Talk:True-believer syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
[edit] NPOV issues with "Examples" section
Two of the examples listed have NPOV problems. They make implications not supported yet by available evidence or currently not provable one way or the other with current science. First, the example of crop circles is not written in an NPOV way. To me, it implies that all crop circles are hoaxes something that I believe is not yet proven. While this might be true, I believe that that possibility that aliens did indeed create some crop circles can't be completely ruled out based on lack of evidence as to how in fact they where created. Thus we need to rewrite the example to be clear that we are not talking about all crop circles but only those in which their is solid evidence of them being a hoax. Second, the example about The Heaven's Gate Cult implies that the cult leader's claim that suicide would have sent his soul to a passing comet is provenly false. While I don't believe this claim is likely true, I can't prove it to be false either. Thus the example needs to be rewritten so at imply such an unproven claim. One problem with trying to give examples of true believers syndrome within religion is that atheists would likely argue that many devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, Etc. are suffering true-believers syndrome as the atheist would hold such religious views to be irrational beliefs. --Cab88 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good points. I think the cult example will not survive since deception has never been admitted or proven, so I've removed it. Also updated the crop circle example, improve at will. AvB ÷ talk 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Crop Circles example is very weak - so weak, in fact, that it seems rather out-of-place. As Cab88 has said, it's only really relevant in this context when someone fakes a circle, makes it clear that he made it, and tells everybody how he did it. If people continue to believe in a paranormal cause for that particular crop circle, then we have a clear example of true-believer syndrome, i.e. the person continues to believe despite what Doug and Dave, for example, might show. What's particularly interesting about the crop circle phenomenon today, however, is that not many of the circles are claimed by hoaxers, and neither do hoaxers seem to be making money out of it, or boosting their public profile, as was the case with fraudulent mediums. A great deal (maybe most?) circles are now extremely complex - not just simple circles - and so it doesn't seem at all surprising that people will attribute a paranormal explanation for them. I feel this example needs to be either narrowed down a good deal for it to be useful as an indication of true-believer syndrome - or even to be removed altogether. Any thoughts? Ottershrew 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right. Feel free to remove it. Or perhaps it can still serve a purpose: as an illustration of the generic use described in the article as "belief that lacks evidence"? AvB ÷ talk 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the moment, at any rate, I've removed the Crop Circle example in its entirety, as I'm not sure exactly how it can be used properly to indicate "belief that lacks evidence". No doubt there are people who will believe that obviously fraudulent crop circles are of paranomal origin, and these are "true-believers" in the proper sense; but as the example stood in this article it portrayed all believers in a paranormal origin for any circle as "true-believers" - and is therefore not NPOV. Ottershrew 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merzul seems to have done a pretty good job of rewriting the Crop Circles example - as fas as I can see, there don't seem to be any non-NPOV issues here now. Ottershrew 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, I put it back because not all examples need to be perfectly supporting some viewpoint, we can use this example to demonstrate that it is a difficult and loaded term. --Merzul 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] What to do about the example section...
