Talk:Unconscious mind

message: I've removed a number of the links from the See Also section.  Rapid Eye Movement, Slow Wave Sleep, NREM are only related to this article through vague references to sleep, and are not mentioned within the body of the article.  The unconcious mind is also not mentioned in any of the sleep articles.  I've also removed Psychology of Religion, as it's only link to this article seems to be that they both relate to Jung.  I've stuck Psychoanalysis in there to replace them as it seems more relevant.
Also, what's going on with the portal link? Most of the subjects in there seem to be vaguely related at best. Jasonisme (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that it was a mistake to remove 'Psychology of Religion' from the See Also section? It is actually directly relevant to this article, since the idea of the unconscious apparently has religious roots. See, for example, E. R. Dodds's The Greeks and the Irrational.Skoojal (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Messy Links

message: The last mentioned point about psychologists in advertisisng using subliminal messages looks completely wrong, as the relevant article shows: advertisers don't employ these because they don't work, and are controversial among the public, who often believe they do work, and would respond with outcry if such things were proven. I think what was intended was not the term "subliminal messages", but "unconscious associations", like visible sexual cues. I don't wish to change it myself because I don't know any of this for certain. 203.24.100.132 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly incorrect information 

message: I added the expert tag as some of this information is odd and seems dubious and it probably needs a rewrite with the attention of someone really familiar with the material. It's present form is really sloppy and confusing. --DanielCD 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will slowly work may way through this article. When I have a swag of time I will replace all the tags with the ActiveDiscuss tag. First job is to put the article in one of its correct Philosophy of mind categories and link it into the mindbrain portal. Controversially I have added the category of pseudoscience, since this subject can be hjacked by wild claims such as those in subliminal influence. Unconscious and subconscious being rubbery concepts, the article ought to differentiate the collective unconscious, collective memory and transpersonal elements, of which eastern and middle eastern mysticism has something to say, predating western 'discovery' by 5000 years. Some psychoanalytic interpretation is built around hidden messages of the presumed unconscious messenger. You can see the links to material already in wikipedia alongside this comment and that is currently little referred to in the article. Those inclusions are in contrast with academic cogntive science and some classical analytic dogma. The right hemisphere of the brain is generally without speech but rich in imagery. It is the source of music, poetry and an entry into meditation. Research into meditation and with split brain patients can illuminate the functioning of dominant and subordinate hemispheres and these are the hydraulics of unconscious mind. Those common distinctions in neurobiology and neuroscience are nowhere to be found in the article. They are badly needed if it is ever to get past its current and appropriate tagging. Two references currently at the bottom of the article is embarrassing--Ziji 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun with the pre-history section adding material and ample references from Vedic psychology, theatre, shakespeare and freud together with symbolic interactionism and link to language. Seems like a lot to preface the article with, but a broad and I hope NPOV informs me.--Ziji 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concluded my work; more references to contemporary cogntive psychology are required but that's enough from me.--Ziji 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert tag

message: :It worth noting that Chomsky's position vis a vis language and the unconscious is rather difficult to separate from his position regarding the Holocaust and its deniers. Chomsky has defended the thesis that in democracy there is the right to deny the Shoah, and by doing so, he places argumentation as the real in itself. It is a kind of sophistes position, which may cast very serious doubts on his linguistic theories.:
Does this paragraph about Chomsky's political opinions really belong in a section devoted to Lacan? Michael Rogers 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacan and Chomsky

message: Can the publications of followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi be considered reliable sources? I am referring to the three publications that have C. N. Alexander as first author. I am not immediately convinced that this gives a commonly accepted interpretation of the Vedas, and the terminology of a "unified field of consciousness" in the article seems very much tied to the Maharishi's pseudo-scientific foundation of his theories.  --Lambiam 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable 

message: [collection of several older contributions, put in one place by Morton Shumway—talk 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I only wish I had the time to work on it properly. --DanielCD 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Im my experience, the term "subconscious" is used in the 'cognitive' literature more often than the term "unconscious". However, psychoanalysis uses the latter term, and it is quite common to ridicule the use of "subconscious" in these contexts, which may have lead to a bias against "subconsciousness" even in other contexts. It is my impression that most of the cogno/neuro stuff is filed under "unconscious", maybe for that reason. However, the "unconscious" article (Unconscious mind) is to a good part about the use in psychoanalysis. Even more so, the "subsonscious" article is mostly written from a pseudo-/parascience perspective. This considered, the solution proposed above to me still seems the way to go. Morton Shumway—talk 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconsciousness, Unconscious mind, Subconciousness

