Talk:Magical thinking

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)

Not sure if this was ever flagged but I’m going to do so now, because it definitely has not been fixed. That entire section needs a redo to better reflect a global perspective (and more current anthropological viewpoints). Catfrost (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2024 (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)

The fact that critics of religion might use this article to refute religious beliefs isn’t really a good reason to change it IF it’s simply presenting an accepted academic viewpoint. Critics of creationism may use the wiki article on evolution to refute religious belief but that doesn’t mean the article needs to be changed to present an alternate viewpoint defending creationism.

I DO agree this article has significant WP:NPOV issues, but not necessarily for the reasons you’re suggesting. I don’t personally know what current anthropological viewpoints are/whether the idea of “magical thinking” is commonly used by anthropologists in the way suggested in the article (I’m only familiar with the second definition). While it would be fine to state what anthropological viewpoints are on this topic, this article is clearly suffering from some WP:GLOBALIZE issues considering the section on anthropology uses a lot of heavily western/colonial terminology and seems to exclusively be discussing non-western religions as examples of “magical thinking” from the perspective of US and/or European anthropologists, using what appears to be some pretty outdated sources. Catfrost (talk) 14:53, 2 August 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)

The lead is supposed to summarize the key points of the article. None of the refs used there in the lead establish that framing. The body does not expand on that framing. All it does is add academic jargon that will confuse readers. Schazjmd (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Doing an RfC, please summarise your position there Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC needs to be properly worded first. Just pasting in the current lead and saying "See the article for refs and the below arguments" isn't a useful presentation. Please see WP:RFCNEUTRAL for tips. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That is neutral? I've refrained from outlining the argument in order to not be biased, and then put my argument in a separate post. What would you change? Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ask a question or state the wording that you want editors' input on. Don't expect other editors to read through the whole talk page to figure out what the Rfc is about. (I didn't say it wasn't neutral, that's just the shortcut for that portion of the WP:RFC page. The RfC statement you put is incomplete.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it to a question. I was expecting you to summarise your points next to mine so people can read the two posts and not have to read our previous discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You might be thinking of WP:3O, a different form of dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

For the RfC, you could put it as a choice:

Should the opening sentence be:

1. Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, 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.
2. In the context of building propositional knowledge, magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, 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.

And then in your comment to it, you could put forth your argument for #2. Since I've already expressed my views on your argument, I would prefer that other editors who haven't been involved in the discussion offer their opinions. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think third opinion suits this best as there are other options that I haven't thought of and a third opinion may be able to find a compromise, and there's going to be little consensus building in an RfC because people will just say yes there should, no there shouldn't, people have quite polarising views on this I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If I was American I'd not be arguing for this tbh Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the 3O page, if that isn't productive then maybe an RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This discussion concerns the framing of the article in the first sentence of the lead; as such, the most relevant guideline is MOS:FIRST (although of course others still apply). On a most basic level, the use of the high-level term "propositional knowledge" seems to go against the need to instruct the "nonspecialist reader" in "plain English", so I would recommend working on that. Alexanderkowal, do you mind clarifying for me how the proposed addition ("In the context of building propositional knowledge") better complies with MOS:FIRST? Is it meant to clarify the article's scope—in that case, can I ask what "magical thinking" refers to outside the context of building propositional knowledge? Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, tbh I think it is probably best not to have it in the first sentence but as a clause at the end of that paragraph. MOS:FIRST doesn't seem to mention framing so maybe it's not supposed to be done. My issue is with WP:NPOV rather than the MOS. Maybe if the first paragraph linked to an article on the science vs religion debate, the only one seems to be Relationship between religion and science. Perhaps an excerpt from that article from Relationship between religion and science#Perspectives Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Framing can definitely be done within the opening paragraph—see MOS:OPEN: "[The first paragraph] should also establish the boundaries of the topic." How would linking to Relationship between religion and science#Perspectives help that, Alexanderkowal? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Magical thinking is often cited when talking about religion in efforts to portray religious belief as incorrect, and I can find sources for this. I now don't think the scope of the article should be limited or framed, but for balance there needs to be a short, concise counter-argument against the above, however I'm not sure how to lead into this. I can find a quote saying why religious belief isn't simply incorrect, or a critique of applying absolutism and the scientific method to religious belief. This seems to comply with MOS? Obviously any argument would have to be intellectually valid rather than propped up for balance. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe another paragraph after the first discussing the debate around magical thinking, magic, and religion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That needs to be part of the body before it can be summarized in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol I guess that’s one for the to do list Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything we can put in the first paragraph that alludes to this concept’s role in the science vs religion debate? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not if it isn't discussed in the body. Maybe you should focus on sourcing and writing a section about what you're seeing as a gap in the article, and then after that it can be included in the lead? Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay I’ll do that Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, @AirshipJungleman29. Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think this is going in a productive direction, so I'll unwatch this page; feel free to ping if either of you you want my opinion again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the request posted on my talk page - there are several issues with the lead which include the assumption of a dichotomy between religion and science and the extensive use of 'causality'. Given that Complexity science now deals with systems with no material causality and the concept of emergence is significant in modern theories of consiousness, this is unfortunate to the say the least. I have added to my watch list -----Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you be okay editing it? I’m not familiar with the topic at all Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Framing of the lede

