Talk:Subconscious

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Pointless New Age Section

So I thought the new age section was to give some differing perspectives (I'm like, sure, whatever that is fine, or actually I would prefer it not being there) then it just proceeds to debunk its views with supposed scientific studies which I thought was absurd. Why don't we get the Voodoo and Scientology perspective on the subconscious as well and then just proceed to say how its all bs according to Richard Dawkins, I hope you can see the reasoning for my objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhereus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic looks like

The topic looks like it was writting by some paranoid hippie. I think it should be more neutral and mention that not only big bad antychrist coorporations use subliminal messaging.

assuming your reffering to this older revision [1], speaking of which beauty is probably the most exploited, humans are a too superficial species.

Deepest level?

It appears to me that where it is used at all in serious psychology, subconscious does not denote the "deepest level of consciousness" (which is by the way a contradiction: how can a part of consciousness be unconscious?), but the liminal layer, the fuzzy region between the conscious and unconscious mind. This article repeats a very common misunderstanding: it confounds the subconscious with the unconscious. It should rather be deleted, or completely rewritten and properly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.28.240 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe in it

i believe in the power of the sub-conscious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugandh82 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fit for deletion

Whilst I am working away at the unconscious mind article I will cast an expert eye over this one. Frankly, if it isn't improved it ought to be deleted, as it currently tastes like fairy floss, looks like fairy floss.--Ziji 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it still does...The emphasis on its incorrectness within psychodynamic theory ought to be emphasized further, because that's the closest thing to a scientific basis it possesses, as far as I'm aware (I am a doctorate-holding personality psychologist, FWIW). Alousybum (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language used

the sentence structure of this article makes it really difficult to read and maybe just a rephrasing would help.

ultimtely it should be redone or incorporated into the unconscious mind article (though I'm unclear on how significant the difference between terms 'subconscious' and the 'unconscious mind' are). Rachelepoche 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the point as well, differentiating subconscious from unconscious is like trying to separate ink color from the water it's mixed in. Frankly, something as simple as that would do here and then merge the rest of what is useful into Consciousness rather than into Unconscious mind, which has a similar ink/water problem--Ziji 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I have made major changes to this article in an effort to bring it up to Wiki standards. Here's what I've done, and why:

I removed the last two paragraphs from the introduction, the "Terminology" section, the "Application of the subconscious section", and the "Questions about the subconscious mind" section because they made factual statements without citing references. I've added a cited clause to the end of the first paragraph of the introduction and an introductory sentence to the "Modalities targeting the subconscious mind" section, which is a set of wikilinks that makes a reasonable subtopic. I revised the form of the existing external citations, and removed two terms from the "See also" since they are already in the "Modalities..." section.

This leaves the article with an introduction that is faily well-cited, the "Modalities...", "Notes", "See also" , "External links", and "Further reading" sections. The remaining article, while very short, is now factual and referenced. For these reasons, I have removed all four tags: cleanup, original research, un-cited and expert-help-requested. I considered leaving the expert tag, but decided against it because it is clear that the academic community uses the term unconscious mind, and that article is linked from this one and it is very factual and well documented.

I recommend that we no longer allow the addition of any statements made in a factual manner unless they are referenced with non-commercial citations. JD Lambert 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done and it took some careful thought and editing on your part, which will save the article from getting lost in the ink of the unconscious article. I agree with your recommendation adn removal of all the tags. --Ziji 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it no longer looks like fairy floss? :) I appreciate your comment, Ziji, I did spend a good bit of time on it, and it's the first time I've made a major revision to a Wiki article. JD Lambert 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done you! It's a bit scary the first time I know, but after a bit of good timing you sometimes even get to edit collaboratively with someone else interested in the article you've chosen 'randomly' who is looking at it at the same time. I will look forward to coinciding with your interests in that way because your work looks lean and clean.--Ziji 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting.

Holding a pendulum (doesn't matter the length or anything, could use your set of keys attached to a strap) set answers for something to movements of the pendulum (like up-down, side to side, clockwise, counter clockwise), set a movement for no answer. Ask the question and wait for the pendulum to swing for the answer by itself. For testing, you could throw a coin or dice without looking at it and try to find on which side it landed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.9.226 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very poor...

