Talk:Just-world hypothesis

message: The examples given seem to have a strong 'male vs female' kind of emphasis. Is this just the nature of the examples chosen, or does the just-world phenomenon apply primarily to this kind of situation? Either way, I think it would be nice to be more explicit in the article. -- S
:This article was at the very least inspired by the mention of the JWP in the Rape article, where unfortunately it had been placed there by an anonymous editor pushing a POV.  If you can balance out the examples, please do so, it'll improve the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Victim Blame: A Bibliography -- I found this link iffy enough as an external link to Rape, since it's less a "bibliography" and more a collection of quotes and links for those who hold a particular POV.  I have even more misgivings about making it an external link here at Just-world phenomenon, since it cites the JWP but provides absolutely no information that the article doesn't about the JWP.  Does anyone disagree and think there's a reason it should be kept? -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victim Blame: A Bibliography 

message: I look at the article, and every second sentence wants a citation. Where is this information coming from? Remember, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information... 60.224.228.166 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations! 

message: Firstly, I personally prefer hypothesis over phenomenon, for the reason that it implies the aspect of thinking that is in the pre-theory phase of the scientific method; that "jw" is as much a scientific issue as it is philosophic or psychological.
In the two years I have been going to a fairly conservative back-woods church whose pastor is a protege of Norman Vincent Peale, I have found that the parishioners' religious zeal against the various ills of the world (pure constructivism) is seemingly negated by the concept that God is fully in charge, and that things really are the way He means them to be.  I am personally classifying this phenomena as "jw," and viewing it as a cognitive issue, sort of like fear of flying.  Has anyone had similar thoughts?  
This may also go to "loss of faith" issues that affect people of Western monotheism, but not other religions that put God farther out, and hence are less "in control" such as traditional Native American faith and Buddhism.  I may pursue "jw" wrt religion on the  wv.--John Bessa (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed carefully to the pastor's core mini-sermon that "our God is a loving god" and "a parent to us all" that he recited especially deeply now that Christmas is coming.  It confirmed for me that, despite Christianity's closeness to Judaism, Christianity is fundamentally revolutionary (in the long-term scope) in that it conveys spirituality purely in terms of  emotional communication. The emotional benefits are implicit, so perhaps it is a the concept of God as a controlling, rather than permissive, parent that is creating the quandary that is frustrating the long-standing naturally moral influences of compassionate religions on society.  And perhaps there is a parallel within churches that likewise frustrates these influences internally.  These frustrations may be leading society into the  religious decline of our time, allowing a complete take-over of society by  exploitative forces. --John Bessa (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of comparing God to a father is to say that God has absolut limitless authority. Under Roman law the oldest male in a household had power of life and death over all them member of the household. So saying God is like father meat that God had that kind of power. Seano1 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of faith: yet another application of "jaw" 

message: Unless someone objects within the next few days I'm redirecting this to Victim blaming since it is better covered there. MartinDK 11:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting

message: I have known it always thus, and it isn't just me:
*Google search hits for "just world phenomena"   --  12,200
*Same for               "just world hypothesis"  -- 160,000
I think I can explain this "phenomena" in terms of  creep .
--John Bessa (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been more than a year w/o comment, so I think the "phenomena" change needs to be reverted.--John Bessa (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo hoo!  I expected long, drawn-out trench warfare; thanks for the admin work, Penbat.  --John Bessa (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Explanation: "phenomena" is plural. The word that should have been used is the singular, "phenomenon". And "just world phenomenon" has more hits than "just world hypothesis", despite two years of Wikipedia's influence. Kolbasz (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is misnamed

message: Doing a psych masters degree has brought me in touch with endless personality theory, which, from what I can tell uses theory as a vehicle for personal or cultural world-view.  In other words, you can learn about different world views by looking at assessment tools and their manuals such as comparing the five-factor personality test that is online and the six-factor commercial version that competes with it: night and day differences.  Going to the Myers and Myers-Briggs adulteration of Jungian personality typing, you get the feeling that introverted and judging link to just world views, and that the introverted and judging attempt as hard as they can to be flexible, because it is necessary for life, but cannot -- they really need the rule book to function and cannot conceive of others not needing it, and hence they are forced to control them with it.--John Bessa (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: As a world-view in psychological assessments

message: Hello, I am planning to add to this page in the next week through the WikiProject Psychology and the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I will primarily be fleshing out the theoretical information and adding more information about applications and empirical explorations of Just World beliefs. Thanks! Cheaal01 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions and Expansion 

