Talk:Self-fulfilling prophecy/Archives/2012

Moore's Law

why is Moore's law and the semiconductor industry mentioned here? Goodralph 23:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read the articles, and you'll know.

but nothing to back it up? Goodralph 10:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? What exactly you don't like? Mikkalai 15:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see that Moore's Law is described as a self-fulfilling prophecy in its own article, but I think it is a very poor example. Moore's Law is more an empirical regularity which, for reasons not quite understood, has predicted fairly well over time. To claim that expectations about progress have a significant causal effect on rates of progress is just an unfounded claim, and I think a fairly implausible one in this context (where the push of competition and the nature of technological progress are the real limits). I think the assertion should be deleted from both articles. BrendanH 13:03, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Brendan. The claim that Moore's law is a sfp is unproven, and probably unprovable.Leotohill 03:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with brendan. The law itself was a prediction and nothing more, that companies chose to use that prediction as a benchmark to try and strive towards is a seperate issue. What further invalidates it as a self-fulfilling prophecy is the fact that it has not exactly come true. There have been times when manufacturers have fallen short and others where they have been ahead. It cannot be a prophecy when the results of this prediction can change over time and thus while it may be true today, if tomorrow we reach the physical limit and can no longer keep up it will "suddenly" go from being fulfilled to being invalidated. Certainly not a feature exhibited by self-fulfilling prophecies to switch back and forth like that. Enigmatical 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Imagine if engineers at firm x reached the goal early. Under this scenario, they would clap themselves on their backs and then rest on their laurels for a while, not attempting to beat the prediction. A laughable idea, isn't it? Leotohill 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Moore's Law article is referring to the fact that while the law was initially an observation and prediction, companies began to believe that if they did not reach Moore's prediction, that their competitor's inevitably would. Therefore, this push to outdo a (sometimes imagined) competitor made the technology a reality. Of course there are other factors, but because the industry began to use Moore's prediction as a goal, the goal fulfilled the prediction. Brain seltzer 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

dude, the fact the prediction was made has nothing to do with the competitive incentive that actually caused development. a self fulfilling prophecy makes itself come true...this certainly did not. Suppose he said it was in 24 months instead; he's simply be incorrect and you cant say the chip companies would assume that's the actual rate of growing feasibility - this is based on their R&D and testing. I seriously think this isnt even a valid example, much less a poor one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.111.12 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars - Episode III

Anakin's reason to flip to the dark side as an example of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Social Stereotypes

There are multiple problems with the "Social stereotypes" setting; first, it overly simplifies a complex issue.

Second, it is not sourced, and is illegal in Wikipedia (see: No Original Research).

I am removing it as per Wikipedia policy. If you can source it, please feel free to put it back.Enviroknot 05:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting examples...

But are you sure that in almost 2,500 years of history of the arts there are no more examples than these two?!? Kreachure 28 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

There most definitly are other examples. Unfortunately, I am neither an artist nor a historian. If you know of other examples, you are welcomed (in fact, encouraged) to add them. Richy 28 June 2005

Spoiler alert

I believe the Literature and Arts section warrants a Spoiler alert. If everyone agrees, could someone please make the modification? I do not have enough knowledge of MediaWiki to do so. Also, I do not check the discussion pages frequently enough. 14:10, 01 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be spoilers. I mean, this is a psychology article, having movie spoilers seems strange to me... but maybe that's just me. Anyway, of the current three items in that section, the story of Oedipus is a few millenia late for spoilers, and the SW3 plot is too general to spoil anything. So I'm guessing you're referring to the Harry Potter part. I don't know anything about Harry Potter, but I'll try to edit it to make it less "spoileric". -- Ritchy

A more serious problem is the use of the Oedipus Myth as an example of SFP in the first place. In fact, this is such a serious problem, I am still rubbing my eyes: I cannot imagine why anyone would think that the Myth, either in its original form or in the Sophocles play, is an SFP! To give one simple example of how it is not, consider the killing of Laius at the crossroads. King Laius did nothing unusual nor irresponsible in expecting Oedipus to get out of his way, that was the standard prerogative of kings in those days. The fault for his killing lied entirely in Oedipus himself, as Oedipus later admitted (in the play). Yet without that killing, there would have been no fulfilment of the prophesy.

The point made by both the myth and the play is really quite the opposite of an SFP: it was that no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape fate. THAT is what is consistent with "the Hellenic worldview" (really, Ancient Greek, not Hellenic). If you want to look in Ancient Culture for the idea of SFP, look elsewhere, such as the Orators or even Plato. But it is NOT in Oedipus Rex. 64.134.229.193 (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding which prophecy is being discussed (understandable -- the text is ambiguously written). The SFP in question is the one given to Oedipus, not Laius. If Oedipus doesn't hear that prophecy, he doesn't leave Corinth, and he never kills his father and marries his mother. The concepts of fate and prophecy, btw, are two halves of the same coin. One's fate is always inexorable, and prophecies in myth only exist to come true. Ifnkovhg (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Troy

I removed the following text:

The same is true about the fall of Troy: by abandoning his son Paris (who, according to a prophecy would cause Troy to fall), king Priam eventually led to the destruction of the city.