message: The unconscious article talks about the history of the idea in psychoanalytic theory.  The subconscious article stands separate as a catch-all for the other stuff.  Bacchiad 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I only wish I had the time to work on it properly. --DanielCD 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Im my experience, the term "subconscious" is used in the 'cognitive' literature more often than the term "unconscious". However, psychoanalysis uses the latter term, and it is quite common to ridicule the use of "subconscious" in these contexts, which may have lead to a bias against "subconsciousness" even in other contexts. It is my impression that most of the cogno/neuro stuff is filed under "unconscious", maybe for that reason. However, the "unconscious" article (Unconscious mind) is to a good part about the use in psychoanalysis. Even more so, the "subsonscious" article is mostly written from a pseudo-/parascience perspective. This considered, the solution proposed above to me still seems the way to go. Morton Shumway—talk 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Unconscious/Subconscious Solution

message: Somebody should  apply some rigour in the spanish section of unconscious. 3/4 of it seem like "development of Freudian theory" more than unconscious mind. How do i get the "expert tag" that's not psychoanalytic on there? The admins working there aren't very neutral. Maybe, where can I post this to get the proper help? --201.215.75.98 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconscious (spanish) 

message: I have an interest in presenting the scientific opinion supporting the existence of unconscious processes. A great deal of this research is summarized in Drew Westen's 1999 paper "The scientific status of unconscious processes", a published version of which is cited in the article. Daniel Kahneman's Nobel-prize-winning dual systems model is a more recent formulation of the conscious and unconscious minds, and also one that is based in cognitive neuroscience.
I wish to contrast the empirical support for the unconscious with the article's "Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious." I think this contrast is under the purview of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, because it represents a cited mainstream scientific opinion. So far these edits have been reverted. I think mine is a fair point, and to erase it completely, I feel, would be academically corrupt -- removing substantial scientific evidence from the discussion. How could I contrast the science summarized in Westen with the critics' opinions, in a way that won't be quickly reverted? Nsteinberg (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "critics" referred to in the statement "Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious" are Jean-Paul Sartre, David Stannard, and Richard Webster. All of them make their case on what could be called philosophical grounds. It seems strange, to say the least, to respond to their criticisms by citing a scientific paper: how could a scientific study be an appropriate answer to a philosophical argument? Your edits made it look as though the paper refuted Sartre, Stannard, and Webster, but I just don't see how a scientific study could do that; in response to a philosophical argument against the unconscious, a philosophical answer would be required. I find it implausible that Western actually claims that his paper refutes those specific critics and their views, but I haven't read it. If Western does claim this, please quote the relevant parts of his paper. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regarding the "academically corrupt" thing, please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; your comments could be taken for an implied attack. I hope you don't mean them that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I'll try to find a more appropriate place to make my point. I hope the "academically corrupt" thing didn't come off as an attack on you, I meant it as a criticism of the article, which I felt had the risk of being one-sided.Nsteinberg (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical research for unconscious processes 

message: I feel I improved a poorly written caption by making this edit, though I do agree with User:Polisher of Cobwebs that "notion" probably wasn't the best choice of word to refer to Freud's conceptual model of the unconscious mind and its workings. However, I don't feel comfortable with ["theory" by itself] either, because of the likely confusion with scientific theory -- especially given Freud's view of his work as scientific, coupled with the somewhat common belief that Freud's theories really are scientific. So I specified "psychoanalytic theory" (and on being reverted politely  asked Polisher to discuss the question here). According to Polisher's edit summaries (during 2 reversions), this was "unnecessary" and "equivalent to 'Marx's Marxist theory'." Well, I don't think it is, and would point out that there's no repetition involved. Nowadays, not many people, I'd guess, think Marxist theory is scientific, whereas many more are under that impression for Freud's theories. Personally, I feel "conceptual model" would be a good alternative, though I haven't worked out the details of the wording in the context of the actual caption. In fact, I really didn't want to invest too much time on this. But it would be nice to find a solution which makes everyone happy, —Misty(MORN) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you are questioning whether psychoanalytic theory is scientific. It would be possible to have that debate endlessly, I suppose, but personal opinions about the non-scientific nature of psychoanalysis don't appear to me to be a good reason for using a wording such as "Freud's psychoanalytic theory." It's a redundant expression. Since Freud was a psychoanalyst, obviously his theories were psychoanalytic theories. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reasonthe phrase "Freud's psychoanalytic theory" should be considered intrinsically redundant, as say "Freud's Freudian theory" surely would be. And claims that Freud's investigative methods were genuinely scientific (as distinct from the existence of scientific support for some of his intuitions) are, at the very least, seriously disputed. However, I really don't want to waste more time and energy on this. —Misty(MORN) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption wording: what sort of theory? 

message: I am a Psychology student attending Clemson University, and I will be modifying this article.  EHD51791
:Welcome EHD51791! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unconscious mind. 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/20130425190957/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16528826.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16528826.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 03:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: added a piece of art to the lead, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the article in question. I would've reverted it, but I wanted to discuss it first.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image notable? 

message: I had proposed a Wikipedia article about subconscious psychology, emphasizing experimental psychology and neuroscience.  The Wikipedia editor, Doczilla, responded that contemporary psychologists don’t use the word “subconscious” (instead preferring unconscious) and that there is already an article about the unconscious mind.  I converted my Wikipedia sandbox to use the word “unconscious” instead of subconscious.
 
