in treatment that you thought you were applying - perhaps, for example, you injected some contaminant along with your drug. But if you see a statistically significant difference, you probably caused it.

128.12.137.240 17:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Wells

'Magical thinking exists in most people' section

"There is much current scientific research in cognitive science that supports this view. For example, people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than seeking refutation as in the scientific method. This is another example of confirmation bias. People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things rather than change pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as 'cognitive dissonance'."

Can someone explain the last sentence? AFAIK, the whole phenomenon is cognitive consistency, not dissonance. Dissonance shows a man who searches and lets facts shape his views, even each of his views contradict themselves, and not the other way in which is his views shape the "facts" in order to be generally consistent. Just semantics, I know, but any help or clarification would be appreciated! Phoebus 09:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"...people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than seeking refutation as in the scientific method. ... People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things rather than change pre-existing beliefs."

Sounds like a day at Wikipedia. --DanielCD 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually it sounds like any other day, online or not :) Going through the Cognitive dissonance article made a few things clearer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoebus Panagopoulos (talk • contribs).

One thing I've noticed most everyone kept mum about is that a study a couple of years ago that showed "believers" see patterns that aren't there had another finding as well. That being that the skeptics failed to see patterns that were intentionally created ie they failed to see the patterns that were there. I remember the study was, almost universally, hailed as showing superstitious people see what they want to see. That it also showed "skeptical people may fail to see things that are real" was curiously ignored. (Not by me granted. I don't believe in magic or astrology or that crud, but I'm also unconvinced of some of the claims of skepticism)--T. Anthony 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthony people are also skeptical about global warming or the relationship between the bush family, the price of oil, patriotism, and 9/11. All that proves is that it is possible to have bias in either direction, but in both cases it is unscientific. The person who learns to tell the difference between fact and fiction by scientific observation and logical thought is what you might consider "open minded". That is, a person who won't believe anything right away until proper logical connections are made and proper evidence is provided. Also note that an intentional correlation still does not equal causality, as the article points out. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by 71.192.101.198

I want to say that i find the content of this page to be offensive and bias against magical thinking, which is defined early on as "non scientific beleifs". This article advances an agenda of bleaching the world imagination of any thoughts that have not been confirmed by the elitist weastern scientists.

Between the lines, this articles denys outright the validity of all non-wester-science beleif systems, branding advocates of such systems as mentally ill, or underdeveloped. This article is nothing but an advocation for the "truth that is science". linking all non scientific beleif to: the mentally ill, children, "most people", and "primitive culture". which i might add - what gives the author of this page the right to concider one culture to be less developed then another? what defines development, and who is on top? You? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.101.198 (talk • contribs)

Your criticism is likely valid. Unfortunately, the articles here are far from sterling on a lot of issues, and need attention to address just such concerns. But until someone has the time and interest, it will likely go neglected unless something very specific and obvious is wrong or vandalism is present. Feel free to make any changes you feel needed, just be sure to reference them if they are major additions. I'll look at it when I have time, but no promises. --DanielCD 16:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference between science and magical thinking is not who's doing it. A so-called primitive society can reason scientifically, and a scientist can lapse into magical thinking - see Richard Feynmann's famous article on "Cargo-Cult Science." Politicians do it all the time. The key difference is that magical thinking involves the assumption that correlation equals causation. Scientific thought tries, through controlled experiment, to deal with this bias.

I'm afraid your comment reads that you simply aren't happy with the fact that your thought is predominantly magical, and I did not find your comment about scientists being "elitist" to be very mature either. To your comment about imagination, I'm afraid you seem to be unclear about the difference between imagining and believing. My thought is purposefully nearly entirely logical and yet I have a vivid imagination: the two are not exclusive to eachother. Additionally, I might point out that by the definition of this term the majority of the world is predisposed to magical thought. My point is quite simple here: What you are proposing is censorship for the simple reason that the truth hurts your feelings, and I'm not going to sit quietly and allow it to happen. That would be not only unscientific, but also in direct opposition to understanding. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving the above comment for historical sake. I had a revelation just now about what you said about imagination, and it made me realize that imagination and magical thought are very similar. Rather, you could define magical thinking as "using imagination in place of logical thought". This article simply describes the real world patterns in which this occurs. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it unfair, straw man, really, the POV of most of the article. If as above here, someone compares and contrasts magical thinking, imagination, creativity, etc., and/or gives real-world examples, it would be valuable: I've read this article four times and still don't know what magical thinking is. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Ummm, I wonder if anyone understands what magical thinking is. The text is unclear. Meaning, magical thinking is likely unclear in the authors' minds. So, it's more or less subjective...? sorry. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So... magical thinking is just a ten-dollar word meaning superstition? Stevie Wonder said it better. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul of article

I think there is a fundamental flaw in this article that needs fixing. The intro defines the term 'magical thinking' very narrowly to mean a specific way at arriving at ideas about the world. However, most of the rest of the article is about non-scientific ideas in general, many of them not the result of Frazer's 'magical thinking'. Also, very little of the assertions made in the article are sourced and most of it sounds like editors opinion.