...not least because of the way various continental researchers are said to have coined or used a word which *does not exist in their own language*. What word did Janet *actually* use, and where? What did he mean by it? Where did the English translation come from? And how did Freud manage to switch from 'subconscious' to 'unconscious' -- when *neither word* exists in German? The article, in short, is intellectually illiterate; and if these absolutely elementary idiocies are not sorted out, it should be deleted. Pfistermeister (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a personal blog explaining why the term subconscious actually means nothing. While it may be true that there are various definitions associated with the word, these definitions are not necessarily arbitrary. A better article would be to define what is considered to be the "subconscious" in most common definitions, and if these definitions have a conceptual equivalent in science or psychoanalysis, then link them.

A good example of how dissmissive and personal this article is the assertion that the subconcsious isn't valid because Freud didn't believe in it. Freud was not an objective person, and most of his medical/psychological assertions have been proven to be false. If you wanted to have a credible argument against a subconscious, I think analyzing what the subconscious is defined as, and then breaking it down would have been more sufficient, though I don't think that's the intent of Wikipedia.

Finally it is strange to argue on Wikipedia that something does not exist because people who study the conscious don't accept it. The only method people have for studying consciousness is to bring about its effects outside of the mind, sight, sound, touch, speech, emotion, communication, observation, calculation etc. Should there be a "subconscious", however defined, as a part of the conscious, has that been tested? I believe there are many examples that a subconscious does exist. Zen Buddhism would be my primary. The ability to train the mind to respond instantaneously and perfectly to a dynamic situation in a way that would require a conscious thought to become a reflexive action. I think this is displayed in any form of expertise, something someone has done enough times to do it without "thinking" about it. Like driving home without even paying attention. I would call that subconscious, it was obviously a conscious act, but not overtly, these things that do not require the focus of attention yet can be performed adeptly. Whatever that is, it absolutely exists, and there probably is a "scientific" word for it, so that's the kind of information that should be on this page. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above is absolutely pitiful. It has nothing to do with the page as it now stands, and is unworthy of detailed refutation. Pfistermeister (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, are you trying to insult me for no other purpose than to insult me (which is against Wikipedia's rules), when I was agreeing with you? I will not invite an argument with you. Please do not insult me. If you actually have something to say, say it. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good laugh out of this argument. I think someone took Psych 101 and the stick *ahem* inside them made them think they understand even a bit of psychoanalysis. Freud is not God of psychology, but the subconscious has been proven with 100% certainty to not exist. Knowledge FAIL. PÆonU (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid personal attacks please, that's not helping your argument.
I myself know squat about psychology or psychoanalysis. It seems to me though that it's not as easy as just deleting this article. Currently, both the articles on Sigmund Freud and unconscious mind link here, and mention "subconscious" several times. Many of those mentions appear to be sourced to decent sources. It's quite possible that many of those uses refer to differing concepts of subconsciousness, or even use it synonymously for unconscious mind, but deletion won't help to clear this up.
And in any case, nonexistence is no reason for deletion, we have articles on lots of things that don't exist, since quite often they are still encyclopedic topics. Perpetual motion machine, for example.
Maybe asking for some opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology would help. Amalthea 12:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You actually admitted you don't know what psychoanalysis is? According to friend of mine with a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, "although I specialized in cognitive behavioral therapy, I was trained in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is overrated and can sometimes harm the patient, but there is definitely not a subconscious. The subconscious is just part of that New Age shit. However, the unconscious mind does exist." PÆonU (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Yes. I'm new to this discussion, Hi, and not connected to any of the above editors.
And you haven't addressed anything I wrote, or the reason xeno gave when he removed the PROD tag. Amalthea 17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea wrote that they "know squat" about psychoanalysis (i.e. they know little-to-nothing about it, not that they don't know what is is.) –xeno^talk 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the subconscious might exist, then yes, you don't know what psychoanalysis is. PÆonU (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word exists. –xeno^talk 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Again, you're not responding to anything xeno or I wrote. I have not voiced an opinion about whether it exists or doesn't, and my opinion wouldn't count for anything.
What I said was that it doesn't matter for the usefulness of an article about the concept. If you can't give a response to those points, I am convinced that the AfD will close against your recommendation. Amalthea 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never responded because the problem has already been solved. Freud never mentioned the subconscious. EVER. There is no argument. PÆonU (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He seems to mention it here: Subconscious#The 'Subconscious' and Psychoanalysis. –xeno^talk 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and in the AfD nomination you just wrote. Amalthea 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what he said. ""If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically -- to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness -- or qualitatively -- to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious."