It's simply not true. While it's true that a prophecy was made that Paris would cause Troy's downfall, Priam didn't abandon him. He sent him to be cared for by some servants in another city, hoping to keep him away from problems. Later, Paris was asked to arbitrate a conflict between three goddesses, and was rewarded for his work with Helen; but when he claimed his reward and kidnapped Helen, he caused the war. I don't see how that sequence of events was initiated by, or in any way related to, Priam sending Paris away. The Paris/Troy case is simply a prophecy that was fulfilled; it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Example

I remember a game where there was an example but I can't seem to remember the name. It has the main charecter meet his future self and is given several items and has a conversation with the future self. Shortly after that, the main charecter meets his former self and must say exactly the same things the future self said and give the items he received earler in exactly the same order. Otherwise the game would not allow the player to advance due to a screwed up timeline. Please help. Typer525 ^Contact 02:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in Escape from Monkey Island. And it's not an example of self-fulfilling prophecy, as there's no prophecy involved. It's an example of time-travel and avoiding a paradox. -- Ritchy 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find this curious coming from you. If it isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy because its an example of time-travel and avoiding a paradox, then how is Minority Report any different? Is this not someone looking at their future self committing a crime and thus being in the place where it happens? Is that not a paradox in that had they not seen themselves do it then they wouldn't have gone there in the first place? Enigmatical 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychology

I am a little perplexed as to how a self-fulfilling prophecy can be categorized as positive feedback. The phrase itself does not automatically indicate a positive result, and in fact many self-fulfilling prophecies occur as a result of somenoe doubting themselves and thus causing their own downfall as a result of this doubt. Indeed the examples given in the beginning of this article are both clear examples of negative feedback. I think this needs to be changed. Enigmatical 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "positive" here is not used in the sense of "beneficial"; it is used in the sense of the mathematical sign. See the actual article on positive feedback. --69.151.249.240 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Minority Report is a Paradox NOT a SFP

Minority Report is another clear example of being a Time Paradox and NOT an SFP189.153.88.202 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC). The fact is that the event happened, which means there is no prophecy to be fulfilled. It is instead a struggle to try and stop the future from happening. People need to understand that a self-fulfilling prophecy starts with someone believing something is going to happen and then being the actual architect of it happening becuase of that belief. The key word is SELF. Enigmatical 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, neither is the reference to the matrix, as Neo himself didn't start the prophecy. Neither is Guild Wars, that is a true prophecy again, and neither is the Red Dwarf one. How exactly does saying the canaries are going to die cause them to die? How is it self-fulfilled? Enigmatical 22:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is potentially a way in which the Matrix can be one... but its a little fuzzy. Neo was told that he was the one (yet he didn't beileve it). If the belief he has in himself that he is the one was what actually made it possible for him to become the one... then it is an sfp. The reason I say its fuzzy is because throughout the whole thing he constantly doubted he was, though the fact that morpheous and trinity did may be enough to make it self-fulfilling on morpheous' part. Enigmatical 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, the "self" in self-fulfilling prophecy means the prophecy fulfills itself, not that someone makes a prophecy and fulfills it themselves. It doesn't matter who makes the prophecy. And the prophecy can fulfill itself either because people believe it, or in spite of people trying to stop it. In fact, belief is irrelevant: you might disregard the prophecy, and still end up fulfilling it. All that's required is that you alter your behaviour. That's the matrix example: Neo didn't believe he was going to break the vase, and certainly wasn't out to prove the Oracle's vase prediction right or wrong. But hearing the Oracle's prophecy made him react in a way that he wouldn't have done otherwise, and that led to him breaking the vase. Hence, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We may need to get some clarification here, as all prophecies that have come true should automatically be considered "self-fulfilling" by your definition. Enigmatical 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all prophecies that come true qualify, obviously. To be self-fulfilling, a prophecy has not just to be fulfilled, but to fulfill itself. Basically: (A) a prophecy is made (B) people modify their actions because of the prophecy (C) the modified actions people take lead to the prophecy being fulfilled. In the Matrix example, this chain of events is clearly illustrated. But say I was to prophecise here today that we'll have a nuclear war in the next 50 years, and we do have such a war on time, that's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, as step B is missing. No one altered their actions because of my prophecy. -- Ritchy 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The only way peoples actions are NOT modified is if they actually dont hear the prophecy (in which case, is it a prophecy at all if nobody hears it?). Heisenburg's uncertainty principle dictates that the act of hearing it automatically means your actions are modified. Using your example, Nostrodamous prophecised about WW3 and almost everybody knows about it. Does that mean if we have one then it was a self-fulfilling prophecy? I think you have the term completely mixed up. The purpose of an sfp is something that brings about its own conclusion for the very reason it started it in the first place. A good example would be a person paranoid about their partner leaving them... they become so engrossed in this "prophecy" that it is the reason why their partner leaves. The prophecy and the action are one in the same. In this case we are not talking about true prophecies because the very definition of a phophecy (if it is indeed valid) is that it must come true regardless of whether anyone takes actions or not. Thus sfp when the prophecy is a true prophecy is an oxymoron. Enigmatical 01:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Heisenburg's uncertainty principle doesn't dictate anything relevant here. It's a quantum physics theory. It dictates things at the quantum level, and has nothing to do with human behaviour. Next, hearing the prophecy does not necessarily mean you'll change your behaviour. You might choose to ignore the prophecy. Your example of Nostradamus' WW3 prophecies are a perfect example of this. Everyone knows about the prophecies, but no one takes them seriously, and no one changes their behaviour because of them. Thus, whether they are fulfilled or not, they are never self-fulfilled. Finally, I'm sorry to say, you are quite mistaken on the meaning of the word prophecy. It is a prediction of the future, and like any prediction, it can be true or false. In a sense, things like weather forecasts and stock market predictions are kinds of prophecies, but traditionally we associate a prophecy to a prophet who got it through mystical powers, rather than an analyst who got it through scientific extrapolations. At any rate, my point is that prophecies don't necessarily come true.