I'll going to wait for comments, for a few days before doing anything else. Ashmoo 03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that what you decided to do was to delete about 600 words - more than a quarter of the text of the article, by yourself in a single day, never having contributed a single word to it yourself since it was started in February 2003. Is this some new WP policy? Find all the unsourced text in articles and delete it? Find all the articles you think might be inconsistent and delete a quarter to half of the text to make them match up with what's currently in their intros? No, I'll assume good faith, and that you're planning to replace it with a similar amount of well-sourced and internally consistent information, that's just as thoughtful and interesting to read, over the next few days. --Nigelj 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I waited over a month without any reply, advice or criticism, so I just did I what I thought was best. I only removed text that seemed like blatant, confused opinion. I don't think there's a WP rule that states that an editor must insert information before removing POV, unsourced material. If you have any specific objections to any of my edits, I'm happy to discuss them. Ashmoo 07:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also very concerned by this article.

An earlier version of this article had the story of the hut that collapsed because of termites, or was it because the occupant had done something....

Why is that no longer here? That was a brilliant summary of magical thinking.

And what is the reference to Rapture Ready about?

What was a pretty good article is now terrible. Was it too threatening to religious thinkers? --82.12.12.220 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What we have here...

It seems to me that everything in this article can be fully covered by the more legitimate "superstition" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" articles. Let's set up a merge. David Bergan 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree a lot of the text could go into the articles you describe, I do think that Magical Thinking is different enough to get its own article. MT is a process defined by Frazer for arriving at ideas about the world. It is used in cultures that don't have classical rational argumentation, so putting it in an article on fallacies would be a bit anachronistic. For example, determining that rubbing sticks together makes fire can be discovered through magical thinking but I wouldn't call it 'superstition'.

This is why I've done many edits to move text that isn't specifically about MT out. Ashmoo 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: The following comment was added after the one below it.)

Well, you might be right, but let me copy all the text that isn't MT, and we'll see what's left.

Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, magic often attributes correlation to causation. (This is the very definition of the false-cause/post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.)
For example, someone may believe a shirt is lucky if he had won a bowling competition in it. He will continue to wear the shirt to bowling competitions, and though he continues to win some and lose some, he will chalk up every win to his lucky shirt. (This is clearly superstition.)
The use of voodoo dolls is a typical example of sympathetic magic. (If voodoo dolls do not work, they are merely superstition. If they do work, then they aren't a "magical thinking" fallacy, but true magic.)
Others have described these two laws as examples of "analogical reasoning" (rather than logical reasoning). (analogical reasoning = logical fallacy --> post hoc ergo propter hoc)
The classic example is of the collapsing roof, described in E. E. Evans-Pritchard's Witchcraft, Magic, and Oracles Among the Azande, in which the Azande claimed that a roof fell on a particular person because of a magical spell cast by another person. The Azande did understand a scientific explanation for the collapsing room (that termites had eaten through the supporting posts), but pointed out that this scientific explanation could not explain why the roof happened to collapse at precisely the same moment that the particular man was resting beneath it. (Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc... I shot my brother with a "burp-gun" 10 years ago and said that it would kill him in 80 years. When he does die, that doesn't make me a magician or a murderer.)
Adherents of magical belief systems often do not see their beliefs as being magical. In Asia, many coincidences and contingencies are explained in terms of karma in which a person's actions in a past life affects current events. (Which is covered adequately by the karma/reincarnation articles... and has no connection to the aforementioned superstitions: karma explanations are used when a "false-cause/magical thinking" explanation cannot be invoked. When superstition fails, blame karma! Didn't walk under a ladder or see a black cat? Well, you must have been a thief in your previous life, that's why your wife died. You'll always have an explanation using one or the other... but the two are distinctly different things. Karma explanations absolutely do not fit the (supposed) definition of magical thinking: "non-scientific causal reasoning"... they invoke no observable cause.)
A common form of magical thinking is that one's own thoughts can influence events, either beneficially, by creating good luck, or for the worse, as in divine punishment for "bad thoughts". (And my dad always turns off the baseball game when the opposing team scores against the Minnesota Twins, because he thinks his watching causes them to play poorly... how is this not superstition?)
Some categorize the belief that prayer influences a deity to alter the course of events, as an example of this kind of thinking. (And some people are unexplainably cured of cancer after prayer, and the doctors proclaim it as miraculous... which suggests its efficacy. This discussion should belong in the article of prayer where both sides of the issue can be brought up.)
Another form of magical thinking occurs when people believe that words can directly affect the world. (Combination of superstition and reverence. The ancient Jews didn't speak the name of God out of profound respect.)
Noting the great similarity of magical thinking in all types of human societies and eras of recorded history, some cognitive scientists suggest that these ways of thinking are intrinsic to humanity. Many articles in neuroscience have shown that the human brain excels at pattern matching, but that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived patterns and actual patterns. Thus, people often are led to see "relationships" between actions that don't actually exist, creating a magical belief. (Which is precisely why people tend to use the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy... I rode my bike around the block and Mom got sick, so I never rode my bike again. This part should go to that article.)
There is much current scientific research in cognitive science that supports this view. For example, people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than seeking refutation as in the scientific method. This is another example of confirmation bias. People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things rather than change pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as cognitive dissonance. (Fits perfectly into post hoc or superstition.)
Members of the general public rarely have a deep understanding of statistics. (I was accused of using weasel words in a different article for a sentence just like this.)
Members of the general public rarely have a deep understanding of statistics. For instance, statistically, it is unavoidable that there will be one day in a year when the most car accidents happen. There will also be a day in the year when the least accidents happen. People, however, may focus on the day the most accidents happen and conclude it must be 'jinxed'. (Sounds like a textbook case of superstition.)
Probability, or chance, is also generally poorly understood. It can be calculated that if 23 people are chosen randomly, the chance that two have their birthday on the same day is about 50%. Yet this "birthday paradox" seems counter-intuitive to most people. (Ummm... is this relevant at all? The solution to the Monty Hall problem strike most people as counter-intuitive... how is it at all related to this discussion? Nobody is attributing anything to a prior cause.)
Magical thinking is often intensified in mental illnesses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder or clinical depression. ("Superstition is often intensified in mental illnesses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder or clinical depression.")
Magical thinking is especially common in children, which is consistent with the explanation that it represents the uncritical recognition of patterns, since critical thinking develops later than the ability to recognize patterns. ("Superstition is especially common in children, which is consistent with the explanation that it represents the uncritical recognition of patterns, since critical thinking develops later than the ability to recognize patterns.")
Any scientific analysis of magical claims will be dogged by problems related to causality, coincidence and statistical validity. ("Any scientific analysis of superstition will be dogged by problems related to causality, coincidence and statistical validity.")

