Talk:Subjective validation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subjective validation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
An example would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.9.143 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GreatBrittian16.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This applies to science too[edit]
It is interesting that the paranormal is singled out. Scientism behaves like this also, dismissing things that are contra to its beliefs even when these beliefs themselves are conjecture.
Objectivity does not exist because you cannot separate your perceptions from your theories and definitions of what you are perceiving, nor from your perceptive mechanisms. Science has a confirmation bias, despite its claims of objectivity. Like someone experiencing hypnotic suggestion, collective "reality" is a group suggestion. This is even more true when those biases form a collective perception and conform to "respectible" theories. Stick all of these people together in an institution with themed journals and a like minded community in other locales and the self-reinforcement continues. Fear for your career if you challenge sacred cow beliefs.121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Scientific methods, thinking and objectivity "test" "reality" in accordance with scientific methods, first principles, and objectivity myths creating a systemic bias.
Synchroncity[edit]
Personally, I can't quite make out the difference between subjective validation and synchronicity. At the very least, the two articles should be linked, but until I've been convinced otherwise, I am of the opinion that they should be merged. 188.114.162.108 (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Forer effect?[edit]
See Talk:Forer_effect#Something.27s_wrong... MartinPoulter (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Examples[edit]
I would like to be able to add a section on here about examples of this effect. I have also created a sandbox for this section if anyone is interested. GreatBrittian16 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Images and Sources[edit]
I feel like this article needs a picture or two attached to it. It would also strongly benefit from some more scholarly sources. Calebpwn (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)