Take the Oedipus scenario. The prophecy was made that Oedipus would kill his father and mary his mother. Four things could have happened next: (1) Oedipus' parents ignore the prophecy, and raise him like they would have otherwise. Oedipus kills his parents. (2) Oedipus' parents ignore the prophecy, and raise him like they would have otherwise. Everyone lives happily ever after. (3) Oedipus' parents belive the prophecy and take steps to avoid it, and succeed. Everyone lives happily ever after. (4) Oedipus' parents belive the prophecy and take steps to avoid it, and fail. Oedipus kills his parents. In scenario 1, the prophecy is just a prophecy that came true. In scenario 2, it's a prophecy that was wrong. In scenario 3, the prophecy might have been right, but it was averted by the actions of the people involved. And in scenario 4, which is the actual legend, the prophecy came true because of Oedipus' parents' attempts to prevent it. That one is a self-fulfilling prophecy. -- Ritchy 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse prophecy with prediction. A prediction (ie weather forcast) is based on a series of inputs and through the use of knowledge about patterns and behaviours. A prophecy while predicting the future is classically not concerned with any sort of fact or system at all. This is the whole basis for a "self-fulfilling prophecy", its a statement made without any basis in fact, information or patterns yet comes true because it was given credence by the prophecy giver. Have a read of the links below on the Pygmillion Effect, I think you will find out the whole point of a sfp. Enigmatical 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A prophecy is a prediction of the future. And it does often rely on a kind of system - though not a scientific or reliable one. Things like the entrails of animals, whether chicken eat their grains or not, the smoke of offerings burned for the gods, have all been used at one time or another to make prophecies.

This is why I think we need clarification. I dont believe that an sfp is even talking about true prophecies, at least not in any classical sense. If I say "its going to rain tomorrow", I am not making some ominous portent of the future, but just making a statement. The point of an sfp is just that... someone makes something become true because they change their actions based on their belief of something that is going to happen... not precognitions, not true prophecies... its a psychological phenomenon called the pygmillion effect... thats all!Enigmatical 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Next, you say that a SFP comes true "because it was given credence by the prophecy giver". That's not a necessary condition, and one of the pages you yourself linked to proves the point. Check the Robert Rosenthal Research on elementary-class children. Rosenthal made a prediction ("these kinds will do better"), the teacher modified his methods and as a result, these kids did do better. In this case, Rosenthal, the prophecy giver, didn't believe his prophecy, and did not take an active role in realising it. It's the teacher who believed the prophecy and modified his teaching method in a way that caused it to be realised.

He did take an active role, he purposely manipulated the teacher indicating there was a special subset of children. If he didn't believe his own prophecy he wouldn't have even bothered to make the experiment in the first place. The SFP has nothing at all to do with Rosenthal!!!! Its the teacher who believed that some children were smarter and as a result of treating them different to the rest actually ended up with a better score as a result. THAT is the sfp! Enigmatical 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, a SFP does not require that the prophecy-giver modifies his behaviour or does anything to realise the prophecy. Just that someone who is aware of the prophecy modifies his behaviour as a result of the prophecy. -- Ritchy 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, someone will have to refresh my memory on Minority Reports, as I only saw it once years ago and was half-asleep. But from what I remember, the precog made a prophecy (the cop is going to kill someone) and that sent him on a quest he wouldn't have taken otherwise (to find out who he's going to kill and why) and that led to him killing the guy. Right? If so, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Moreover, Minority Report was definitly not a time paradox. I might be hazy on the details, but I remember quite well that time travel was not part of that movie. No time travel, no time paradox. It's that simple. -- Ritchy 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference here is that time travel was involved, however it was a case of the viewer travelling forward into the future visually to see what was going to happen. The entire concept was that this was 100% infallable and that what was seen always came true. This is why it isn't self-fulfilling because regardless of whether anyone took any action or changed any behaviour, what they saw would indeed always come true. The whole "moral" of the story was the fact that if a person knew they were going to commit a crime, would they still go ahead and do it... In that sense, you could consider it an "anti" self-fulfilling prophecy as the knowledge of the prophecy purposely causes it to not come true because they know it is going to happen. Enigmatical 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The precogs travelled in the future? Are you sure about that? Because I really don't remember that from the movie. And I've just checked the two Minority Report wikipages, none of them mention this fact. No offence, but I'd appreciate some kind of source on that. -- Ritchy 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't listen. the precogs saw into the future (its still time travel). Enigmatical 01:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Having a precognition is not the same as seeing the future. I suggest you check the wikipage for Precognition or simply read a dictionary definition. A precognition is more of an intuition, a feeling, about something that's going to happen. It has exactly nothing to do with time travel. It is very different from, say, somehow projecting yourself into the future and watching events happen.

The precogs in the movie were having precognitions (hence their name). They weren't travelling into the future. Case in point: they sometimes disagreed on what was going to happen (hence the name, "minority report"). Such disagreements wouldn't be possible if they simply jumped to the future and watched events happen. -- Ritchy 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what precognition means, I was talking about how it was handled in the movie. The "laws" of the movie stated that it was 100% guaranteed to come true, that it in fact was the future that was being seen. It is still a form of time travel, there doesn't have to be a physical being moved. See the movie Butterfly Effect. In that movie it was only his consciousness that was travelling back and forth in time. The disagreements were because the twins were not as good as the girl, while she never got it wrong. Still doesn't change the fact... a precognition is NOT a prophecy, its an actual look into a future that will come to pass unless someone alters it. Enigmatical 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Something I think I need to state here

Prophecy <> Prediction <> Precognition

Enigmatical 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reclarification of reason why its not an SFP