And there you have it, why all the main points in this article can rightfully be merged into existing articles... if there is anything significantly distinct about "Magical thinking", please show me, because what we have strikes me as a fuzzy definition intended to propogate a modern rant for empiricism. I'm all for empiricism, but "articles should not be multiplied beyond necessity". David Bergan 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge, for what it's worth. This article seems to have its own meaning which is fine; at most, stick a See also link around to all the relevant links. SnowFire 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't have its own meaning... that's my point.

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.
Magical thinking is a term used by historians of religion to describe one kind of non-scientific causal reasoning.

These two definitions mean the same thing. At best MT should be relegated to a sub-section of superstition, with all the redundant material taken out. David Bergan 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but plenty of articles discuss the same topic, just focusing on different parts. Perhaps renaming the article (or adding a redirect) to "Psychology of Superstition" would suit your purposes? An article that sought to explore how superstition arises and the like is a relevant split from the superstition article, I think. Consider that there is already a Psychology of religion article (and heck, a Psychology of Monogamy article, too). SnowFire 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we at least agree that these are discussing the same subject... which was the original objection to the merge. Now, our choice is that we could rename the article "Psychology of Superstition" or we could just merge it into "Superstition" under the sub-heading "Psychological Theories." Personally I still vote for the latter... the superstition page looks pretty sloppy and in need of a good "Psychology" section; this page is pretty sloppy on its own; and there are lots of redundancies after the merge that could be cut away to make a nice tight article. Once you take the redundancies out of the magical thinking article, I think we would have the right amount of content for a solid sub-section. Lend me your tildas, and I am willing to do the merging operation. David Bergan 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that much of the article can be moved to superstition (or removed as being unsourced opinion). But I think that article should stay. MT is an idea proposed by Frazer and is not synomous with Superstition. I'm happy for things to be cut but anything that mentions what Frazer or Stevens wrote or thought should remain.

At a later date I'll try to did up more modern cites for explorations of his ideas to fill up the article with sourced statements. Ashmoo 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge of Magical Thinking into Superstition. Superstition involves a belief rooted from past experience. or knowledge that actions chosen or declined will likely have a pre-determined outcome, independent of the strength of belief. Magical Thinking involves beliefs not necessarily rooted in past experience or knowledge that actions chosen or declined will have a desired outcome partly dependent on the strength of the choice of the present decision.

I wandered into Magical Thinking and this discussion from Game Theory and The Prisoner's Dilemma where is was mentioned in a way that I took to indicate that over time and statistics multiple people's belief in human behavior was termed magical thinking (not superstitious thought)and the strength of the beliefs can alter the outcomes. --Barbara Wilson 03:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge of Magical Thinking into Superstition. Magical thinking is a term used in scientific writing in child development & child psychology, and in scientific writing about obsessive-compulsive disorder. MT is different from superstition. MT can mean (1) the process of arriving at an unsubstantiated belief (typically without being able to, or knowing to, confirm with other data as a reality check) and also can mean (2) a belief developed in such a manner. Superstitions are developed from at least one prior personal experience, or learned from the advice of others. While much of the current content of Magical Thinking can be moved to Superstition, MT does need its own entry. Eeliza 22 Sept 2006

I think that user Ashmoo, around the 7 June 2006, removed a very significant proportion of this article - leaving only what he felt fitted with one particular author's usage of the term, from what I could understand at the time (see discussion above). Then he and a few others started this discussion: that there isn't much left in the article, so let's merge it somewhere else.