message: This line is excellent (paraphrased): "rearrange" "cognition[s]" so that victims "of suffering" are "deserving of" it.
I believe that "just-world hypothesis" provides a perfect, if not central, example of highly-structured metacognition as a cognitive (dialectic) outcome in line with established civilized doctrine (didactic).  As it is synthetic and credits civilizations' founding philosophers for having replaced the natural, original world with a perfect synthesized world by virtue of their "virtue." Thus, the natural world is perceived as faulty, and attacks against it, including the organisms in it such as humans, are valid.  A cognitive therapist treating this would dialectically hypothesize and synthesize an alternative metacognition with which to replace the maladaptive metacognition of a necessarily "just world." Thus, the chain of synthesis continues.  --John Bessa (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  As the ultimate metacognition 

message: The article, all the research in it, describes situations in which people believe that "what is, is just". You got an electric shock? You must have deserved it. But the intro describes beliefs like "justice will happen eventually", which is very different. To believe that the world is (ultimately) fair, that good will prevail in the end etc. isn't enough to believe in the just world hypothesis - you need to argue from the fact that a thing has happened, that this thing is just, right and proper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.152 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: description and article out of line 

message: The whole article is from the viewpoint of 19th Century (early 20th Century) Western Psychology.
So, not one word is present about the DNA/instinct basis for the reaction, how the behavior originated in the EEA, and like most behaviors, why it is a good thing in a group of 200 people whom you all know personally (see the wiki article on Dunbar's Number), and not a good thing in a group of 10 million strangers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.222.54 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No modern concepts at all 

message: I added Karma, Destiny and Divine providence to the lead section. The last sentence of the first paragraph now reads:
:The fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) the existence of cosmic justice, Karma, Destiny, Divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and may also serve to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they deserve it.
Perhaps there should be a citation. I've just seen discussion of Karma here and the fact that previous editors think it's not relevant. The Karma article states "it also refers to the principle of causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual.[2] Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future suffering" which I think is relevant.
The Divine providence article describes belief in the "natural order of the universe." 
I think the lead section should more clearly state how the formal philosophy/theology of divine/cosmic retribution and divine providence leads to an ad-hoc/imformal personal fallacy of belief in vaguely defined justice. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: cf talk above:  #Karma_as_a_cognitive_bias . If you wish to use 'Karma' in this context, you need to specify the Karma that you are talking about. Outside of a loose colloquial context.  'Karma' means cause, not consequence, and likewise Karma isn't an assertion of a just world. Karma is a technical term. The use of Karma as a topic of meditation is to encourage an understanding that actions have consequences, and thereby to promote responsibility for one's actions.  Such a discussion hasn't got much to do with this article, so I have excised it.. (20040302 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section - Karma, Destiny, Divine providence, 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Just-world hypothesis. 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/20110720073030/http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Rubin_Peplau_73.pdf to http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Rubin_Peplau_73.pdf
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 09:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Just-world hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Rubin_Peplau_73.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Just-world hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Rubin_Peplau_73.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is believing in this theory always a bad thing? It seems like this article believes this theory is always wrong. The truth is that people's action have natural consequences and they have to face them. Marideth1996 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. I got the opposite impression; that this article is too favorable towards those who follow this theory. Fluous (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Marideth1996" is not an actual user. Manys (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always a bad thing? 

message: The way that JWT/H/F is used in the real world does not connect very well with the overly-academic description at the top of the article. Surely the intro can be simplified in a way that doesn't invite "clarification one-upmanship?" Manys (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro too technical 

message: I'm a bit surprised that on this page, cognitive dissonance isn't mentioned, and on that page, the just-world hypothesis isn't mentioned. Isn't there a strong relation between these two phenomena? Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive dissonance 

message: Calling BJW a fallacy appears to be based upon unproven belief that the society we live in is not a subject of social evolution that leads to its (eventual) improvement. Summarily including rationalizations based on desert into the category of "fundamental fallacies" further supports said appearance. (It also suggests that those who wrote this article may benefit from in-depth study of formal logic.)
It seems possible and likely that the above unproven belief is a result of a form of moralistic fallacy that from assertion of value "Survival of the fittest is undesirable in a civilized society" attempts to derive an alleged fact that social evolution does not result in a well-functioning society that secures for its members high chances of survival and happiness. (Please, note, that Survival of the fittest is in itself a simplistic mischaracterization of the actual evolution.)
Therefore, it appear reasonable to call "BJW fallacy" a fallacy, which may be referred to as BJW fallacy fallacy. 172.88.195.220 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article appears to reject social evolution as a driving force of (eventual) improvement