Talk:Communal reinforcement

Shouldn't this page be merged with groupthink Andries 20:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A lot of personal opinion[edit]

Ghosts
Hypnosis
Race (human classification to subspecies according to morphological features)
God
The devil
Demons
Angels
Hell
Heaven
Infalibility of the Pope
transubstantiation
reincarnation
the soul
destiny and predestination
kharma
auras
synchronicity
out-of-body experiences
psychic abilities
past-life regression
astrology and horoscopes
communicating with the dead
tarot cards
witchcraft and spells
divination
psychic mediums
augurs
virgin births
psychic surgery
faith healing
tea leaf reading
palm reading
crystal ball gazing
stigmata

Whoever put this together is apparently giving their own personal opinion, that all the bullet points above have no basis in reality. People merely keep telling each other that these things are true.

Well, the contributor might be correct, but our readers aren't interested in opinions -- unless they are attribute to specific sources. No fair saying "considered to be..." --Uncle Ed 18:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the other two links also. This is all personal opinion. This is in the nature of the definition.(UFOs,Alien abductions) mydogategodshat 05:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    I introduced the expression "communal reinforcement" for The Skeptic's Dictionary. I've added a note about this entry to my entry on this term. Here it is for your perusal:

There are no references for this entry because I coined this expression to describe a common phenomenon. I'm sure sociologists have a better term for it and I'm not sure that my use of this term is not an example of cryptomnesia. Google lists 4,380 English pages for "communal reinforcement." The Wikipedia article expands my use of the term. I had no concern for the way cultures pass on claims that are likely to be accurate, such as arithmetic or physics. And I had no concern for lumping every source of error affecting large numbers of people as being due to communal reinforcement. The Wikipedia article makes an unsubstantiated claim that Wikipedia has been "criticized as a place which can strengthen misconceptions, through communal reinforcement." Wikipedia is full of errors and misconceptions but it does not pass them all on by communal reinforcement. Also, Wikipedia has expanded my use of the term when it notes that ideas that are communally reinforced can be for the social good or bad. The way I use the term ideas become accepted because they are repeated. This is always a social evil because it encourages belief without thought, reflection, or concern for the evidence.

Skepdic 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Bob Carroll[reply]

I concur with Uncle Ed. Opinions have no place here, unless supported by references. It is fine to have an article that is weighted, where that weight represents the consensus. The problem here is that it still reads like personal opinion, not widely supported and referenced material. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baths[edit]

Are we clear that "the avoidance of bathing in Medieval Europe" is a fact, and if it is, that it is a sufficiently general fact as to warrant such a generalised statement? Or indeed, that bathing under either mediaeval European (in general) or modern global (in general) circumstances is sufficiently safe or advantageous to warrant the implication that avoidance is (in general) socially harmful?
n.b. "untrue" is a little ambiguous here.
Anihl (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the avoidance of bathing in Medieval Europe" is most definitely not a fact - and following the link in "bath" would have given counter-examples! Will rephrase, as this may have been an attempt to use the myth of non-bathing as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 05:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kudos to whoever added that explanatory paragraph on the 'theory of gravity'. Really good job! -- etcetc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.250 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with See Also[edit]

I tried to add List_of_common_misconceptions to the see also, but it appears like a broken link, even though when you click it it takes you to the article. I don't know how to fix this.--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does "community reinforcement" actually belong here?[edit]

"Community reinforcement" is not "communal reinforcement", even though the two are related. The "community reinforcement" section seems overly specific and out of place in this article. I would like to remove that section or move it into its own article. Any support / objections? --24.185.86.218 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 24.185.86.218. It would be easy for the reader to confuse Communal reinforcement with Community reinforcement, or even think they are the practically the same term. It should be moved to it’s own page. Two of the links are broken and I would like to remove them. Abmay28 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]