Talk:Overview effect

External link

The external link (*Overview Effect Goes Viral, Live Science (2007)) died. I've removed it, but feel free to add it back if you can track down a new location. 71.56.32.153 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(After a ~12-year delay...) Archive links:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080830065253/http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/07/19/overview-effect-goes-viral/

https://archive.ph/FNs8y

I'll try to remember to consider for content at a later time. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Measurement

Are there any psychometric measures from these persons? A drastic change in a test such as the Big 5 could be very significant, they usually don't happen in a lifetime if not after profound experiences.

Psychedelic drug studies

Virtually every major psychedelic drug study since the 1960s recorded this same effect in the study participants who took the drugs. Surely, there must be at least one source that has noticed this connection? Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage the use of such things. They are the basis for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, and users make totemic art, and behave symbolically. This is strictly forbidden in religion. Infact civilization does not come, until "the tree" is banned. Where civilization did not follow, one has barbaric tribes, such as in The Amazon.

The Quran though does state that God created a governor of the earth, with Adam (Man). And this is ofcourse not the only religious sentiments the overview effect is stated to have. Many have become very godconscious in space, and ofcourse the disappearing of national conflicts, is also the conquering of totemism of old. So indeed the opposite, of totemic traditions. Indeed a major change, and as we explore space, and this consciousness becomes common, and indeed our science talks of a universe, and this has been a progression all through the age of enligthenment, we also approach monotheistic godconsciousness in science aswell. God is the posesssor of all forces of the heavens and the earth. Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Old thread, but recommended reading: entheogen, awe and wonder (emotion). I'm not necessarily advocating to try it, but this has nothing to do with schizophrenia, except that both may involve hallucinations and temporarily distorted perception. Psychoactive drugs, particularily psychedelics, have been part of religious practices for a long time (before organized religion). Some users indeed live personal experiences like impressions of unity (with life force, the universe, etc), or believe to be able to tap into something collective. Experiences are also typically influenced by one's background and beliefs. Sometimes this has a lasting effect on how the world is percieved, similarly to how some mystics describe their personal religious experiences. The unity, or universal-impressions indeed have something similar with the topic of this article. That said, we'd need to find reliable sources making the relation for the article to mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 23:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think there need to be some studies to detetmine if this effect is the result of hypoxia, which is known to be able to cause euphoria and cognitive alteration174.240.212.159 (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal

• Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
• hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
• JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
• REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
• http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
• SEE ALSO:
• http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com

--Gary Dee 18:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

I have removed a couple of quotes from the Accounts section. There are various reasons. 1. This is encyclopedia 2. We don't collect quotes of people who claim something, as I didn't saw whole sections about quotes connected with religious,séance claims and "experiences" . 3. Section is POV, some people claim some effect on them and it is all about. If needs one or two quotes more then enough. 79.101.141.71 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

— This topic—about a cognitive shift—is inherently subjective, and quotations properly reflect individual perceptions that are the very subject of the article! See WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for why and how subjective perceptions are properly used in this encyclopedia. Separately, WP:NPOV mainly concerns opinions about things that are objective, so that reliably sourced facts are not hidden or misrepresented—which is not the issue here at all.

— "Religious,séance claims and experiences" are obviously irrelevant hyperbole here. In contrast, the overview effect is obviously a verified psychological phenomenon and not a supernatural occurrence.

— There is no set limit of how many quotations are allowed in a given article.