Should the first two paragraphs of the lede be framed? The lede currently reads:

"Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, 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.

Examples include the idea that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them, or that objects must be causally connected if they resemble each other or have come into contact with each other in the past. Magical thinking is a type of fallacious thinking and is a common source of invalid causal inferences. Unlike the confusion of correlation with causation, magical thinking does not require the events to be correlated.

The precise definition of magical thinking may vary subtly when used by different theorists or among different fields of study. In anthropology, the posited causality is between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense.

In psychology, magical thinking is the belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it. These beliefs can cause a person to experience an irrational fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because of an assumed correlation between doing so and threatening calamities.

In psychiatry, magical thinking defines false beliefs about the capability of thoughts, actions or words to cause or prevent undesirable events. It is a commonly observed symptom in thought disorder, schizotypal personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder"

See the article for refs and the below arguments. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What question is this RfC asking? If you're asking if the introduction of the clause "in the context of building propositional knowledge," to the first sentence would be an improvement, I say it would be over-technical and unhelpful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see my argument below Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that the lede includes three definitions, the final two being framed, whilst the first is not. Note that the sources don't explicitly establish the framing and it is their nature that is used to establish the framing. The sources used in the first two paragraphs are academic sources whose purpose is to build propositional knowledge. I think either the first paragraph or the second should include:

"...in the context of building propositional knowledge"

The page linked to discusses the difference between propositional knowledge and perceptual knowledge which is very relevant here. Note that magical thinking has been used as a synonym for religious thinking, although there some differentiate between the two, and religion is considered to be doctrinal magic that has developed by academics. [16] Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with dropping the propositional if that is what people take issue with Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this article suffers tremendously from New atheist and secular fundamentalist bias and that this violates WP:NPOV. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree the lede absolutely violates WP:NPOV as it contains zero sources from academics of magic. Also why is the Bennett reference even included as it is a blog? There are a ton of academic sources that should be used instead. Likewise the skeptics' dictionary. It isn't peer reviewed, why are we citing it?

"...unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them" in the lede is inherently biased. There is academic work on this that can be cited. This could just as well be a definition of quantum entanglement. We don't know why it happens but it does. Something like "Magical thinking is the belief that apparently unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any obvious causal link between them, possibly as a result of supernatural effects." would be more neutral.

While there are sections in the article from many perspectives e.g. psychology, anthropology and philosophy, there is very little at all from scholars of magic or religion. Tambiah is there, which is great, but so are Freud and Malinowski, can you say obsolete sources? So much work has been done on this in the last 20 years that the only place for Freud and Malinowski would be a section on the history of thinking about magical thinking.

To establish NPOV this article needs, at the least, a section on the work of academics of magic and religion and needs some sources from academics of magic and religion in the lede.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you be okay editing this article? I’m really unfamiliar with the topic however I’m happy to help. I’ve got too much stuff on my to do list atm Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not have the time to add another page to those I am already actively involved in at this time. Especially one like this which is going to be, shall we say, difficult to achieve meaningful change with as most of the people who write the best stuff about magical thinking from the point of view of magic and/or religion are not going to be allowed to be cited here because they publish in places that are persona non grata here. But I can give you some names of academics who you might be able to get cited.