My sandbox has links to related Wikipedia articles and 300 references including:  Dehaene 2014 and 2020; Bargh 2017; Kahneman 2011; Feldman-Barrett 2020 and 2016; Lehrer 2007, 2012, 2021; Zadra and Stickgold 2021; Thaler and Sunstein 2021; Redish 2013; Gigerenzer 2007; Nordell 2021; Fodor 1983; Kurzban 2010; Levitin 2020 and 2006; The Oxford Companion to Consciousness 2009; Provine 2012; Friedmutter 2019; Ripley 2008; Beilock 2010, 2015; Flynn 2016; James 1890; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Duhigg, 2012; Klein 1998, 2003, 2013; Ericsson and Poole, 2016; Dennett, 2017; Brown, 2021; Polya, 2004; Perkins, 2001; Richtel, 2022; du Sautoy, 2019; Cole, 2016; Haupt, 2017; Hadamard, 1945; Gladwell, 2005, 2008; Epstein, 2019; Grant, 2021; Mlodinow, 2012; and Feinberg and Mallatt, 2018.
Here is the sandbox Table of Contents:
Contents
·                 1Innate fast unconscious processes; Natural heritage
o   1.1Behavioral genetic endowment, e.g., reflexes
o   1.2Interoception, including euphoria - dysphoria evaluation
o   1.3Sensory pre-processing modules, perceptual circuits, subliminal perception
o   1.4Suggestibility
o   1.5Chronometric processes
o   1.6Instincts
·                 2Learned fast unconscious processes; What an individual can build
o   2.1Contents of long-term memory: implicit and explicit
o   2.2Automaticity based on procedural implicit memory
o   2.3Intuition/recognition
o   2.4Expertise
o   2.5Social learning
o   2.6Culture
·                 3Slow unconscious processes; Beyond Blink or Thinking, Fast and Slow
o   3.1Feelings of: knowing, familiarity, preference
o   3.2Creativity and problem-solving from dreaming
o   3.3Waking insight, based on preparation of long-term memory
o   3.4Slow unconscious processes contrasted with artificial intelligence
o   3.5Cognitive inertia
·                 4Appendices
o   4.1Appendix A. Naming unconscious psychology
o   4.2Appendix B. Consciousness: complement and context of unconscious psychology
The editors suggested that I should try to reach a consensus with you.  Is that possible?  I think that more-recent literature from experimental psychology and neuroscience could broaden the view of the unconscious mind that is portrayed in the current article.  Ideally you could have access to my sandbox to help you decide; that would be fine with me.
Thank you for considering my offer. Research Psychologist (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new content 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sebas0419 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

message: — Assignment last updated by Dr.JohnStamos (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PSYC 115 General Psychology

message: I found that the accompanying image on the right side of the Freud section mentions the symbolism of the iceberg for his theory, but does not mention the source of the iceberg metaphor. I checked the sources and found that G. T. Fechner was most likely the one who first came up with the concept of the iceberg and may have had some profound influence on Freud's theory. I have modified the description of the accompanying image and added a citation (Green, Christopher D. (2019). "Where did Freud's iceberg metaphor of mind come from?". History of Psychology. 22 (4): 369–372. doi:10.1037/hop0000135_b. ISSN 1939-0610.). I will continue to look for more and better evidence of G. T. Fechner's influence on Freud's theory and share it below. TIME137TSS (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud's iceberg metaphor 

message: Citations — the wikipedia article seems to be missing citations on key-parts of the article. Without them, a lot of the article comes across as subjective. This could potentially be very dangerous, as many people know or think they know something about the unconscious mind, when it's actually still largely unknown.
Individuals with significant contributions and their details — Missing from this article are some of the citations of people who have contributed to subliminal research, and some of the people who have had a huge impact are simply titled without relevant deeds. Adding these people through citations (perhaps in the article body as well) will help those reading the article to have a fuller understanding of the history of subliminal science.
We will add citations to the lead from Radman 2017, Bargh and Morsella 2008, and [2013].
We will add Freud's iceberg diagram with a description and citation from Green 2019.
--Aaron Stafford Grant (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: More Links & More Psychologists

message: Fromm's position seems to lack a few necessary parts the way it's currently paraphrased in the article. Freud's characterization of the unconscious is based on the fact that everything in the unconscious is actively repressed and not just randomly unconscious. If Fromm criticizes Freud with the argument that "the unconscious" is a mystification because there's essentially not more to it than the fact that some cognition is not conscious, this very obviously doesn't match with the description of Freud's concept. Maybe a Fromm expert can make this a bit more plausible. Otherwise I would propose to exclude this from the "Criticisms of Freud" section and put it further above to the collection of views on the unconscious. --Jazzman (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erich Fromm criticism