— User:Drmies properly raises questions about sourcing, but those can be solved through normal research and editing. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, now I am a registered user. That presented does not seem as some argument at all. As I wrote already, one or two quotes are more then enough. Anything more is just a promotion and advocacy and more suit for some blog or specialized site. As I checked, there are a couple of institutes and organizations that heavily promote that "verified" cognitive shift reported by some astronauts, maybe for noble purposes but no matter, this is an encyclopedia and not a tool for advocacy of any kind as I understood. Spiro Fonseka (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We offer information that is published (and thus vetted, verified, given the burden of importance) by secondary sources. There is broad consensus that articles should not become quote farms, and that what secondary sources have to say on a subject is much more important than what primary sources say. With that in mind I just removed the William Shatner quote: he was a tourist and his words, reproduced too extensively, do not deserve this much prominence. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree re not WP:QUOTEFARMing and re preferring secondary sources. However, the small size of this article may make even a small number of quotes seem "prominent" even though they are far from being a "quote farm". Further, primary-source quotes convey the effect with a directness and purity that are lost in trying-to-be-objective secondary-source interpretations of a subjective cognitive shift. I'm resolving to do some research on the topic, and ponder how best to enhance this article, which does not presently capture the subjective experience that so few humans have (being a "tourist" is no disqualification). Maybe simple paraphrasing is a viable approach. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep the Shatner and Collins' quotes. Both define the topic, and two quotes is far from a "quote farm". Maybe the Shatner quote can be shortened or extended, he said much more than what's used now. Shatner's quote is important and likely unique in that he gave it during a fairly long interview just minutes after landing, so the experience was as fresh as it would be for anyone experiencing this effect unless they are right in the middle of first having the experience at the moment. I'll add the Shatner quote back until this discussion is completed (I was just made aware of it, for example, it's only a couple days old so decisions about removing a well expressed quote should await full discussion, thanks). Hopefully a video of the Shatner interview can be added to External links. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've barely started researching the topic, and initially I'm finding it a somewhat nebulous concept because it involves psychology rather than a "hard science". I'm just now starting to insert content from the Yaden et al (2016) paper (and hopefully others) as a solid substantive groundwork before re-introducing less analytical content like inspirational quotes. Initially I'm thinking that quotations should be paraphrased, including short select literal quotes that make particular points (Shatner's quote is a bit rambling). —RCraig09 (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Still some talks about quotes?! Huh. Two quotes are more than enough. The Shatner and Collins' quotes can stay plus one more is there, Astronaut Bill Anders quote into an Earthrise image description. I agree, it mostly involves psychology rather than a "hard science" so one more argument to editors are careful here. Also there is question of recentism, phenomena is relatively new, also there is one big lack of serious professional academic literature and without that many things in general can be just claims and concepts lose notability and weight. And to repeat, this is an encyclopedia not a tool for advocacy of any kind and we can't make this article look like a blog or something like that. Everything must be neutral and encyclopedic as much as possible or will be out as pov pushing or advocacy.Spiro Fonseka (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Shatner quote seems important on several levels. Because of his age the Debbie downer "death" comparison of going from light to dark has its own uniqueness in the history of spaceflight, and maybe other portions of his long statement are better and that sentence replaced by some of his other wording. It was nice watching and hearing Shatner's interview when it happened (and those watching who knew of the Overview effect probably instantly recognized the importance of what was occurring), and it would make a good External link addition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, I've retained quotes from Collins (among the earliest), Mitchell (one of the most quoted in sources since he seems to have been the most vocal), and Shatner (for the different perspective of a 'tourist' on a short flight). —RCraig09 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Which Shatner quote?

@Randy Kryn: I actually prefer Shatner's book's quotation precisely because it's not blurted out spontaneously. It's deeper in content, is uniquely different from other ooh-aah descriptions, and doesn't just duplicate the sentiments of other quotes already in this article. P.S. Any included quote would need a source. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote immediately after a flight is what makes it notable, and it should be longer because of Shatner's intensity and articulate speaking style (I've added to it, and as you can see he had a much different perspective than that quoted from the book). The book quote was written much later, and likely edited and reedited by the writer and editors. A spontaneous quote by someone right after the event, especially since it differs so much from his later writings, is unique, which is the best reason to use it. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