I think that there is more to the peoples of the world and their cultures than is taught in 'Psych 101' classes. In many traditions throughout the world and throughout human history there has been magical thinking - taught and encouraged as well as forbidden, punished and 'treated'. It has been written about in religious texts, poetry, esoteric manuals; it has been a basis for art and for personal and organised secret activities; it has been passed down in oral traditions and, very often, it has been forgotten forever.

Some people who used to contribute to this article from a personal knowledge of some of these traditions have now found something more interesting to do with their time. I think that's a bit of a shame. Sure, some of those previous contributions could have done with a few more references and citations, but they could have been found. That's what it seems to me happened here. --Nigelj 15:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias against metaphysical belief systems

This article is way too biased against the metaphysical belief systems for me to read without invoking anger. It seems to imply that anyone who belives in forces such as being able to influence life through the phychic realm, is mistaken and plain wrong. I am unable to see how the author can be so sure of his beliefs to call others beliefs incorrect when no one on this planet has everything figured out yet. The author refers to scientific development and things going from supernatural to scientific, I think it should also be added that in the future many things now unproven may turn out to be true, and this includes many things the author claims to be fictional. Some people believe patterns in the universe as being more then pure statistics, but having underlying themes and connections based on things such as past lives and fate and cosmic influence. These belifs should not be considered false per sei in an article such as this, especially as mental health associates and the law are trying to move forward in the protection of peoples of varing religious and social belifs that have traditionally been considered mental illness, and with Wikipedias ever increasing role in shaping the average persons opinions and belifs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.147.239 (talk • contribs).

I fear I have to disappoint you regarding 'in the future many things now unproven may turn out to be true', even if that is likely to anger you as well. If the ideas you have in mind where not arrived at by careful and proper observation or proper experiment then they are just that: ideas. This is not to say that they are bad or stupid or anything of that nature, there is no negative bias. My point is simply, that ideas not arrived at in a way that makes them very likely to be consistent with the real world just stand on their own. The problem is that the real world can only be one way and therefore any idea about its nature is either right or wrong. Now there can be practically infinite many ideas of this sort, some plain stupid others very elegant and persuasive. Basically we are talking about a lottery hat, containing an infinite number of ideas about the world. Any one of these ideas pulled form the hat has therefore a chance of one to infinity against of being correct. In other words, we can be certain (infinity/1 is called certainty) that any one of these ideas is wrong, without even performing an experiment or otherwise proving the statement. That is the reason why positive proof in is so important in science. In other words, ideas about the world must be proven right to be stated as fact. Expecting someone stating them as wrong to undeniably disproving them is not a sensible basis for discussion.--24.7.7.15 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "magical thinking" is a term of art in skeptical circles, and this article reflects that particular usage of the term. If you were looking for magical thinking in the sense of "that frame of mind you need in order to practise magik", well AFAIK there is no such page. If you want to start one, then perhaps this article and that one might be linked via a disabiguation page. Paul Murray 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Magical Thinking" and "Magic" are not the same thing. If you are offended by this article, it may be because it is unclear on this concept. If somebody believes that they can lift objects with their mind because somebody they trust told them it was so, that's Argument from Authority, not, strictly speaking, magical thinking. That said, the origin of that belief probably had to do with SOMEONE thinking magically.

Seems to me it would be more honest to say something like, 'empiricists are skeptical of magical thinking' -- instead of implying it in every sentence and every concept. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Interpersonal magic section

I removed this whole section as it all just seemed like an editor's opinion and did not provide any sources. Ashmoo 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Science & magical claims

I removed this whole section as it all just seemed like an editor's opinion and did not provide any sources. Ashmoo 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, good WP guidance on the issue of unsourced material can be found on Template:Fact. You have deleted large parts of this article as if it used to fall into category 5, "very doubtful and very harmful", when in fact most of what you deleted, at worst, fell into categories 1 and 2 - it was a work in progress. I don't even see any of what you deleted moved to the talk page for discussion, as per category 4. There was nothing remotely "harmful" on this page, was there? --Nigelj 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know my edits seem a bit harsh. But I had requested sources many weeks ago and no work was being done. This article on the whole suffers from people dropping in to add their (unsourced) opinion on magic. I think we need to be a bit stricter in this article because of this. If the original editor really cared about the article, they'd be discussing it themselves or adding sources. Ashmoo 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I'm thinking this article should be about Magical Thinking as 'non-scientific causal reasoning', not just Magic in general. Frazer's 'magical thinking' is used to make a distinction between one sort of non-scientific thinking and superstition/magic/etc in general. For magic in general there is the magic article.Ashmoo 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF??