Looking at the South Park example, it seems to have the same problems as above. It seems editors will be interested in adding more and more examples here, which is of course nice, but considering that many people are sensitive on this issue, I'm thinking of maybe adding a warning to the top of the page, by the time you read this, it is probably already there :) Feel free to edit the warning or move it... --Merzul 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the warning. It suggests the point of view that certain (elite?) editors "own" this page, which of course couldn't be further from the truth. Please see Wikipedia is not censored; this doesn't mean only that WP is allowed to discus matters of sexuality, warn, and violence, but also that a limited few cannot act as gate-keepers of content on behalf of the masses. FireWeed 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is absolutely nothing elite about me or anybody else here; but what we have had here was the result of a long series of edit wars, and what seemed like WP:CONSENSUS; this of course includes your opinion too! Maybe I was stupid to act preemptively, because people might not feel so strongly about fictional examples as they did about crop circles. But if anyone of the above editors do object, you will have to provide some sources to back up this claim that this episode was about the "true believer syndrome". --Merzul 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No, I'm not saying you were stupid to act pre-emptively ( or bold ) ... just giving my opinion for the groups' consideration. I think it's a bad idea, but without knowing the context behind the crop circle edit wars ... I can see why you would feel this way ... take my opinion with a grain of salt. The eating disorder page seemed for a while like it might need special protection; somebody kept vandalizing it, ranting about fat women. ( An IP block solved the problem. ) FireWeed 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- PS - I read a fascinating article yesterday about Nigerian "419" scams - the emails we all get about the $50 m somebody wants to share with us. The article centers on an American psychologist who was conned out of $80,000 of his own money, and tricked into passing about $600,000 of fake checks. In fact the guy is serving two years in prison for what he let the scammers convince him to do. At the very end of the article, while the man realizes what has happened, and called the people who conned him "You evil bastards" he also still believes the original story is true, and something got confused along the way. I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a real life example or not - is a confession from the hoax master part of the definition - but I'll dig up the URL and post it to the talk page for consideration when I get the chance. FireWeed 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] South park example
South Park has done an episode on True-believer syndrome in which Kyle is convinced of David Blane's psychic prowess having revealed his dead grandmother's wishes for him to attend a particular Jewish school, despite mounting evidence to the contrary presented by his best friend, Stan.
For your consideration. --Merzul 14:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this was moved? Not only is the text accurate and relevant to the topic at hand, but it's a "pop-culture" example that many of today's readers are likely to be familiar with. This type of example helps "cement" an abstract concept for many readers. South Park is immensely popular, and while crude and not very serious, the precending example is Monty Python.
- In the episode, Stan follows David Blane around, goes to his house, and finds a number of books called "How to be a psychic for dummies" and so on. He presents overwhelming evidence to Kyle, who is unable to believe that Blane's performance as a psychic medium is anything but an actual command from his grandmother, from beyond the grave. This is a good example of true believer syndrome. FireWeed 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I added a link to the episode (above), see if it is the right one, I'm still not sure this is entirely accurate, but feel free to add it again and if nobody else objects, then it's good to go! --Merzul 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The new formulation is much better! Thank you! --Merzul 23:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Glad to be able to help. I had to go back and refresh my memory, but if I'd been more clear from the start, life probably would have been easier for all. I'm about to add a real-life example, or potential example, and would love feedback on whether it belongs. FireWeed 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] $150 m USD for you in Nigeria
For your consideration:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060515fa_fact
This is a bit of a long read, but a fascinating one nonetheless. We've all got the emails before: there's a fortune locked up in foreign banks, somebody needs our help rescuing it, and came to us because they've heard about our honesty and discretion. Most of us click the spam button and are done with it. This article is the story of a (very intelligent) man who fell for the trick. Ultimately, he was swindled for $80,000 (USD) of his own money, and into passing bad checks totalling more than half a million; today he's serving a two year sentance. And yet, the article ends with the man telling us he can't explain why, but he still believes in the story that fooled him.
- Is a confession by the "believed" a defining part of the true believer syndrome? This is the one aspect lacking in the New Yorker story. If a person only has to be shown that things are what any reasonable person would consider false than this is a good example, but if an actual confession is required, then this doesn't exactly cut the mustard. FireWeed 19:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- In the crop circle example, this was exactly what was demanded, at least that is my interpretation... but this example is indeed interesting, you can simply add something like this to it "In this example there is no confession, but the contrary evidence is so indisputably overwhelming that it remain a mystery how belief can be sustained." or something like that, it's actually not so much about whether some example can be included, but how it is formulated, and any example can be expressed neutrally. So I was very wrong to put the sign up there and scare you from adding new stuff. Just go ahead, we can fix them afterwards! --Merzul 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Televangelists
How about mentioning televangelists in the list of scammers as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrHaney (talk • contribs) 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
- True-believer syndrome, by Keene's definition, requires that the victim continue to believe in something despite being presented overwhelming evidence that it was fraudulently staged. Simply believing in something odd, skeezy, or snake-oily doesn't cut it... there must simply be no rational way for the beliefs in question to be true. --Aquillion 19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- "False prophecies. Numerous televangelists have issued false prophecies, for example Benny Hinn’s claim that Fidel Castro would die in the 1990s. Many other televangelists have made false prophecies of the Second Coming." (copied from Televangelist) This is a good reason for citing.SuperElephant 13:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment comments
Article could stand a few more links. Solid Start-Class article. Improvement might entail adding a separate section on the cognitive disorder aspect, and how if at all it can be addressed to be overcome. Details of how it was contributed to the success of mediums would be welcome as well, as that is just mentioned in passing. Perhaps some sort of reference if appropriate to The True Believer could be added as well. John Carter 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV section
The crop circle section seems to have both accuracy and POV problems:
-
-
-
- The creators of many crop circles have admitted they were a hoax, and many others have demonstrated how complex crop circles are created,[1][2] [3] yet many believers in crop circles continue to insist that they are made by aliens and UFOs.