• The timing of a quote immediately after a flight does not "make it notable".
• Shatner's speaking and writing styles are indeed "intense" (though that's not a criterion to include), but his book is obviously much more articulate (which is a reason to attribute a quote). The long quote you've entered is positively rambling.
• His early quote, which much resembles other people's ooh-aah quotes, is not "unique". It's the book quote that is in fact unique, and less repetitious in this article.
• Some of your quote is not in the AP source. I'm worried by what you mean by "I've added to it." Rules for direct quotes are strict. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"I hope I never recover from this. I hope that I can maintain what I feel now. I don’t want to lose it...Everybody in the world needs to do this. Everybody in the world needs to see. It was unbelievable. Unbelievable." A part of what William Shatner said minutes after returning to Earth while giving a wonderful meandering description (meandering, by the way, means "long and digressing", and thank the gods of space travel that there were cameras present when Jeff Bezos let Shatner meander). It was beautiful, and then it was dark, and he was exploring the change in consciousness and the effects of the sudden brain chemistry releases resulting from experiencing the overview effect, and it was so different from what had ever been said before about the topic of this article that yes, as notable as can be. But then, reading the book excerpt that you advocate returning over the present quote (most of which has had long-term use on the page), I find an entirely different tone. They are colder words carefully selected by the author and his editors, written in a way which smooths out the immediacy of the original. For Shatner, in a televised and brilliant meandering expression of describing what was occurring in his brain in the exact moments that he was speaking, left us with a verbal masterpiece. As for what you describe as his "ooh-aah" feelings, yes, "ooh-aah", another way of describing the topic of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

• Wikipedia's inclusion policies don't include choosing what's "wonderful" or "beautiful" or "brilliant" with "immediacy" and a "masterpiece" and not-"colder". These are clearly your personal opinions and subjective, emotional preferences. They're not reasoning.
• Yes, your preferred quote, which is meandering and not completely in the AP source, is 3.5 times as long as similar quotes from astronauts. Since Shatner's book has only been released a week ago, it's obviously irrelevant that your post-flight quote has been in the article a longer time: see WP:CONTENTAGE. And ask yourself: which quote—which approach—did Shatner himself choose for his book? (You're fabricating a story that the "editor" made content decisions.)

"That’s the thing." is not articulate.

"to see the blue color go whip by" is not articulate.

"this sheet, this blanket, this comforter" is not articulate or concise.

It doesn't even make sense to "whip a sheet off you when you’re asleep".^{(examples inserted 12 Oct ~15:00)}

• This is an encyclopedia: please be as objective as you can in rationally applying inclusion criteria.
• And definitely, lose the sarcasm; it shows weakness of argumentation. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You are misreading my comments as sarcasm when none is intended and as not being objective when I most certainly am. I find the real-time quote superior in several ways. My next post is below along the left edge and presents Shatner's two contrasting and contradicting comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Compare the book descriptor that you want to use with the real-time descriptor on the page. The book descriptor misrepresents Shatner's thoughts upon landing, and make it seem as if Shatner was not happy that he took the trip and all he experienced was the horror of existence. That would be fine if it actually lined up with what was said and Shatner felt no internal celebration. But it does not. Your preferred version:

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands... It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral."

The real-time version:

"I hope I never recover from this. I hope that I can maintain what I feel now. I don’t want to lose it...Everybody in the world needs to do this. Everybody in the world needs to see. It was unbelievable. Unbelievable. I mean, the little things, the weightlessness. But to see the blue color go whip by, and now you’re staring into blackness. That’s the thing. The covering of blue is this sheet, this blanket, this comforter of blue that we have around. We think, “Oh, that’s blue sky.” And there’s something you shoot through, and all of a sudden, as though you whip a sheet off you when you’re asleep, and you’re looking into blackness, into black ugliness. And you look down. There’s the blue down there and the black up there. And there is mother and Earth and comfort. And there… Is there death? I don’t know."