When physicists discovered that light seemed to be both a wave and a particle, they chose to live with this rather than immediately force a decision. This suggests that the natural patterns of the mind which give rise to "magical thinking" may at the same time be closer than used to be thought to those which underlie rational science.

Eh? What does wave/particle duality have to do with the law of contagion and the law of similarity? If anything, the science community's refusal to "force a decision" is the very opposite of magical thinking. Magical thinking is about leaping to unwarranted conclusions. It is about wanting a satisfying explanation right now.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with this in a big way. The passage about Popperian falsificationism being widely rejected is unsupported by citation and controversial, and the rest of that section is, well, nonsense -- accepting wave-particle duality simply doesn't require rejecting the law of non-contradiction ("living with contradictory ideas"), and the law of non-contradiction doesn't directly relate to magical thinking. I'm deleting the entirety of the following:

There is, admittedly, a complication in this view: the idea that scientific method is based wholly on attempting falsification, proposed by Karl Popper, is seen by most philosophers of science now as unsatisfactory.[verification needed] Even the idea that living with contradictory ideas is diametrically opposed to science is simplistic. When physicists discovered that light seemed to be both a wave and a particle, they chose to live with this rather than immediately force a decision. This suggests that the natural patterns of the mind which give rise to "magical thinking" may at the same time be closer than used to be thought to those which underlie rational science.

Simple nonsense. --Paultopia 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Touche

These beliefs reflect an incorrect understanding of the boundaries of self - one can indeed will to move one's own arm, but not the ashtray on the table.[citation needed]

That has to be the best use of a [citation needed] tag in history. --83.70.229.193 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume the tag is in reference to the entire sentence — the claim that these beliefs reflect that incorrect understanding — rather than to the specific claim. But yes, it comes out silly-looking. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on the [citation needed] tag. Wynn3th 06:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Funniest. Editorial. Perenthetical. Ever.

(would "uniwittingly" mean "with one witting?)

Thanks, Ruakh. David in DC 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Better edit for Clarke quote

This is much improved over my prose. David in DC 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar still counts

Found this at the end of the Overview section:

More generally, the identification of a symbol with its referent.

This is not a sentence. I would fix it, but I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Perhaps the author could help? Kjdamrau 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Arthur Clarke Quote

This seems to be the topic of a slow-mo revert war.

Magical thinking attributes phenomena that are unexplainable --- by the observer --- to metaphysical, or lucky (or unlucky), or "magic" causes.

An explanation offered by magical thinking is the antithesis of the answer that would be offered by scientific, empirical analysis.

Clarke's Law suggests that sufficiently advance science would be indistinguishable from magic, to an insufficiently advanced observer.

If we dressed a Yanomomo warrior up and taught him English, and took him to an airport, he might insist to a TSA official that there was magic all around him. If our hypothetical Yanomamo was sufficiently agitated about this, the TSA officer might well take the poor chap into custody, believing him to be mentally ill because he was exhibiting "magical thinking" and might pose a threat to the traveling public.

In fact, as Clarke's Law suggests, he'd just be reacting to a technology that was so advanced, from his point of view, as to constitute magic.

That's a hypothetical. Here's a real life example. When the first Ethiopian Jews were discovered in Ethiopia in the '60s, and the Israeli government tried to bring them home, they refused to get on the airplanes. As they understood their faith, they would be carried to Israel, when the time was right, "On the wings of eagles".

Ever-practical, the Israelis painted eagle's wings on 727's. The Ethiopian Jews, with their leaders' consent and blessing, happily boarded. Surely a case of "magical thinking" that fits exactly with Clarke's Law. David in DC 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it does have some relevance, but I don't think it was stated in the best manner. I've attempted to make its relevance and context clearer. Kfgauss 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the dispute is typified by your sentences starting 'Magical thinking attributes...' and 'An explanation offered by...'. My understand is that this article isn't on 'Magic' in general but a specific way of explaining the world called 'magical thinking' by sociologists. Magical Thinking isn't the antithesis of science, that is the whole point of the idea. The claim is that MT is actually proto-science or at least science like with a few different assumptions. Magical thinking isn't for 'unexplainable' phenomena. It is the explanation.

This is why I think the Clarke quote shouldn't be included. Clarke is talking about magic in the general folk sense, whereas Magical Thinking is a very specific sociology term. Ashmoo 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a specific sociological and anthropolical term. In my opinion, the hypothetical Yanomamo and real-life Ethiopian Jewish (and, further reading suggests Yeminite Jewish, as well) examples show how the term fits comfortably with Clarke's Third Law. I think kfgauss's rewording improves the fit.

