Talk:Magical thinking

Piaget

" "egocentric," believing that what they feel and experience is the same as everyone else's feelings and experiences." - I am not disputing that he stated this, but believing in universality of experience is in a sense the opposite of ego-centric, it is rather being unaware that ego is an ego (That I am a me). When we use "egocentric" about adults we mean persons who are aware that other people have distinct inner lives, but who dismiss these others as unimportant or irrelevant. By contrast "believing that what they feel and experience is the same as everyone else's feelings and experiences." is quite a different thing.137.205.101.81 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Outdates sources feed the racism

It's telling that the "anthropology" section is primarily citing early 20th century research. I see I'm not the only one to point out the obvious racism of cited works, too. ("The Savage Mind"? Yikes) That doesn't reflect current anthropological attitudes or research in any meaningful way and should at least be flagged until it's fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawthornePaws (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See also

I cut down the ridiculously huge See Also section from 25 (!) items to 7. I tried to do this systematically, e.g., removing most of the specific cognitive biases, since we have the Cognitive bias article linked, removing “list of superstitions” articles, removing “therapy that cures” magical thinking and several mental illness articles (since we don’t say magical thinking is generally a sign of mental illness), etc. I have no attachment to the 7 I left, and so more could be removed, some could be swapped out, etc., but 25 is beyond excessive, especially when a number of them were only very tangentially related to the topic. ThanksForHelping (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible POV issue?

This seems to be biased on the assumption that thoughts can't affect reality in this way. Isn't this biased, in the same way that it would be biased for an article to definitively state that God doesn't exist? Sparkette (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to make a specific edit to the article, you can ask about it here. Be sure to back it up with reliable secondary sources! OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, I’m going to add a bit of framing Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note the necessity of reliable secondary sources before adding anything major. Otherwise feel free to frame things a bit differently. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that addition okay? Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the talk page discussion after I'd already reverted the edit. It wasn't okay because none of the sources cited in that paragraph supported the new framing that you gave the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s okay I’ll look at the sources properly Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just read through the article and I'm not seeing a POV issue. The editors who've worked on it seemed to have been very even-handed. It doesn't say is the mistaken belief or is the incorrect belief...just that it's a belief. Then how anthropologists view it, and psychologists, and so forth. @Sparkette, what significant viewpoints do you think aren't included? Schazjmd (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it heavily implies that belief is incorrect and makes the mistake of applying logic where it is not commonly used, such as in metaphysics or cosmology, in an effort to characterise religion as irrational. For an individual, religious beliefs can be rational in that they improve their well-being or attitude towards others. This article currently adheres to the belief that the goal of life or human existence is to build knowledge or understanding of our world, which is a perfectly reasonable belief, but it is given undue weight. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be more productive if you or Sparkette (or other editors of the view that significant views are not reflected in the article) provided sources and suggested content that you think would address the issue. Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See Superstition#Superstition and psychology

Survey of sources on Google Scholar's first two pages when searching religious beliefs and well-being:

• Improves performance, implies improvement in well-being [1]
• Positive correlation between religious beliefs and well-being [2] [3] [4] [5] (previous states "There is a well-known association between religion and happiness") [6] [7] [8]
• Finds little correlation between religious belief and well-being but states this question has hardly been examined [9]
• Finds negative correlation between religion and well-being [10]

Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't tell me what you think needs to change in this article about "magical thinking". Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'd be satisfied with a clause saying "religious beliefs have been linked to increased well-being" in the second paragraph. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And improves performance which I can find more sources for Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Magical thinking isn't a synonym for religious beliefs. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Magical thinking refers to the thought process that produces superstitious or religious beliefs [11]

• [12] Discusses magic and religion and the contradictions in differentiation
• [13] mentions magical thinking and uses religion and magic synonymously
• [14] states magic is early or primitive religion

Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

[15] pgs 52-53 discusses strong similarities between religious and magical thinking, but also differentiates them later by stating religion is coherent magic Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Cholewa-Gilski paper starts out saying: Magical thinking and religious thinking are two qualitatively different processes which one can attempt to typologise. Distinguishing between magical thinking and religious thinking is important from a cognitive standpoint, since it allows to shed some light on all reality experienced, because our way of thinking constitutes the basis for our interpretation of the world. And the whole rest of the paper is about how to differentiate magical thinking and religious thinking.

I'm not arguing that there is no overlap. I'm saying that this is a faulty argument, and a form of WP:SYNTH:

• Some forms of magical thinking are some religious beliefs;
• Some religious beliefs have been linked to increased well-being;
• Therefore magical thinking is linked to increased well-being.

Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There is disagreement in academia, however there’s agreement on strong overlap between magic and religion. My impression is that religious thinking is about multiple instances of magic and is doctrinal whilst magic refers to the singular and is not doctrinal. I agree it is WP:Synth in this case however WP:Common sense also applies. Magical thinking is often used by new atheists such as Richard Dawkins to refute religious beliefs, and this will be where a significant number of readers will have heard of it Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The first definition serves as a critique of religious thinking/belief, and a well-cited positive is necessary to maintain NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think the three sources supported my edit, two are academic sources whose function is to build propositional knowledge. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The three refs cited:

1. Logically Fallacious: no mention of "knowledge", much less "propositional knowledge".
2. The Skeptic's Dictionary: no mention of "knowledge", much less "propositional knowledge".
3. Critical Thinking in Psychology: has two paragraphs on magical thinking. Neither support In the context of building propositional knowledge.

You wikilink to Knowledge, which says Knowledge of facts, also called propositional knowledge, is often characterized as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. I don't see how that clarifies the lead for readers. Nor does it appear to accurately reflect the body of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The lede includes three definitions, with the final two being contextualised. The first one isn't, it is the nature of the sources that I think supported my edit not their content, idk what wikipedia's policy on that is Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the knowledge article does well to differentiate between propositional knowledge and perceptual/subjective knowledge in its lede, which is very relevant to this Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd can you please respond to these points then Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You think refs #2 and #3 support limiting the this article to a context of "building propositional knowledge". I don't agree that the refs or the body of the article support that limitation or that framing in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not limiting the whole article, just framing the first paragraph. How about:

”Magical or superstitious thinking, in the context of building propositional knowledge, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.”

Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)