You heard it straight from the horse's mouth, there is only a conscious mind and unconscious mind. PÆonU (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this article from the encyclopedia isn't going suddenly stop people using it erroneously. –xeno^talk 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but keeping it will only confuse more people. I wouldn't create an article of the ultra-super-conscious, so why would we keep an article about something just as ridiculous? PÆonU (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is commonly used. Anyhow, best to keep this at the AFD. –xeno^talk 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that someone with a very strange agenda is attempting to control what is and isn't said about this topic. The importance of the entry would seem to be established beyond doubt by the quotes from the primary and secondary Freudian literature. And the term has enough of a history and enough currency outside classical psychoanalysis to make the other sections useful: they would undoubtedly disappear if the entry was merely blended with something more psychoanalytic. The only change I would recommend would be to add some specific references to the opening paragraph. Perhaps someone has some to hand....? Pfistermeister (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda? If you're referring to me, then yes, I do have an agenda. I only want facts on an encyclopedia. This is not fact. It's hocus pocus New Age trash. PÆonU (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? Is your next target unobtainium? –xeno^talk 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtanium is a word commonly used by professionals as a joke. Subconscious is not used by professionals and is taken seriously by the uneducated. PÆonU (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then all the better we have an article on it, to educate the uneducated masses. –xeno^talk 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my time re-writing this article. You're welcome to do it if you truly believe that we should keep this page on Wikipedia. PÆonU (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some deleting and the article doesn't look that bad anymore. I'd like some help turning this page into something which will convince any idiot that uses the term that the subconscious does not exist. I'll get rid of the AfD if we can get the article going. PÆonU (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - you can't just "delete away" the fact that this term is used by new age practitioners and the like. Regardless of your personal beliefs. –xeno^talk 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's much better to disprove those retarded ideas scientifically than ignore them. Maybe we should disprove The Secret while we're at it? PÆonU (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can do it with reliable sources, be my guest. Please remember that we are a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a psychology text. –xeno^talk 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind

This article will stay on the AfD. It is beyond repair. PÆonU (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been assaulted by a nutcase

Is there anything one can do? Apart from coming back in 6 weeks when his manic phase is over, and just reverting the thing? Pfistermeister (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the recent edits seem to push a POV and misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia, please remain civil. –xeno^talk 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that these changes need to be reverted: the deletions that have been made have the result of conflating many different notions of non-conscious mentation as if 'the unconscious' was some single concept that everyone meant when they used either word. Only a scientific illiterate who was unaware of what intellectual history involves would do such a thing. It's all going to have to go back in. The way to improve an article is to find quotes and sources and add clarifying nuances -- not to just start slicing out every bit that doesn't fit a particular agenda. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information removed from the lead here should probably be sourced and given treatment in the new age section. –xeno^talk 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say more of a logical thinker than a nutcase. It's fairly obvious that the subconscious doesn't exist. Therefor, the "subconscious" in New Age literature must be another unknown part of the mind. Pfeistermeister, since you're in the process of getting your Ph.D. in Psychology, why don't you write your dissertation on the search for the subconscious? Publish it and I'll be the first to read it. Hell, I'll pay for a bound copy. PÆonU (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

So far the article's looking a lot better. All it took was an AfD to get people actually moving. This article needs to be factual, and a few days ago it was absolutely ridiculous. PÆonU (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Page

I was thinking, the majority of people that look up the subconscious are just confusing it with the unconscious. Should we create a disambiguation page containing subconscious and unconscious mind? PÆonU (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:2DAB. I added a hat. –xeno^talk 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Self-Contradiction

From the 'New Age' section of the article:

Although the consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists is that the subconscious mind does not exist, the subconscious is widely believed to exist within the New Age community.