We've got a legitimate, good faith difference of opinion. I'd like to hear others' take on the matter.David in DC 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I really see both points of view, so have no opinion on the matter. I'd just like to say that Kfgauss's edit was a big improvement. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I stopped trying to discuss this issue here. It seemed to me at the time that there was one book that explained once and for all exactly what Magical Thinking is, and that everything that isn't in that book has no place in this article. Maybe a separate article called 'Magical Thinking according to Frazer' would help solve the problem, so that the rest of us can make some progress here? --Nigelj 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like a POV fork, which is not really in Wikipedia spirit. —Ruakh_TALK 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Nigelj, I think that is the crux of the problem with this article. Magical Thinking isn't really a well established term in sociology, as far as I know. In order to make any head way on this article we need a group consensus on exactly what the topic of this article is. Is it about 'magical thinking' as defined by Frazer? Or about 'magic' or 'non-scientific thinking' in general?

Personally, I support the first, more focused defintion, as the 2nd definition invites users to come on and just add there opinion of magic/superstition/urban myths and muddy thinking as the editor sees it.

Most of the article is totally unsourced, this needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have an unsourced article that accepts multiple points of view than an article that's well cited because it restricts itself to beliefs held by Frazer. Surely there must be a middle ground, though? —Ruakh_TALK 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nuts, in an encylopedia article, to say "For this subject, only the way X. scientist defines and desribes it are valid". Frazer has valuable insights, but is not the be-all-end-all Ashmoo posits. The subject is treated in a body of literature --- anthropological and sociological --- that can inform this page. More on the implications of this fact on the general sourcing of this article are set forth below, on the next string. David in DC 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to restrict Points of View, just make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Ashmoo 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Unsourced Material

And Ashmoo, please stop removing content. Yes, we all get that we need sources, and that a lot of that content will need to be changed; but it comes off as arrogant and obnoxious, needlessly stoking the fire of a long-running dispute on what this article should be — a dispute that you're obviously aware of, seeing as you're participating in discussion about it. As long as the sections baldly state that they're unsourced, it might not be great, but it's certainly not the end of the world. —Ruakh_TALK 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Ruakh's plea, in all its particulars. 2 months is not enough time to unilaterally revert while effort to reach consensus is being pursued. See the couple of strings above re Arthur Clarke. Am boldly reverting recent wholesale reversions. Please do not blank whole sections over a mere two months of a "needs citation tag". Please five it time and please continuing discussing here. David in DC 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile or unilateral. I removed these sections because, neither section is being actively discussed on Talk and both seemed to be editor's opinions, rather than reportage of an unspecific source. Additionally, the 'Magical Thinking exists in most people' section has been tagged as unsourced since November 2006 (12 months) which seems like long enough to provide even a single source.

I won't make any changes, but I do think we need to boldly strip most of the unsourced material. People who provide the sources can easily reintroduce the material with attributions.Ashmoo 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd be a lot less opposed if you moved the content to the talk-page, rather than simply removing it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

12 months? That's too long. I was basing my opinion on the current tags. If the "most people" Section has actually had the tag for a year, then, as Emily Litella used to say: "that's different, never mind." No reaction to a "needs citation" tag for 2 months doesn't merit the revert, but for a year, I'm persuaded. I'll undo my undo for that one, but leave the child development for a few more months. David in DC 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Guys, don't forget WP:PROVEIT, which is the Wikipedia policy under which material may be under dispute. It says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source" (original emphasis). It goes on to talk about moving items to the Talk page. In this sense, there is no requirement, in an article that is not biographical or descriptive of living people, to delete information that is plainly correct, true, accurate and relevant just because it is currently unsourced.

If there was such a requirement, we would all be off deleting high percentages of most WP articles. Take dog: "The dog (Canis lupus familiaris){delete} is a domestic subspecies of the wolf{delete}, a mammal{delete} of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora{delete}. The term encompasses both feral and pet varieties{delete} and is also sometimes used to describe wild canids of other subspecies or species.{delete}". My point is that, although unsourced, we don't just go and delete those facts because are indisputably correct and relevant.

My point is that all we have to do here is to decide the scope of this article - is relevance restricted to a description of Fraser's 1911 theory, or is this an encyclopedic article described by the two ordinary English words that make up its title? --Nigelj (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You frame the issue quite well. Thank you. I think restricting this encyclopedia article to "Magical thinking" as defined by Fraser alone would be foolish. David in DC (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Magical Thinking in Most People

Moved here, per Ruakh's suggestion:

Magical thinking exists in most people - Noting the great similarity of magical thinking in all types of human societies and eras of recorded history, some cognitive scientists suggest that these ways of thinking are intrinsic to humanity. Many articles in neuroscience have shown that the human brain excels at pattern matching, but that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived patterns and actual patterns. This makes good sense from an evolutionary perspective: if you see a pattern that might indicate that there is a tiger hiding in the long grass, you are better off assuming that there is one there than waiting for better evidence. Likewise, if you get sick after eating a certain berry, it is a safer bet to assume that the berry caused the sickness. A consequence, however, is that people often see "relationships" between actions that don't actually exist, creating a magical belief.