Graham Harvey

Lynne_Hume

Ronald_Hutton

Sabina_Magliocco

Carole_M._Cusack

Chas_S._Clifton

Good luck. I will follow this page and help as I can. Please feel free to post to my talk page if you have specific questions I might be able to help with. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What is an "academic of magic"? See WP:FRINGE. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to Kowal2701 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor you were speaking with used the term "academics of magic" and said the article is unacceptably biased without their perspective. Unless they (or you) would like to explain why "academics of magic" should be cited, their perspective is not needed because they constitute a fringe perspective. Also, you need to stop re-adding the dispute tag if you're not going to actually edit the article or take part in a discussion to make it better (that is, by pointing out specific things you believe are problematic and suggest ways to correct them). Leaving a tag up forever in the hopes that "someone will come and fix it" is not an acceptable use of the tag. The discussion here has been stale since May, you yourself have not edited the article at all, and by at least one editor's own admission, what they want to add is not permissible due to Wikipedia policy. WP Ludicer (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See Catfrost (talk · contribs) comments as well, it's not just me who has has issues with this page's neutrality. There's nothing on that page that says tags can't be used for highlighting a problem in the hope someone can fix it, in fact that's often what they're used for. Morgan Leigh (talk · contribs) has also agreed there are problems with this page. I genuinely have no idea why you're citing WP:Fringe. There are sources from the early 19th century here! Woefully outdated which sums up this article, its reinforcing of colonial narratives is abhorrent. Don't remove the tag until issues are fixed. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted the anthropology section. We should only really be using recent sources with anthropology. Personally I think 2020s and 2010s but I'm willing to pare it back to 1990s.

• (Hamerman, 2015) and (Brown, 1986) doesn't mention magical thinking
• (Evans-Prittchard, 1977), (Frazer, 1915), (Horton, 1967), are outdated
• (Glucklich, 1997) isn't talking about magical thinking here, although Internet Archive is down so I can't see whether he links "associative thinking" to "magical thinking"
• (Brown, 1997) is okay, but it is poorly summarised, and "Brown even ironically writes that he is tempted to disclaim the existence of 'magic." reads like bigotry
• sentence in the lede was uncited

I suggest if we are to have an anthropology section, we only use sources like Schweder, 2022, Greenwood, 2015 (which I can't access), Greenwood, 2009 Stevens, 2001 Cholewa, 2012 (draws comparisons to religious thinking which opens up a new avenue), and Stevens, 2023 (which again I can't access) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should we cite academics whose area of expertise is magic? Because their area of expertise is magic. All the people I mentioned above have peer reviewed work published in reputable journals and books. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Anthropology section is heavily biased to colonial/western perspective

The anthropology section of this article has serious WP:NPOV/WP:Globalize issues. It looks like someone else pointed this out back in 2018 but unfortunately it still hasn’t been fixed. Specifically this entire section seems to be written from a very western colonial perspective that speaks of what it refers to as “native religions” in very condescending and othering terms.

The other comment on this above states that it pulls primarily from very outdated sources. I’m not an expert on this subject so I can’t judge the quality of the sources or find more up-to-date ones. If someone more well-versed in anthropology could do this, that would be awesome. I have added the appropriate notice to the page to hopefully get the attention of those who can do this.

And even if this section still reflects the current consensus of western anthropologists (again, not an expert, so I don’t know but my guess is it’s fairly outdated), it’s important to specify that this is specifically one cultural viewpoint. And if anthropologists from other parts of the world have written about this subject, find some sources discussing their perspectives to improve the balance of that section. Catfrost (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Catfrost I've removed most of the sources that are outdated, and ones that aren't that don't mention "magical thinking". Kowal2701 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Medical context

Could I update this article to include the use of this term in a medical/psychiatric context? Wanted to ask first since this topic feels like it might be contentious. ViolanteMD 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@ViolanteMD Yes, the term is widely used in psychology, so long as recent sources are used I think that's welcome Kowal2701 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)