• Precognition is not prophecy, its fact. What is seen in the future vision will actually happen unless someone steps in to change it. It is already indicated in the film that this is 100% certain which is the reason why the police force are able to arrest and convict a person of a crime they haven't yet committed. (see reference to the ball rolling off the desk, even if he doesn't catch it the ball will still hit the floor because it has abolutely no alternative but to do so because it is obeying the laws under which it exists).
• If the purpose of an SFP is that knowing it changes action that actually makes it come true, then the precognition causes the change in action for the police to stop it coming true (thus making it the opposite to what a SFP is for). Yuo cannot say it is a self-unfulfilling prophecy because the whole intention of the police are to make it NOT come true.
• Seeing the precognition, the police officer does exactly what he would always do (ie it didn't change his actions) in making sure that he was at the scene of the crime before it was committed to actually stop it being committed. He even goes as far as denying what will come to pass will actually happen. It isn't his actions which make it true, but the orchestrated actions of the chief who purposely placed his son's killer in the appropriate place and thus triggering the precognition in the first place knowing full well he would lose it and kill him (that was a prediction based on his assessment of the cops character)

Enigmatical 05:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well on the first two points, I agree. That's the premise of the movie; the cops can predict that a murder will happen and stop it from happening. This makes them prophecies that are averted by the actions of people aware of them. On the third point, which is the main plot of the movie, that's where I'm a little fuzzy (on account of not remembering the movie all that well). Cruise's actions if the prophecy of the precog had never been made, would have been very different from those that took place in the movie. Maybe he would have gone home, had a beer and watched TV, or some such. Anyway, because of the prediction, he instead went out looking for the guy he's supposed to kill (something he would not have done had no prediction been made) and killed him. That sounds like a SFP to me.

The cops job is to stop the crimes, whether he is a part of it or not. Sure his exact actions would have been different, but ultimately his job is to be there before the murder happens and he did that. I think your splitting hairs here now. If the precognition was about someone else other than him, his actions would have been the same. This is why you cannot call it an sfp... because we are talking about precognition not prophecy!!! Enigmatical 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And another thing. Did Cruise's character actually kill his son' murderer? I vaguely remember the scene between Cruise and the murderer taking place, but then someone else killing the murderer through the window from a neighbouring building. If that's what happened, then it's really not a SFP, since it wasn't fulfilled. -- Ritchy 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a little fuzzy myself but I think he ended up deciding not to do it, then the murderer told him that the chief promised he WOULD kill him (ie he wanted to die), there was a struggle and the gun went off and killed him. So ultimately he didn't even intend to kill him because he understood that he didn't have to do what the precognition said because he knew that knowledge of it gave him the opportunity to change it, change the future. It was the whole point of the movie, and the flaw to that form of policing, because a person who knew for a fact that he was going to commit a crime, might choose not to if he had prior knowledge. Enigmatical 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We need a clear definition!

It seems there is some confusion as to exactly what the self part of a self-fulfilling prophecy is.

1. Does self mean that the object/entity which made the prophecy must be responsible for making it come true?
2. Does self mean that the object/entity which made the prophecy comes true by the altered actons of others?

Personally I think its the first one. That the creator of the prophecy is the one who is responsible for its coming true by the fact that they created the prophecy in the first place. If it is an existing prophecy which others hear, and they change their actions which brings it about I think it loses its definition of self because it is simply a prophecy.

I believe the original concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy actually used the work "prophecy" incorrectly. The concept was not to actually make a legitimate prophecy (i.e. prediction of the future), but instead of place burden on yourself fearing something may eventuate and thus bringing it about through the fear you generated. In this sense it is not a prophecy at all but instead a case of positive/negative reinforcement.

Prime Example:

• If I tell someone who is driving a car that they are going to crash and they do crash, my prophecy is considered self-fulfilling because my actions of telling them they are going to crash was responsible for distracting them enough to have the accident in the first place. Here negative reinforcement was used to cause the accident.

• If I tell myself I am going to trip when I walk up on stage, and I do trip, my prophecy is considered self-fulfilling because I placed a burden on myself by believing I would embarrass myself and thus caused it through my own negative reinforcement.

References:

• The Pygmalion effect
• Robert Rosenthal Research

Enigmatical 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a good definition:

Self-fulfilling prophesy: The observation that expectations about the future tend to come true due to the fact that our expectations affect what we think, say, and do and those actions affect the outcome of events and situations [1]