-
-
Problems (my comments are in bold):
The creators of many crop circles have admitted rather, they bragged they were a hoax, and many others have demonstrated how complex crop circles are created,[1][4] [3] yet many believers in crop circles continue to insist that they are made by aliens and UFOs. this sentence is POV-pushing, because of the tone and the WP:WTAs.
Possible fix:
People have come forward claiming to have created crop circles as a hoax, we don't know if the claims are always true and others have demonstrated how complex crop circles are created,[1][5] [3]. Many people believe that some crop circles which have particular features could not have been created by humans, and must be of paranormal origin. If there is a source which says that believers in the paranormal origin of some crop circles reject the fact that some are created by people, then we can go back to the original claim. In fact, however, it is unlikely that believers think that those crop circles claimed by hoaxers are paranormal. At any rate, such a non-nuanced claim would need sources. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The words "rather they have bragged" are not present in the original text. Are you suggesting they should be added? That does not seem NPOV to me.
- "insist": yes, that is too strong. That is the only problem I see with the original text. I don't see any evidence of plural WTAs.
- "we don't know if they are always true". Now we don't. We never knwo that about any claim -- that's why they are called "claims", not "facts" or "truths". The suggested addition looks like undue emphasis.
- "Many people believe that some crop circles which have particular features could not have been created by humans, and must be of paranormal origin." The suggested addition obviously needs references for the "many people" and
the "special features"
- "in fact, it is unlikely that". Says who? The suggested addition reads like personal opinion.1Z 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The original text is supported by the references in the main crop circle article. 1Z 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry. The bolded text is comments (see below for how I think the text ought to read).
-
-
-
- The word "yet" may or may not be a WTA, but serves the function.
-
-
-
- As far as claims vs. facts, the second version is a fix, the original version says "The creators of many crop circles have admitted they were a hoax," which indicates that all circles -"they"- were hoaxes. The fixed version says "claimed."
-
-
-
- "Many people believe that some crop circles which have particular features could not have been created by humans, and must be of paranormal origin." Yes, this needs a source, but so does "yet many believers in crop circles continue to insist that they are made by aliens and UFOs."
-
-
-
- "in fact, it is unlikely that" This isn't a suggested addition, but a comment. Here is how I think the text ought to read:
-
People have come forward claiming to have created crop circles as a hoax, and others have demonstrated how complex crop circles are created,[1][6] [3]. Many people believe that some crop circles which have particular features could not have been created by humans, and must be of paranormal origin.
-
-
-
- The suggested rewrite isn't an example of TBS, as it is worded to make the refusal to believe in a hoax origin look reasonable. The problem is that if you are going to put their case, you are also going to have to put the counter case, leading to a rambling discussions of crop circles, repeating the material on the main page. It might be better to have a general note to the effect that these are only possible examples of TBS, and believers have their reasons for continuing to believe. 1Z 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, that might be the best solution. It's not that I'm a believer, it's just that this is not as obvious a case as the others. We can just take it out, or put a disclaimer. On the other hand, this is WP:OR, and the examples per policy should probably be taken out anyway, now that I think about it policy-wise. To not be OR, the cases would have had to have been mentioned specifically by sources as examples of TB syndrome. Thoughts? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] notes
Notes.
