This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This extrapolation needs a reference. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptomnesia is also applicable in modern times. It can be found, quite easily, in the music industry. This is not to say that those who suffer from it are in any way aware or in control of this, and therefore they should not be criticized. For the sake of pure example, the modern band Jet, represents this phenomenon beautifully.
Are You Gonna Be My Girl? CD cover
Jet released the song "Are You Gonna Be My Girl," which almost identically matches the music of Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" and the lyrics slightly resemble Lenny Kravitz's "Are You Gonna Go My Way?." (It also resembles many other songs, but for the sake of summary, only these two will be mentioned.) Jet released their song on the album Get Born in 2003, Kravitz in 1993, and Iggy Pop in 1977. Some consider the similarity blatant plagiarism, or sometimes quoted as "a shameless rip-off," but those who make these accusations are unaware of the cryptomnesia phenomenon, which they have most likely encountered in their own life.
Oh please. This doesn't sound at all like cryptomnesia. Jet are part of a trend in rock music at the moment to go back to the roots of rock, alongside bands like the White Stripes, the Hives, the Strokes, etc. A stylistic choice to return to an earlier period isn't the same as unconciously mirroring the work of others.
I added a couple more examples of actual legal cases that have involved cryptomnesia. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is crap. an explanation of the etymology is NOT a definition. Please define fully what Cryptonesia is, and what kind of a theory/phenomenon/etc it is. And please take out the "explained quite expertly". If an expert's explanation is insightful and informative enough to be used here, of course it is going to be explained "quite expertly". And the rest of the article is just completely lacking in wikipedic style, structure, and sometimes grammar.
And how come the only references to Cryptomnesia I could find were on sites music and art sites and the only ones that I have found that have tried to explain it describe themselves as sources on psuedoscience, the paranormal, spirituality, etc? And do you realize how modern phychology discredits Jung? Why is there no mention of Cryptomnesia's status in the modern world? Where are the sources? Where are the citations? Why does this seem like 100% made up crap? Blueaster 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, this article needs a table of contents box. It'll flow better, also, if it's separated into subtopics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0dd1 (talk • contribs)
You can split the article into sections and add a table of contents by adding subheadings. == Subhead2 == makes a subheading, while === Subhead3 === makes a sub-subheading. Be bold and add subheadings, and MediaWiki will build your TOC. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Legal Implications" should be deleted...it is impossible to prove "cryptomesia" and the argument is not valid. Cryptomnesia is a theoretical phenomena not an excuse for plagiarism...
Then why did the court in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music establish infringement through subconscious copying, and why did Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton follow this precedent? If not in the article Cryptomnesia, then where does this information belong? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya it's very theoretical till it happens to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.81.49 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to be bold, and have made a major edit. I've added an intro which I think is more NPOV, and a section about validity that acknowledges the lack of scientific support (or disproof). Please feel free to comment on my edits here if you disagree, rather than engaging in immediate revert. --Leperflesh 00:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yea, it is an improvement, but who are the proponents mentioned? what are some names of people who back this theory up?Blueaster 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The middle, italicized section is completely POV, and impossible to justify. Therefore, in accordance with WP:Be Bold, I'm deleting that section. DrExtreme 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the Daniel Garcia referenced in the See Also section of this article? He is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and none of the disambiguations at that page seem relevant at all. I'd just delete the reference, but it seems that it would be better to be able to replace it with a link that goes somewhere relevant. --Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.140.229 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have added a new section at the beginning of the article of the psychological research on cryptomnesia. I think this improves the article considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebedupsych (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all based on a very shakey assuption that minds don't think alike.
It should be obvious that certain minds invpolved in the same focus at a similar time and with limited tools too work with such as musical notes or the laws of physics, language etc., Will inevetiably produce similar thoughts. Not plagiarised at al but invented independently at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasgwen (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's shaky, but it's the law. Don't like it? Lobby. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For another example of unconscious plagiarism, see The Trouble With Tribbles#Background. I think David Gerrold, in his book (which I read thirty-odd years ago) about the writing and production of the episode, admitted that he probably got the core idea – cute little furries that breed dangerously – from Heinlein. —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the etymology of this word, but I think it should be included in line with...well...almost any other foreign-derived word on wikipedia. If someone with knowledge of the subject could provide an etymology, that'd be great. I mean "mnesia" is probably fairly simple, but I don't know the specific meaning of the prefix "crypto." 86.27.189.195 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Alathaea[reply]
In section early use Jung is cited as the first individual to use the term Cryptomnesia. Sources are given to the Jung references in 'Early Use' and these seem orderly. How does this term relate to Nietzsche and specifically Thus Spoke Zarathustra? The last sentence in this section is incomplete. Suggest deletion. Ausphexx (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the article, this is a memory issue. You see something and get a weird kind of deja vous where you think you had that idea. Well, what about when what you believe *isn't* a memory issue? Like, this "the universe taking your idea out of you head and giving it to someone else" thing happened so often that the person started telling people his ideas, and then there was objective confirmation that he had them first, so he began writing down most of his really good ideas, and dating it, and then writing down when the idea would crop up and where, later. Is there any known name for that? 97.81.126.198 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Cryptomnesia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I can see there have been concerns in the past about this article's neutrality and POV. Coming to the article for the first time, what concerns me is potential (well, probable) violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While there are unsourced statements tagged in the sections titled Early use and Causes, and there are also entire paragraphs that are unsourced and untagged (eg, under Value), I can't help wondering if some of the early text in paragraphs that happen to end with a citation are in fact unsourced also. As an example of the latter: in Experimental research, are the first five sentences in para 2 genuinely supported by B.F. Skinner's "Intellectual self-management in old age", or is the Skinner source relevant only to the sentence where he's introduced and quoted directly?
The standout issues, though, appear under Cases. It's difficult not to view the inclusion of some of the examples there as original research, because it doesn't appear as though they're identified and recognised by authors focused on cryptomnesia per se. Instead, parts of the section read as if editors here have deemed these examples relevant to the subject of the article; the examples are essentially self-sourced, and/or their explicit relevance appears to be invented by Wikipedia. For instance, in Cases/Harrison, the opening sentence "The precedent in United States copyright law, since 1976, has been to treat alleged cryptomnesia no differently from deliberate plagiarism" is unsourced. The sources that do appear in that subsection are court reports of two historic cases – but no more than that.
The Keller subsection does warrant inclusion, because the source actually states: "The case is often cited as an example of Cryptomnesia." But the Tyler, Harrison, Stevenson and Eco examples seem to be the invention of editors of this article. Byron also, since the sole source used there doesn't mention cryptomnesia either.
There are several journal articles used as sources in sections in the first half of the page. It's these and other cryptomnesia-focused literature that should determine which cases are highlighted, surely, not our own imagination once a definition and model has been established earlier in the article. I'll tag the entire Cases section, perhaps, or each of the offending subsections – either that or remove them entirely. JG66 (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: JustinC7.
— Assignment last updated by JustinC7 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.gif){kind=small}
ᑐ 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: JustinC7.