This is what I believe the true spirit of an sfp is.... no precognition, no prophecising, no knowledge or even system of predicting the actual future... just plain and simple a natural human being whose own expectations lead them to fulfill those expectations due to the change in their own thinking. Enigmatical 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well those expectations about the future have to come from somewhere. That's where the prophecy comes in. Do note, also, that nowhere in your definition does it say that the person who stated the expectations about the future is the one who was affected by them. Your definition allows for someone to state the expectation to someone else, and that other person is the one who's affected in a way that makes it come true.
Anyway, how about this definition:
1. Expectations for the future are obtained, through any one of a number of means, such as prophecies or studies.
2. Someone who is aware of the expectation alters their behaviour as a result of the expectation.
3. The expectation is realised as a result of the altered behaviour.
I think that pretty much covers it, and it pretty clear. -- Ritchy 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But its not an expectation... its a precognition. I keep trying to tell you they are different. The above definition clearly shows it has nothing to do with mystical futures, premonitions, precognitions, prophecies etc, etc, etc... It is purely an expectation that you set up and then fulfill because of those expectations. I think you are reading into the spirit of what an SFP is and taking to extremes with examples of things which are based in fiction. The intent of an sfp was to be used in real life situations, not fantastical ramblings of science fiction. Enigmatical 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition I just posted clearly uses the word "expectation", and does not rely on fiction in any way. It does not go to extremes (at least, no extreme that I can see) and does not ramble (if anything, it's short, ordered and to the point). I really don't see what you're objecting to here. -- Ritchy 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My main objection is that a person seeing a "precognition" of future events is not an "expectation" in any way. The use of examples which feature science fiction, future events, or mystical prophecies really have no place in the definition of a psychological behaviour known as a "Self-fulfilling Prophecy". Enigmatical 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My definition does not even use the word "precognition". It sounds rather like you're mixing this conversation with the Minority Report one. Unless you explicitly give me something in my definition you disagree with, I'll assume you're ok with it.
However, you are absolutely wrong in saying that examples of SFP taken from popular culture have no place here. They do, if only for the fact that they are SFP. But more than that, they help the reader understand the concept with examples, and they help give the reader a perspective of how widespread the use of SFP is in modern and classic art and literature. It is very relevant to the topic.
That said, I'll admit that the psychology part of the article should be more detailed and in-depth. But that's not our fault. We have not somehow cut or held back the psychological side of SFP in favour of popular culture. We just never had someone with a background in psychology who felt like writing about it. If you know psychology and the psychological side of SFPs in particular, feel free to add material to that part of the article. -- Ritchy 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your definition only in that it is identical to the definition provided by the source I stated. With that being the case I dont see why we dont use it. Not only is it clear, but it doesn't require point form... its a single statement. What I dont agree with however is if you use such a definition to then validate the inclusion of Minority Report as an example of an SFP. There is nothing wrong with stating popular culture examples of an SFP accept very few of the examples given are in fact examples of SFP... instead they are examples of precognitions, mystical prophecies and fictional situations which in no way relate to this topic at all. So we can agree on the definition (ie I dont understand why you had to re-write something that already was perfectly clear), but try to use it to validate the examples given and we disagree strongly. I believe the reason why you re-wrote the definition, and included "obtained by any means" specifically to validate the use of Minority Report and the other fantastical examples. If it wasn't, then what was wrong, missing or vague about the definition provided? It would be irresponsible to have an article which is talking about this psychological behaviour and to then erroneously quote examples relating to it that in reality are not true examples. Enigmatical 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In order for someone to have expectations, these expectations have to have been brought on by something. In a SFP, it doesn't really matter what brings on the expectations - that's one thing that was implied in your definition, and that I made clear in mine. SFPs in which the expectation were brought on by some fantastical premonition about the future are as much SFPs as those in which the expectation was artifically created by a scientist looking to test a theory. -- Ritchy 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep... just as I thought. You purposely reworded the definition to validate your own POV. Nice one. It does matter the source of the expectations because precognitions mean that it really is the future. Thus it would have happened even if you were not told about it. Thus how can it be an SFP if you were going to do it anyway? It gets into the whole paradox thing and that clearly is misinformation to people who are reading about this topic. Instead of trying to twist the topic to suit your own view, why not search for resources and materials on the actual topic? I am happy to accept a definition providing it isn't specifically geared and structured to meet one persons own view... which yours clearly is. Not what we need on wikipedia sorry and certainly not what an SFP is all about. Enigmatical 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You have an obcession, you know that? You're just hung up on that damn "Minority Report" movie. It's not even a good movie. Fine, if it means so much to you, if it's all it'll take to make you happy and move on with our lives and with this article, we'll cut that stupid "Minority Report" example from the article. There, are you happy now? At any rate, you're wrong about the meaning of the word "precognition". I suggest you look it up one of these days.
As regards an "official" definition, I'm checking out Merton's book from the library tomorrow. He should give us a definition we can all agree on. -- Ritchy 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are emotional about the topic, which is probably why you are manipulating the definition to fit your own POV. Not only would I remove Minority Report but I would remove all references which talk about mystical prophecies, time travel, future viewing or anything which is more than a mundane human experience of allowing ones expectations to be turned into reality. Oh and just for reference, dictionary.com has the definition of precognition quite aptly defined as "Knowledge of something in advance of its occurrence, especially by extrasensory perception; clairvoyance". See... mystical, futuristic and beyond normal senses. Exactly the reason why it should be excluded from this topic. Oh and if you consider a desire to have factual and meaningful information reported instead of allowing misinformation to be spread because you want it to then I think you will find 99% of wikipedians have this same "obsession". Enigmatical