The real-time version catches the joy and feeling and immediacy and process of the overview effect. That's why the longer quote better represents this topic and the state of Shatner's mindset: it is an extraordinary descriptor of the effect as it was actually occurring. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

• Underlying this discussion is the fact that the quotes constitute WP:primary sources, which are disfavored on encyclopedias. It's a stretch to include them here at all. The rest of the article reports the ooh-aah as it should do so—concisely, neutrally, objectively—encyclopedically and not dramatically.
• Yes, Shatner's two quotes differ: that's the point!!! The latter quote does not "misrepresent" Shatner's "thoughts" upon landing; it differs from his feelings upon landing: that's the point!!! That fact that they differ does not imply the earlier, spontaneous, emotional, meandering quote is better; or that the subsequent, considered, thoughtful, circumspect, less repetitive quote is worse−especially here in an encyclopedia. (I've inserted examples above to show some of the inarticulateness of Shatner's earlier quote.)
• "I hope that I can maintain what I feel now." shows how fleeting Shatner's exhilaration in fact was.
• Wikipedia's inclusion criteria don't include "catching the joy and feeling and immediacy and process". Again, these are clearly your personal opinions and subjective, emotional preferences. And "thank the gods of space travel"... These are not reasoning. They're not objective.
• Your earlier use of "meandering" was clearly not literal. It was clearly sarcastic. I don't take personal offense, but such usage bespeaks a lack of reasoning.
• If you look fairly at my numerous, rational, policy-based reasons, rather than clinging to your emotional reaction and personal preferences for drama, you'd see what is best to include in an encyclopedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Stardate 2022-10-12, supplemental. To avoid an edit war, we could return the Shatner quote to its leaner pre-Oct 11 version, and then I'll add content to the /* Lasting impact */ section describing how Shatner's tone changed over time. That way, the immediacy of the post-flight quote is preserved in a more concise, less dramatic way. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• RCraig09, you misrepresent my wording as sarcasm, thus likely do not understand what I'm saying, so a one-on-one discussion is unproductive and long posts and bullet points of the same arguments won't change either of our minds. Shatner's book was co-written with Josuha Brandon, and yes, his edited descriptors that you are campaigning for definitely differ significantly from his original and unique post-flight televised discussion. Time should not alter initial reactions, but in this case it has, and Shatner's personal grief and negativity about the experience described in the Shatner/Brandon book was not present in the original, which is now accurately quoted on the page and should of course stay. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

— I have replied to each. and. every. argument. you have posited, but you brush mine aside as "bullet points" and closed discussion with the vacuous claim, ~"you don't understand". My arguments have been based on fact and reason and Wikipedia policy. Yours are based on personal preference for drama and emotion, your personal psychological theory that Time "should" not alter initial reactions (!), and a concocted theory that a book written by "William Shatner WITH Joshua Brandon" somehow renders its content less reliable than a bloated and meandering soliloquy directed at the very man (Bezos) who granted Shatner that very experience! And, no, your complete quote is still not present in the AP source.

— I have replaced the earlier, compact quote that predates both your and my favored quotes, in order avoid an edit war. If you revert this change, it will be a violation of WP:BRD. If you want to pursue this matter further, you can take up the time of more experienced, objective editors by submitting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, though if you're honest in reviewing the foregoing "bullet points", you'll know the outcome. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've said my piece with a logical argument for using the real quote made right after the flight instead of the much later book quote that was shaped by Shatner, his co-writer Joshua Brandon, and probably by other book editors. The earlier quote is more representative of Shatner's experience. If you need a revert then I reverted to the long-term page quote used before you came in with a barrage of edits (probably good edits, I haven't checked them) and, unfortunately, seem to have gone into a good faith page ownership mode. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: They're both "real" quotes. You DO know that, right? . . . "shaped by"? "probably"? You know you have produced zero evidence that the book quote was "shaped by" "his co-writer Joshua Brandon, and probably by other book editors". You DO know that, don't you? Be honest. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, as I wasn't in the editing sessions. Would you bet the farm that the book's co-writer and the books editors didn't help shape the words? But we do know one thing, Shatner's quote minutes after his flight are his accurate and immediate feelings and thoughts. They are on tape. This to me is an obvious choice, and because this conversation goes on and on without anyone else joining in I would ask if we can stop now and let others catch up? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My 23 Oct 18:53 edit was designed to make Shatner's quote be true to the source's literal wording, and then to remove cumulative/repetitive description and omit random phrases to avoid embarrassing Shatner (and Wikipedia). I think the immediacy of the quote that you are concerned with, still carries through. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Frank White in lead

