Talk:Subconscious

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointless New Age Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deepest level? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I believe in it 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fit for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language used 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Major revision

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something interesting. 

message: This article will stay on the AfD. It is beyond repair. PÆonU (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Mind 

message: 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)
replies: text: While I agree that the recent edits seem to push a POV and misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia, please remain civil. –xenotalk 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The information removed from the lead here should probably be sourced and given treatment in the new age section. –xenotalk 20:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page has been assaulted by a nutcase 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great Job 

message: 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)
replies: text: See WP:2DAB. I added a hat. –xenotalk 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bizarre Self-Contradiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evaluation For Psych 101 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Same as System 1? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Subconscious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV? A tricky line to tread 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A quote from a physicist on psychology is not credible