Wow, that's amazing. "Let's remove all references of prophecies in the page about self-fulfilling prophecies. Yeah, that makes sense. That's really factual and independant of POV. What's your next edit? Going over to the page on Star Wars and removing all references to wars? Your POV is so transparent it's laughable. But please, go ahead. Find me this 99% of wikipedians who think prophecies have no place in the page about self-fulfilling prophecies. -- Ritchy 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• shakes head*. Now I understand why there has been such a back and forth... you honestly and truely don't understand what an SFP is. The fact that you believe the word prophecy is actually used in its future-telling portent is just staggeringly astounding! Do you think Borderline Personality Disorder is about someone standing on a border? Or perhaps Elephantitus is a disease where you grow an elephant on your back? We are talking about a psychological behaviour, which has been granted the name as a result of an indirect use of the word prophecy. Do you honestly believe that by having an expectation of something happening that the universe is now mystically re-organising so that this prophecy is now real??? When others start to put their views here as Leto has done you will soon realise your error, though considering the attitude you are taking I am sure we are ALL wrong and you are right. Enigmatical 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets get some other people's opinions in here, I think both of us have gone over what we believe our own definitions are. While mine is sourced from a 3rd party, yours is engineered specifically for yourself. Lets see whether other people agree with me and accept a 3rd party definition or accept your purposeful restructuring. Enigmatical 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. And then you go on and accuse me of letting my POV into this debate about your "sourced 3rd party definition" and my "artifically engineered definition for myself"? Oh man, you're too funny. I'm surprised you held back from accusing me of getting my definition from Satan while drinking the blood of a virgin I had just sacrificed. NPOV indeed. -- Ritchy 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My source was external to myself and thus obviously not chosen specifically to match a point of view I have, yours on the other hand was carefully constructed and purposely worded in order for you to be able to include the example you wanted included. How exactly is that a POV and not simply stating the facts? Of course you then have to take it way beyond any sense of reason and all because someone disagreed with your use of a science fiction movie which used precognition as a valid SFP. At least everything I have said made sense, was within reason and is based in fact.Enigmatical 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your source is a random website you googled up. I could google one up that says my definition is the right one, then another one that says SFP are a kind of ham sandwhich, but I won't because, unlike you, I know the difference between a "source" and a "reliable source". Hell, for all we know, you made that website yourself with your own definition, and are quoting yourself as a source. As for everything you said being "within reason" and "based on fact", that is your POV. I for one have yet to find any actual facts in your arguments, and the only "reason" you seem to have is an insane obcession to remove "Minority Report" based on a POV misunderstanding of the word "precognition". And of time-travel in general, too - lest we forget, you were originally arguing that the Precogs were time-travelers. -- Ritchy 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do, google your little heart away and provide me with as many references as you can. Would be nice of you to have at least one reference to back up your statements instead of you just running off at the mouth. So please, I have stated several links which all agree with the general use of SFP, while you have provided absolutely nothing. Now you are claiming conspiracy theories about me writing websites to quote myself??? Oh and for the record, a precognition of the future is indeed a form of time travel. As I have explained to you numerous times, time travel does not require the physical body, it can be done purely with the mind, the vision or anything else providing you are talking about a different time which you are privy too. Just to be absolutely clear, go watch the movie Paycheck and then tell me if that involves time travel or not? Then again... perhaps you don't even understand the theory of relativity at all!!! Enigmatical 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And another thing. While I have used a definition you yourself have approved of, and have been consistent in my use of it, you have been making up shit as you go along. You quote one definition, then go on a tangent that's not in any way supported by that definition, and consider yourself right because the original definition was right. That's not the way it works. In logic, the only facts and conclusions acceptable are those that flow from the original definition. The random tangents you babble on are completely unsupported and false. -- Ritchy 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that examples from science fiction, especially the time travel paradox, muddy the issue and do not belong in this article. SFP usually refers to events that did or could happen in the absence of magic. Let's leave it that way. Leotohill 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Minority Report example, per my opinion stated above that it doesn't belong. Leotohill 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the following modern examples are incorrect:

• Star Wars talks about a character who actually has premonitions through his ability with the force, a mystical power
• Harry Potter is a film about magic and a magical prophecy
• Guild Wars again is about magic and a true prophecy
• Twighlight Zone actually shows a person watching themselves performing a future event
• The Matrix is about an "Oracle" who can actually predict the future
• Willow is about a magical and real prophecy

Enigmatical 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Googled References

The following is a list of references which I googled. While these may not be in themselves proof of concept, I believe that the fact there are so many of them which all converge on a similar philosophy and spirit I think is enough to provide a decent level of accuracy.

• ChangingMinds.org
  • If a person thinks we are clever or stupid or whatever, they will treat us that way. If we are treated as if we are clever, stupid or whatever, we will act, and even become, this way. The person has thus had their prophecy about us fulfilled! This is also known as the Pygmalion Effect.
• Association for Psychological Sciences
  • Time and again, research has demonstrated the power of an individual's self-fulfilling prophecies - if you envision yourself tripping as you walk across a stage, you will be more likely to stumble and fall. New evidence suggests that previous studies have underestimated not only the effect of our own negative prophecies, but also the power of others' false beliefs in promoting negative outcomes.
• Answers.com
  • a concept developed by Robert K. Merton to explain how a belief or expectation, whether correct or not, affects the outcome of a situation or the way a person (or group) will behave. Thus, for example, labeling someone a “criminal,” and treating that person as such, may foster criminal behavior in the person who is subjected to the expectation.

In all cases they were talking specifically about either the expectations one has of themselves, or the expectations that are placed on them by others being the influence for them realising these expectations. Even Merton himself who is a sociologist discusses this effect in detail. As I have pointed out numerous times, none of this has to do with future telling, premonitions, precognitions, visions of the future or anything which in any way relates to the general definition of a prophecy which is identified as a revelation made by a prophet. We are not talking science fiction, nor fantasy... but straight sociology and thus modern references of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies cannot include examples of fantastical movies which deal with concepts which are in the realm of fiction. Enigmatical 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert K. Merton

In his book "Social Theory and Social Structure", on the topic of self-fulfilling prophecies, Merton notes that:

Public definitions of a situation (prophecies or predictions) become an integral part of the situation and thus affect subsequent developments.

Merton is the noted sociologist who first coined the term "self-fulfilling prophecies", and even he acknoledged that they can be brought on by prophecies. And why not? The only requirement is that they are believed and thus are integrated into the situation, not that they have a scientific basis or backing. It is an unfortunate fact that the public is seldom swayed by cold scientific facts and more often fall for mystical explainations. Sociology, if it is to accurately study the public, has no choice but to take into account the impact of such unscientific sources of influence on the public.

At any rate, I think this closes the debate. When the sociologist who coined the expression explicitly mentioned prophecies in his definition, that pretty much settles the issue of whether prophecies are an acceptable source of self-fulfilling prophecies. -- Ritchy 00:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem does not lie with Merton, and in fact I agree with his definition completely. The problem lies in your use of the word prophecy. Dictionary.com describes it as follows:

1. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will.
   1. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
   2. Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.
2. The vocation or condition of a prophet.
3. A prediction

What Merton is talking about is the last use of the word, as a simple prediction made by common people. he is not including its use as a mystical or divine utterance. This clearly negates the use of Minority Report as the film deals with precognition, not prophecy. But it also invalidates the use of Willow, Harry Potter, The Matrix and anything else which deals with divine revelations (or in the case that which is said by an Oracle/Prophet).