Sketics' dictionary links TBS with Carlos. [1]
419-TBS link [2]
1Z 12:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead
The following paragraph has been removed here for two reasons. I think the quotation is good, but a bit too much for the lead. However, we could keep it. The next sentence is POV (see suggested revision below).
According to James Randi, "No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary."[7] The term "true believer syndrome" is not used professionally by mainstream psychologists, psychiatrists or medical professionals and it is not recognised as a form of psychopathology or psychological impairment.
Suggested replacement:
Randi quotation if the general consensus requires it. Then:
The term "true believer syndrome" is not used professionally by mainstream psychologists, psychiatrists or medical professionals and it is not recognised as a form of psychopathology or psychological impairment.
I would also like to ask Fyslee not to edit war, as he has been doing. We can come to consensus on the talk page, and then insert material on the page, but edit warring over POV, inaccurate, or unsourced material is not appropriate. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, you have already been in trouble for your attempts to circumvent NPOV policy here.[3][4] Please take your agenda elsewhere. If you want to discuss crop circles, do it on the main article, not here, and never, never, never, remove references without very good reason to do so. Your work here is essentially a form of vandalism by weakening, deleting references, making unnecessary changes and then deleting the result because it no longer works (thanks to your changes). The article was pretty stable and functioned fine. Leave well enough alone. -- Fyslee/talk 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- If that is your attitude, we have no choice but to request outside assistance. I've tried to resolve things, but you seem intent on defending POV edits, OR, and inaccuracy. You also seem willing to edit war to keep your version of the article. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia's rules can be circumvented, only that they will take a bit longer to apply.
[edit] Rundown for dispute resolution
The dispute is over whether aspects of the article are OR, and certain aspects of the article which I consider POV. The disputants are myself and fyslee. Here are some significant diffs:
I tried to resolve the issue by removing the section to the talk page [6], but Fyslee put it back without having achieved consensus on the talk page [7]
I then noticed that most of the sources used for several of the sections did not mention True-believer syndrome (making the sections WP:OR), and so I removed the sources and put in citation requests. Please see the edit summaries for other changes, and their reasons.
Fyslee has also been edit warring over part of the summary, and refusing to use the talk page to reach consensus. Because of this post on the talk page, I decided to seek outside opinion. Fyslee also just reverted all my edits [8]- an edit in which he uses the edit summary to also accuse me for the second time of vandalism [9].
For anyone who thinks there is any substance to Fyslee's reference to my having been in trouble before, the ArbCom result came out decisively in my -our- favor. Though I did do some things wrong, my understanding of NPOV and policy was very much confirmed. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Much better to get others involved
Martin, this method (finally done by you) is a much better way to do it. By placing tags you call other editors to come and look at things. Unilaterally deleting and totally revising an article that you don't like raises suspicions based on your past track record of attacking such articles and eliminating what you don't like. That violates many policies here, even if wikilawyering is used to justify it. It's much better to do this in cooperation with multiple editors, especially including those who hold opposing POV, IOW scientific skeptics. I am not interested in policing this or any of the multiple other articles which you regularly attack, so I'll let others participate and see what they will do while I back off. Good luck. -- Fyslee/talk 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do like the article, and I agree with everything it says- except a bit about crop circles, which I think is unfair. It's just that it violates policy. And I have perfect right -and duty as an editor- to do everything I did. You, on the other hand, edit warred, violated NPOV, and were highly uncivil. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3O
Alright. I did a little research.. It seems there is at least one website which talks about this extensively, so if mostly everything in this article can be sourced using that website, we won't have to worry about original research. I suggest everything that can't be, be removed (unless there's another source that talks DIRECTLY about true-believer syndrome). However, since the term isn't that widespread, some of this potential OR should be pruned off. I could even suggest merging it to the spiritual founder's article, but that's just a suggestion. Bulldog123 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Errr..what is the website? 1Z 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a book on the subject too: [10]. The website (which I believe most of this article was written from) is here: [11]. So using these two sources should probably be enough to make a brief article (if you all agree to keep it as one). I highly suggest that the examples that can't be sourced precisely as an example of true-believer syndrome, such as (perhaps) the 419 scam, be pruned off. Using editor selected example make it feel more like an essay. Bulldog123 01:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Going ahead
Having gotten your comments, I'm going to go ahead and get rid of the stuff which I don't know is sourced. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why has this been removed?