Isn't it obvious that this is utterly incoherent in juxtaposition with the rest of the article? Earlier, the point is emphatically and repeatedly made that (1) the term 'subconscious' is non-academic, unilaterally disfavored by the psychological and psychiatric establishments and therefore meaningless in an establishment context, and (2) the general public tends to use the term 'subconscious' as a simple substitution for 'unconscious', with the unconscious mind being a construct clearly believed to exist by psychologists and psychiatrists. In light of these facts, it can't possibly be consistent and meaningful to then claim that psychologists and psychiatrists disbelieve in the concept of a 'subconscious' without considerable further qualification as to precisely what is being disbelieved. I have tried (admittedly somewhat hamfistedly) alternately to remove this sentence and add such qualification and been rebuffed by user PÆonU, who seems quite obsessed with retaining the sentence in its current, unacceptable form. Amusingly, he even states in his revert edit summary, "Experts believe in the unconscious. Although VERY powerful, the unconscious isn't as powerful as the mythical New Age subconscious," while somehow missing the point that, in the words of the article, "In everyday speech and popular writing...the term is very commonly encountered as a layman's replacement for the unconscious mind," and that the New Age crowd consists entirely of "laymen". Obviously it is probably correct to point out that psychologists and psychiatrists take a much more limited view of the unconscious mind's capabilities than do new-agers, but the opening sentence of the New Age portion of the article does not currently do that; it merely confuses the reader. This is precisely the sort of writing that prevents Wikipedia from being taken seriously, and I'd rather see this entire article deleted than this problem allowed to remain. --24.46.117.162 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has disagreed in just over a month, I'm now going to attempt to take care of the problem. I will assume, hopefully, that anyone who takes issue with my revision will discuss the matter intelligently here before reverting.--24.46.117.162 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job in rewriting this, but it would be still better if you would have references! Lova Falk talk 07:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation For Psych 101

This page could use pictures for the more "visual learner". Also more citations would be nice to know that the information being used is correct. Instead of bunched up thrown together information, it would also be helpful to make different sections with introductory's about the sections. Etarrant (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APS Wikipedia initiative

Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made a really good start by being bold, but you got reverted. On your talk page, I explained to you why. Now the discussing should start. However, instead of answering my concerns, you made new edits. It is not such a good idea to have a discussion using edit summaries, instead we should use this talk page for the discussion. Let's reach consensus before you make more edits!

I'll glue my text from Shinjodenn's talk page here, so we can have a discussion about the article here:

"Hi Shinjodenn! I am really sorry that I felt I had to revert your good faith edits to Subconscious. I could see your good efforts, but for instance, you replaced a very general statement "The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no single or precise definition" with a quote of Ayn Rand - chosing one of the many possible definitions of subconscious. Why chose a definition by this author and not definitions by other authors? It was for these kind of reasons that I reverted your edits. Please don't be discouraged though, and keep editing! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

I would like to add to this that you wrote in your edit summary: "Before we started it was unscientific." Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a scientific journal. The lead should be an introduction that is written in plain terms, so the average reader can understand it. Also, Wikipedia describes what we know about things, not theories about them. Lova Falk talk 17:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lova Falk! I think we are misunderstanding each other. I apologize, the fault is all mine. We, me and my University class, are "newbies". For example, when you said to go see the Talk page, we thought it was your user Talk page. Took us a couple of days to realize that you were referring to this page.

Lova Talk is right that it was a mistake to quote a definition by Ayn Rand - it was what one of my students entered, but should have been contextualized. It was not. Over time the multiple definitions for this concept will be added to this entry. We also like to add that, in saying that the entry was formerly "unscientific", what was intended was "false". We are aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a scientific journal and therefore should be understandable in plain terms. And we could not agree more with your final comment: "Wikipedia describes what we know about things, not theories about them." Indeed, that is the problem with this entry, it doesn't contain enough facts and rather contains too many opinions or "theories".

A couple of problems that come to mind regarding this article:

For example, the assertion at the beginning of the entry is false:

1) "The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a definition-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be avoided in academic and scientific settings."

It is used widely in academic and scientific settings. While there are several proposed definitions, there are points of agreement between definitions. If this statement can be backed up by an academic reference then I would like to know it.

We have removed this, as Wikipedia should not include false statements.

2) Another problem is the putting of the term in scare quotes. There has been removed through the article. The use of quotation marks to indicate that the term itself, subconscious, is NOT the preferred term used throughout the article is inappropriate and confusing.

3) Finally, just because Freud said that there was not a subconscious doesn't mean that he or any of the psychoanalytics are right. I have read some of the comments above on this Talk page about this and we therefore are not alone.