I have tried to tell you this from the beginning, but you seem to not want to listen. You read the word "Prophecy" and immeidately believe it applies to all definitions of the word. This is why I believe you are manufacturing what you want in order to get the answer you desire and this is why I am "obsessed" because ultimately when other readers view this material they will get the false impression of what a self-fulfilling prophecy truely is. It is very clear, and the only problem here is that you seem incapable of understanding the applicability of a simple word... prophecy.

How many more people need to come in here and repeat the same thing before you actually listen? Enigmatical 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to hand it to you Enigmatical. Thanks to your stubbornness, your lack of knowledge in the topic, and your overall rudeness, you managed to make me wish I could somehow reach through the Internet and beat you with Merton's book. It's a feat never managed by man. You should be really proud.

How can you claim you completely agree with Merton's definition, and then go on to contradict him? Are you so convinced that you are right that you can openly ignore and rewrite textbook definitions, yet be so blind at what you're doing that you claim to be completely agreeing with him? You boggle the mind. You defy human intelligence. You are the shining proof of why normal people like me should refrain from arguing on the Internet.

Well, it took me weeks, but I finally managed to get you to admit that prophecies have their place in self-fulfilling prophecies. It was no small task, especially considering even this morning you were laughing away the very idea, as on par with borders playing a role in Borderline Personality Disorders. I guess if I had some more weeks to waste, I could get around to convincing you that prophecies are, well, prophecies. I guess that's where we are now, you're arguing against the dictionary definition of a prophecy. Oh boy.

Look, Merton was clear. He was talking about the situation that arises when public perception of the future become an integral part of the present and shape the public’s actions. Where that perception comes from is completely irrelevant. Predictions by common people? Predictions by people claiming to be talking to the gods? Predictions by people who claim to have prescience of the future? It doesn’t matter. It all leads to the same situation: the predictions become part of the situation and shape the actions of the public. If you disagree with him, I suggest you do a PhD in sociology and propose a challenge (or an amendment) to his theory as your research project. But don’t do it on Wikipedia, it isn’t the place for it.

Look, I went out of my way to get the most accurate, factual definition I could find, and prove to you that it supports my side, and still you can't accept that. There's really nothing more than I can do at this point. You're just too stubborn. So I'll leave it at Merton's definition, and if you wish to add on his words, the least you can do is refer to his writings. For example, go out and find a quote of Merton saying that prophecies by common people are ok but a prophecy by a guy claiming to be talking to the gods is not. If you can find me such a quote, I’ll concede the point and in fact I’ll delete the examples myself. You won’t, of course, since no such quote exists, since no one before you ever made this point. But at least, while you search for it, you’ll be out of my hair. -- Ritchy 02:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the fact that you are so highly emotional about this as a reason for your loss of rationality. To make such a long diatribe with threats of violence and twisting of definitions is really inappropriate for this place. I have stated that I completely agree with Metron if his use of the word prophecy is #3 on the list, that of prediction, and that is how I believe he intended it. If his book contained anything which related to portending the future from prophets or any other such mystical references then I would disagree with him. Surely the fact that in reading that book you can clearly see he is exclusively talking about expectations either given by common people or believed by common people (ie no mystical source) is enough to make you realise your mistake? But of course not... how could it when you manufacture the question in order to fit your answer. So how about we leave it up for consensus to decide? So far we have 2 who believe divine prophecy is out (ie prophecy = prediction) and only yourself who believes that precognition, prophecy and any other form of mystical future telling is in. So far you are in the minority... shall we make a report on it ;) Enigmatical 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So... no quote from Merton or any source to back up your position? Just as I thought. And for future reference: "he is exclusively talking about expectations either given by common people or believed by common people (ie no mystical source)" Well this might come as a shock to you, but many common people believe in expectations given to them by mystical sources. That's why they belong in there. -- Ritchy 03:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source on that? Enigmatical 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Proof of Ritchy's manipulation

Now I have absolute proof of your complete manipulation of the situation. Strange how you did not provide the definition which you have placed on the actual article:

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come true.

I wonder why you neglected to mention it? Oh I know, its because the definition states "in the beginning, a false definition". How can it be a prophecy (as in divine reveleation) when it is a false definition. The very nature of a prophecy is that it intends to be true, not that it is false in the outset. This is why Merton uses the definition, because he is stating something that would NOT have happened were it not for expectations which began as false, yet through evoking of behaviour eventually made these false conceptions become true.

You have just clearly defined with absolute conclusion that we are NOT talking about prophecies as anything other than pure predicitons, and ones which MUST be false predictions in the beginning as it is the alteration of them from false to true which makes it a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Way to shoot yourself in the foot my friend. Enigmatical 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

O_o

Yes, Enigmatical, that's it. I wanted to hide this fact from you, so I cleverly put it on the main page of the article, where no one would ever think to look.

But you found it anyway! My brilliant evil plan has been undone! Noooooooo! -- Ritchy 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means I should stop writing these various websites and buying out all of these other ones so that I can change the definition and quote myself? Seeing as your plan has failed of course. How about we let the majority determine this... I just wonder if you will be someone who is a sore loser (Oh my... Have I just made a self-fulfilling prophecy?!?!) Enigmatical 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blaming the victim

"Blaming the victim" is seen by some as an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. An example of this POV is seen in an online Journal of Federal Probation document by Laurence Armand French [2], in which French states:

One of the petitioners, the Bay Area Association of Black Psychologists, sought a ban on IQ testing, especially single measure indicators of general intelligence. The Association argued that existing IQ tests were not adequately standardized to reflect minority subcultures in the United States, hence resulting in these students having a greater likelihood of being placed in stigmatizing special education curriculum that, in turn, led to a greater school drop-out rate and a marked disadvantage in the job market once they left school. French (1986a) noted that the mechanism of testing stigma is tantamount to blaming the victim, a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby minorities, including the mentally retarded, are blamed for their poor test results and therefore become labeled as deviant.