-
- The term "true believer syndrome" is not used professionally by mainstream psychologists, psychiatrists or medical professionals and it is not recognised as a form of psychopathology or psychological impairment.
- A simple search of the medical literature shows it to be the case. - Vaughan 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- We can't say they don't use it. We can say they don't use it professionally. Fyslee, however, was edit warring this change out. In other words, the version you just quoted above is fine, but when I tried to insert it, it got reverted. Why don't you go ahead and put it back in? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
I'm putting a merge template on it, as suggested above. Discuss here. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I moved the votes here to the link above, to keep them all together (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Synth
The synthesis tag should be explained, so everyone knows what it's about. I'm assuming it's because the example doesn't mention the subject directly? Dreadstar † 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's gone- I believe Bubba has fixed things. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yeah, that's what I thought too- but don't know what to do. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Keene? :) Maybe get more opinions on it. RfC? Dreadstar † 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe just leave it as is. I'm not sure I understand the fascination with it, since it's a pretty limited-use syndrome. Maybe that's its notability...an unused non-syndrome. But then...it should be a section under Keene. I keep coming around to that. Dreadstar † 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why was it dropped as a syndrome? Mebbe that's notable...Dreadstar † 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought too- but don't know what to do. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
I think we really need an article on true-believerism. This could be merged into such an article. I mean, what is more notable than true-believerism? Don't you think we could come up with sources, if we could come up with a good title? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bring this up from the dead. Are there articles that directly discuss a relationship between true believer and True-believer syndrome or is it just the nomenclature that makes them similar? Right now the article seems to assume the relationship. Ward20 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The influence of the True-believer on Wikipedia
Much is made of the claim that Wikipedia is evidence based and has as its foundation reliance on cited reliable source material. This is of course a worthy ideal. However we live in the real world. So often in Wikipedia it is a case of a point of view winning out against citable evidence purely because of the greater numbers of "true-believers" who will stick to their viewpoint regardless of the fact that present knowledge does not support their stance. Call it compensated cognitive dissonance if you will. True-believers infest all spheres of society in science (pseudoscience, paranormal), healthcare (quackery), politics (fanaticism) and religion (I won't go there). Obviously Keene is an authority only in the stage craft of the paranormal, but little else. I have searched for other useful, citable uses of the term True-believer syndrome and have come up with fewer than a handful. This is a shame since I believe that the world sorely needs a fuller understanding of this phenomenon which has so much deleterious effect upon the state of human society and which is so well described as the True-believer syndrome. Anyway, enough of my ranting. As the perpetrator who created the category:True-believer syndrome, I concede that the term has not yet received the notability that I think it deserves and unless others can put forward some convincing support that I have failed to find, then I will remove the category in due course.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- KC I don't think anyone thinks there is anything that is wrong in what you did, and I hope that "perpetrator" was in jest. Anyway a suggestion. Surely this topic must have a name in psychology and have been studied in a more rigorous fashion with better references. Maybe that is a different way to approach a similar article or category. Ward20 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for fun, mostly: you may want to try this Google search. One gem it turns up is [12].
The ability to WP:AGF and indeed to collaborate harmoniously may depend in part on the degree to which one (1) sees and countermands the fundamental attribution error in one's own life, (2) sees it at work in other people's lives, and (3) takes all this into account when interacting with others. This may explain why so many true believers have great trouble trying to edit Wikipedia. But note that some learn to go through the motions of acceptable behavior as e.g. outlined at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing (recommended). Avb 12:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
PS See also Group attribution error which may generate additional sobering thoughts on the WP community and its processes; e.g. how "we" (supposedly established NPOV-abiding editors) tend to look at "them" (supposed pov-pushers) - and, of course, vice versa. Avb 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