- Much scientific research in cognitive science supports this view. For example, people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than seeking refutation as in the scientific method - an example of confirmation bias. Many of these heuristics are believed to be imbedded into the human psyche. People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things rather than change pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as belief perseverance, which may lead to cognitive dissonance. - - Members of the general public rarely have a deep understanding of statistics. For instance, statistically, it is unavoidable that there will be one day in a year when the most car accidents happen. There will also be a day in the year when the least accidents happen. People, however, may focus on the day the most accidents happen and conclude it must be 'jinxed'. Probability, or chance, is also generally poorly understood. It can be calculated that if 23 people are chosen randomly, the chance that two have their birthday on the same day is about 50%. Yet this "birthday paradox" seems counterintuitive to most people. David in DC 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau on Magical Thinking

As on most subjects, it's worth consulting the wisdom of Garry Trudeau.David in DC (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Identification of examples

"Adherents of magical belief systems often do not see their beliefs as being magical." Remember to cite somebody calling the thing "magical thinking" in order to use it as an example, even if the people in question don't use that term. That should stop any proliferation of "everyone's favourite example" that I'm sure you've seen elsewhere (and also avoids original research). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of adequate definition

Is it just me, or does the introduction to this article not actually define what magical thinking is? That is, there are a great deal of examples, but these all come without an overall definition. So shouldn't in be established what magical thinking is overall before it's examined in detail by the article?(unsigned)

It does seem to plunge into detail too quick. I think it ought to say somewhere that it is the complete conviction that something is true regardless of the evidence, rather like a self-righteous delusion fuelled by narcissism. Tony Blair springs to mind. It flies off into a lot of detail about associative thinking and magic which i think is missing the point.--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also am unclear as to what exactly magical thinking is. Even after reading the whole article and discussion. For eg, which of the following statements, if any, is 'magical thinking'.

1) "When I die I will be given a chance to live my life again and I will remember my past life"

2) "If I don't do things in three's, something awful will happen"

3) "The universe is just a virtual reality experiment into the evolution of life"

4) "I can make objects move, merely by thought(telekinesis)"

Metafis (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be very important either way to have a structure, and if I may be so bold as to say that this subject defies description. On that note let us be honest about a few factualities. Firstly it is strange among mamals to have such a large brain-case as we do. The writing of hisory, even of distant and unknown stone-age events have one common denominator; the human brain. This fact may to some people pose no problem, but to say that science and religion came out of the same hat is by itself bewildering. So all things point in one direction; namely that out of religion (and magic) came science. The whole idea that science will concquer the world is two things at once; a truth with some omnious side-effects, and a holy law. This means that belief, even in science, could be considered to be a kind of religion, not so much in content as in human form. One conclusion is then that magic will always be our companion. In our time science always estblishes truth, the need for ideas that have a magic content is in vogue simply because, as Bertrand Russell pointed out; scientific truth does not help people to understand but religion does.He says all statements i life are of two kinds science and teleology (theology) - this idea, even if simply too rash, has credit because it makes philosophical distinctions clear, whether true or not true. (not registered user - Name: Jesper Andersson)

These distinctions seem important;I oppose the merge of Magical Thinking into Superstition. Magical thinking is a term used in scientific writing in child development & child psychology, and in scientific writing about obsessive-compulsive disorder. MT is different from superstition. MT can mean (1) the process of arriving at an unsubstantiated belief (typically without being able to, or knowing to, confirm with other data as a reality check) and also can mean (2) a belief developed in such a manner. Superstitions are developed from at least one prior personal experience, or learned from the advice of others. While much of the current content of Magical Thinking can be moved to Superstition, MT does need its own entry. Eeliza 22 Sept 2006 ..even though I do not agree with the conclusion.

It is notable also in the above that understanding and knowing about science are different things.

More importantly perhaps "magic" is one big issue in social anthropology, so big as to need an article - if but to mention its fuzzyness.

Magic refers both to beliefs held and to phenomena, in the word warlock an oath-breaker is implied, but magic isn't always about people in dark shrouds - a potent leader is also related to superstitious ideas about royalty in ancient as in modern society. I think magic is a fine word, even if it escapes scientific definitions - perhaps a comparative on modern ideas about magic in all parts of the globe will show what shades of meaning it may contain.

Please make a page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.157.254 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And the difference between this and religion?

