Talk:Magical thinking

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

Talk:Magical thinking

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The other comment on this above states that it pulls primarily from very outdated sources.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the current consensus of western anthropologists (again, not an expert, so I don’t know but my guess is it’s fairly outdated), it’s important to specify that this is specifically one cultural viewpoint.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)Reply

@Catfrost I've removed most of the sources that are outdated, and ones that aren't that don't mention "magical thinking".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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

"Associative thinking" redirect

At the moment, Associative thinking redirects to Magical thinking. Is it good? At the moment, Magical thinking doesn't discuss Associative thinking at all. It did in the past, but all references to "associative thinking" were removed in 2024.

I don't know if it is right that it was deleted because I'm not a specialist on psychology or anthropology, but my general gut feeling tells me that it's OK that it was deleted and that Associative thinking shouldn't redirect to Magical thinking.

It was already discussed in the past, for example:

There should probably be a whole article about associative thinking, but unfortunately, I'm not qualified to write it. I am quite sure, however, that the current redirect should be deleted. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Associative thinking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Associative thinking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 24 § Associative thinking until a consensus is reached. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

lollllll wait till you read modern physics

Any basis for physics that this is fallacious? That’s rhetorical, there’s not. Modern physics supports the idea of magical thinking, and thats not merely quasi quantum mysticism pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. But reality is subtle and few can walk that straight path without falling prey to crystal worshipping lizard people believing nonsense. None-the-less, simultaneously observable events share an eigenbasis and that’s a fact. Enjoy being driven insane trying to pluck that fact from the neat predictives of quantum theory and foolishly apply it to the muddle of human life. None-the-less physics will. ~2026-21050-70 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.