Please, therefore, be patient with us as we try to clean up this entry and make it actually useful to people who read it. This entry, when cleaned up should get many more hits. It is not getting it right now, because the entry has/had factual problems, it doesn't have references and therefore is not very useful.Shinjodenn (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to you! I am really relieved to read this. I was afraid I had chased you away... The fault is also mine, I should have left you a talkback message on your own page. I am happy with you cleaning up the article! I was aware of throwing out the baby with the bath water when I previously reverted. Your latest edits are absolutely fine. The entry, which in Wikipedia language is called the WP:lead (or the lede) should be like a summary of the whole article. If the text in the article has good references, a summary sentence in the lead doesn't need a reference. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I moved your signature so it is behind the text you wrote, in order to make it more clear for other editors who wrote what. Lova Falk

Thanks Lova Falk! We are working on improving the article. One of the biggest problems with this article is that there is too much space dedicated to talking about what the subconscious is not, but little to what it is (most of the psychoanalytic stuff). We'll try to improve things over time.Shinjodenn (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as System 1?

Is this the same as System 1 (or more accurately, type 1 processes), from Dual process theory? It seems like dual process theory is almost exactly the same, but newer and with added science :P. But I did an initial web search and couldn't verify that they are acknowledged to be the same. --124.148.166.173 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subconscious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726183419/http://www.csicop.org:80/specialarticles/secrets.html to http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/secrets.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical sentence

The following doesn't make sense: 'Sigmund Freud first used the term "subconscious" in 1893 and in the 1895 "Studies on Hysteria" and then denied, he argues on 1926:'

What is it supposed to be saying? Sadiemonster (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. I changed it to 'Sigmund Freud first used the term "subconscious" in 1893[4] and in the 1895 "Studies on Hysteria" and in 1926 he said:' for now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? A tricky line to tread

I've just read the article and admit that when I arrived, I was confusing "subconscious" with "unconscious", although only in thinking that Freud offered the first.

But the article still seems to be engaging in a snide dismissal of alternative psychologies, suggesting that the article is the POV of an academic or scientific contributor. Many here (in TALK) have thankfully opined that this is an Encyclopedia and not a scientific journal and lord knows I wish that were emphasized more often. In my view--and others here have supported this--there should be objective reporting of alternate views of the subconscious because of this.

But here we do run into a problem. "Alternate" psychologies exist in a misty realm unsupported by studies and citations--that is why they are called "alternate". That, in my view, doesn't make them wrong. Maslow's hierarchy of needs doesn't seem to have any supporting studies but is still quietly accepted by many practising psychologists as a useful working model, and there are many other examples. Buddhism (and other disciplines) are practised by millions and to my knowledge, don't have any supporting studies either! In fact, given the relative lack of progress of the scientific model in coming up with a workable model for the human mind, perhaps it is time that we started questioning the validity of the scientific method.

But to return to my point: article authors are pressured to offer citations and proofs for their claims and those are reassuring (I like to read them too). But the non-academic, non-scientific realms obviously lack this supporting "evidence". How then to present an NPOV in which the alternate views are fairly represented? I wish I had an answer. But I think at least that one can at least make an effort not to refer to "alternate" ideas derisively.

--70.79.64.157 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from a physicist on psychology is not credible

The section reads as follows:

Physicist Ali Alousi, for instance, criticized it as unmeasurable and questioned the likelihood that thoughts can affect anything outside the head.

It is followed by a citation, but that alone shouldn'tbe enough to have this considered credible. Regardless of this I have to wonder if a physicist's opinions should have any bearing on the topic of psychology?

Having a degree in physics makes him no more an expert in psychology than anybody else who hasn't specifically majored in it.

Also, his claim is untestable, which as a physicist, he should certainly undertand hiw important it is to be able to verify a claim experimentally.

As a hypothetical, consider if a psychologist spoke in a professional context on, let's say Quantum Chromodynamics. Even just making an untestable claim as this person did. I guarantee physicists would be extremely skeptical of claims of this sort.

Hopefully you can understand my skepticism at the credibility of this quote when considered from this point of view.

So, the question is whether to remove this and similar quotes by nonexperts, if there are others in the article. Ibrealize not all talk pages are responded to. I've seen pages over 10 years old with no response on other articles very commonly. So, if there is no response to this, I will jist remove it.

I just wanted to give the community a chance to generate a constructive conversation on the matter before doing anything. As it's a problem I see everywhere. Not just Wiki articles. People acting like experts because they have authority or credentials relating to something else.

Like Jenna Jameson as an extreme example. But evwn she has no real credentials. And a very suspicous job history for a scientist lol.

Sorey if this was a little long or rambly. But I hope the point(s) got across without scaring anyone off. VoidHalo (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]