I'm trying to figure out what the difference between this and (any) religion would be. Should that not be covered in the article? It seems to me that the way it is described should lead to every Christian, Pagan, Jew, whatever to be labeled as schizophrenic or at least having a personality disorder defined by "magical thinking" (which is of course a major criterion). Whether they should or not is another topic... but shouldn't the difference be covered? If there is one. Or it should be pointed out that religion falls under this (that might make it less biased against the so-called primitives). Just throwing out observations. 12.172.168.176 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. People haven't been altering this article to give the impression that any magical thinking is a sure symptom of mental illness again, have they? --Nigelj (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that pretty much everything we percieve is filtered through some level of magical thinking, even if you do not consider yourself religious or superstitious. Religion is almost certainly an aspect of magical thinking, but the term is a more broad one that would include these aspects of religion rather than being interchangeable with it. Atheists and skeptics are just as susceptible to magical thinking as a religious fundamental would be. 24.212.152.231 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Magical thinking about music

not sure if there is any supporting research on this but it seems to me that people apply magical thinking to music such as thinking world peace can be established through music, or on an individual basis that listening to music will transform your life and solve all your problems etc. --Penbat (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Magical Thinking: Focus on the child

I plan to edit this article in the future and will discuss the following: 1. An in depth discussion of magical thinking in children ages 2-7. At this age children are in a stage where they strongly believe that their thoughts can control what happens in the world. With this point I will further discussion Piaget, more specifically, the Preoperational Cognitive development stage. (Touch on Concrete Operational) 2. The element of destructive magical thinking and the relation to the development of destructive defense mechanisms and, for some children, permanent personality disorders. 3. I will then incorporate facts from an academic journal entitled Magical thinking in childhood and adolescence: Development and relation to obsessive compulsion Taybegg91 (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I plan to add to this article by clarifying the definition of magical thinking, by adding a section about children using magical thinking to help deal with grief and loss (Baink, Werner-Lin (2011)), and to add "Grief" to the "See also" section.Coveheadgirl (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good plan, but please don't put your comments between the templates on top of this page. Lova Falk talk 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lova, for your help. Coveheadgirl (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lova Falk : I'm refering to your rectification for keeping with sources. Your correction is absolutely adequate, however the user's edit is indicative of what I see as a tendancial bias in the description of the question. Magical thinking should not be presented that much as a inherent characteristic of the children's mental state, but more as that of an experimental stage. Read (http://babyparenting.about.com/od/parentingglossary/g/Magical-Thinking-In-Children.htm). It should be less forgotten that those stages are merged with playing and playing experimentation, and that an external conscience of the fact is variable following people. Askedonty (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Askedonty I am afraid I don't understand the last part that you wrote: "that an external conscience of the fact is variable following people". Could you please explain? Lova Falk talk 10:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try. In Piaget it reads (Preoperational stage) : "children cannot conserve or use logical thinking from ages 2 to 7". Age seven seems to me rather late regarding that matter so not everybody would necessarily know the same cycle; then interactions must be playing a role; besides I do remember indeed a frustration illustrated by cannot conserve but not related to a method of thinking, rather to a method of memorization. Askedonty (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You both might want to look at WP:CITE. There you will find Wikipedia guidelines for citations; the sections Repeated citations and Citation templates and tools may be particularly relevant. The new citations can be improved in both of these ways. --Nigelj (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede summary

I'm not very happy with the WP:LEDE section. First it states (as undisputed fact) a very narrow definition of the topic. I found that this was introduced in this edit. This definition only allows for the possibility that "thoughts by themselves" influence the world. This is immediately contradicted by the first example in the first section, where people rub banana plants with crocodile teeth. They don't think about doing so, they actually rub them. Secondly, the lede is meant to introduce the topic and then summarise the article. I see no summary of the main sections of the article at all.

I will rework some of the older material so that we at least have a reasonable definition of the topic, but my expertise in psychology and philosophy is insufficient to do much more at this stage. --Nigelj (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The definition I have ended up with is "Magical thinking is to find significant and meaningful relationships between actions and events, where convention says that there is none." Believe or not, but this developed out of the following sentence (which still appears later in the lede), by pruning and adjusting it over many steps: "Magical thinking is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena between acts and events." There are two points I'd like to make. (1) "Magical thinking is to find..." seems a bit strange to me too, but "Magical thinking is the finding of..." seems worse. I think it is correct grammatically and so on. (2) "...where convention says that there is none" is my own addition. I think it is important to distinguish between someone believing in something that Western scientific convention would agree with, like washing away dirt, and things like washing away sin. The problem is what words to use. "Where convention says" would confuse someone from some religious society where everybody regularly goes down to the river to wash away their sins, but "where science says" seemed worse. --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

the irrelevancy of "where scientific consensus says that "

"Magical thinking is the identification of causal relationships between actions and events, where scientific consensus says that there is none."

The phrase "where scientific consensus says that" is irrelevant to the definition. Scientific consensus, whatever value it might have, is always subject to change. Does that mean that what is "magical thinking" today becomes something else tomorrow when the consensus changes? It may be difficult in some circumstances to distinguish which relationships are truly causal and which are merely coincidence. Does that mean if we make a statement that is counter to some consensus concerning these circumstances that that statement is "magical thinking"? Perhaps it's just wrong or maybe it's even correct. The notion that health depended on the proper balance of the 4 humours was once the scientific consensus. But it was then (as it is now) magical thinking because it was based on spurious correlations. Flawed reasoning is flawed reasoning whether we recognize it or not and whether we agree or not. This phrase should be struck from the definition.75.157.135.57 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)