(copied from the user talk page of User talk:RCraig09 as it's of broader interest)

Thank you for your work on the Overview Effect. Your work on the page has been substantial and continuous. Thank you also for helping my understanding of language use. The word choice of "profound" is one I will give further consideration.

Re Frank White's inclusion in the beginning of the piece as well as the inclusion of the date and title of the book, I will contend that there is no element of being "spammy". White identified the Overview Effect. Similarly in other Effect's on Wikipedia (as I looked before simply writing and posting) the discoverer is frequently credited before people whose work is based on the discoverer's work. (See Butterfly Effect, Audience effect, Hundredth monkey effect et al.)

I am confused as to how White's role is buried in the piece. It would be like burying Richard Dawkins for his role in coining the term "meme". (Dawkins, the title of his book, and its year published is listed in the lead section to meme.)

Your work notwithstanding, my clumsiness notwithstanding, White's role belongs in the lead and it is appropriate stylistically and editorially. White conceived of, did the research on, published in peer-reviewed articles about, and, finally, popularized the term Overview Effect. To describe it simply as a cognitive shift "reported by some astronauts", particularly with the amount of work done by White as well as those who have built on White's work, a number of whom are listed in the article, borders on inadequate.

Again, I do genuinely appreciate your attention to the page and your contributions as it is important. Naturally, with respect to your relationship to the subject matter, I will review your feedback and repost. "My name is Mike Mongo and I'm an astronaut teacher!" (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@MikeMongo: Thanks for your explanation. I should be able to consider your comments on Monday and I plan to get back to you here. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

— @MikeMongo: I've moved our discussion here as it's of concern to the editing community.

— As you have ~150 edits, I first point you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for general guidance.

— More broadly, underlying any contribution to Wikipedia is the requirement that it closely reflects and objectively describes what is disclosed by reliable sources. We can't introduce our own editorial commentary, interpretations, or generalizations, which is why it's definitely improper to inject "profound" the lead given that at least one source says that some astronauts do not experience the effect at all and others say its intensity varies.

— For WP:VERIFICATION purposes, Wikipedia strongly prefers online links and not general references to entire books like the one you inserted in your 5 October edit.

— In this article, White is mentioned as one who coined the term, and he is used as a source in four substantive paragraphs (and more incidentally in two sentences). However, the "Alternative characterizations" section actually contradicts him. Further, others definitely noted the experience before he coined the phrase, and still others (e.g., Yaden et al) later made additional substantive contributions to the field. White did not "invent" the Overview Effect, and the three "effects" articles you list above don't reflect the degree of prominence you gave White in your 5 October post which mentions White in the topic sentence of the second paragraph of a short lead. Certainly mentioning his book in the lead per se is spam-like.

— Mechanically, the lead can only include content that is already present in the body of the article. Sometimes, the "History" section of an article can be summarized in the lead. Here, White could be included in a summary of the history, thus keeping him in context. (Remember that the subject of this article is the Effect itself—not White, who is a source and not a subject.) It's WP:UNDUE weight to subordinate the Effect itself to White with your narrative that the Effect is "Closely associated with the work of author and scientist Frank White". I hope this suggestion helps. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to outline your feedback. I will reflect upon the positions and assertions you have shared before replying. I appreciate your taking the time as such effort will result in my being a more proficient contributor. "My name is Mike Mongo and I'm an astronaut teacher!" (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)