As Enigmatical has twice removed 'Blaming the victim' from the 'See also' links, I'm making note of this relationship here, for the record, in lieu of pointless quarreling with 'Enigmatical' - who is unable to see the relationship. Twang 10:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ritchy also deleted the reverse reference. The simple fact that both terms are found in the same paragraph does not mean they are related, and in fact you have shown a clear example where two completely seperate conditions are in effect. They are indeed blaming the victim and through their ignorance are using methods which bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Does that meant hey are related? No... but as Twang says he has better things to do (which clearly he does not, otherwise he wouldn't waste his time restoring it) I can't be bothered with his pettiness. Thank you for obfuscating wikipedia. Enigmatical 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a different reason for removing it. The phenomenon described in the paragraph quoted by Twang does seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy — a test predicts who has less potential in life, putting them in a position where they drop out of school and accomplish less with their lives, thus realising the prophecy. However, this is not the phenomenon described in the Victim blaming page. That page is about people who cannot accept that bad things can happen to good people, and thus try to blame the crimes on the victims, i.e. "it's her fault she was raped, she wore sexy clothes". And that is definitly not a self-fulfilling prophecy. -- Ritchy 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The quoted paragraph is a SFP which leads to vitim blaming. They are two compltely different issues rolled into the one topic. As I said ebfore, just because you have two terms in the same sentence does not mean there is a relationship between them. Thats like putting a "See also" to murder under robbery just because someone robbed and murdered them. Enigmatical 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"The simple fact that both terms are found in the same paragraph does not mean they are related."
That's obfuscating and begs the question. You could use the same approach to suggest that the Earth and Jupiter are not related "just because they orbit the same star." No relationship between Bush and Washington, just because they sat in the same office. And of course the stars that make up constellations, by your logic, aren't related: they aren't even close together ... except on thousands of star charts. But you can have it your way, it's only one link. There are lots of pages in the Wiki universe. Oh, and ... pissy ad hominem is also not a logical argument.Twang 23:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your example, it illustrates my point exactly. Would you ever put a "See also" to jupiter from an article about the earth? Of course not, because even though they may be related simply because they are both planets in our solar system, they certainly are not related to the point where you would refer them to each other to gain more understanding of the article they were reading. The point of "See Also" is just that... if you want a better understanding of the article you are reading then perhaps reading these other articles will increase that understanding. In this case, understanding ONE does not give any help at all to understanding the other because they are completely unrelated as far as the articles go. I repeat what I said in victim blaming... do we include "See also" to paranoia, denial and other such articles because they have just as much "relevance" as victim blaming here. Enigmatical 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found some more information listed: HERE

In this it clearly defines both of these two concepts and there is absolutely no relation between them other than that they are both based on perception.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy is a phenomenon that occurs when an individual or group has a high expectation that someone will succeed or fail in a given situation based on his or her perceptions. This can also be applied to things and events. The concept is normally characterized by prejudgments and biases that have nothing to do with such things as motivation, capability or desire. The prophecy is fulfilling-filled by the conscious or unconscious actions of participants and, or spectators, leading to the expected outcome. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a complex, complicated process, but at an early age we could understand both negative and positive results when the right forces are put into motion.

Blaming The Victim. Blaming the victim is a special perceptual shortcut. The concept involves seeing individuals or groups as the origin or cause of a particular action or problem rather than the circumstances or other relevant factors in a given situation. Examples of this concept are prevalent throughout our history and are just as relevant in our society today. “He or she is an alcoholic because of low moral character; a women who stays with an abusive husband deserves what she gets; homeless people wouldn't be homeless if they wanted to work,” is some of the language used when blaming the victim. Sociologists believe that this behavior is also part of our ego defense mechanism which protects us from feelings of guilt or uncontrolled remorse. However, if not challenged and evaluated, the consequences are that we will never discover the real cause of problems or accept any responsibility for our personal development or resolution.

So with this in mind I cannot see any reason to include a "see also" between these two totally unrelated concepts. Establishing such a link simply confuses people into thinking knowledge of one somehow clarifies the other which is not true. Enigmatical 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pygmalion effect merge

I removed the merge tag because Pygmalion effect is relatively long - much longer than what would be appropriate to have in this article. The additional material is justified because this is an issue in some technical and political discussions about the education system. -- Beland 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple Question

Could the following statement, in therory, be a Self-fulfilling prophecy: "I can't (insert a verb here)"? Cybesystem 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode 'Prophecy Girl"

While not directly stated as such, the prophecy in the episode could be another example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By choosing to face the Master rather than to run, she causes the events that a prophecy predicted (namely her death, and as a consequence of that, the Master being set free). Should I add that to the page, under Modern Examples? ObsidianBlack 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Real-life examples

It strikes me as odd that this article has numerous examples from fiction, but none from real life. I've added one (Marcus Garvey) and hope others will add more. 84.70.121.10 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I came here and was quite surprised to find no real-life examples of self-fullfilling prophecy. While some ancient legends (such and Romulus and Remus) that are partially (and I say that word loosely) historically accurate in this regard, they come no-where close. Theres bound to be at least some, especially modern day, self-fullfilling prophecies? 203.59.35.207 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

See the section further down with the exact same title. That said, there's a section of the article with the same title, and it has content, so I don't know what you're on about. But I do wonder what can be done to improve it.... -- Smjg (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The offending passage is here:

"Not all prophecy of which it might be said "but it came true anyway" is self-fulfilling prophecy. All prophecy in myth and religion is eventually fulfilled, whether by selective recall or as a literary trope, but the classical concept of inexorable fate which underlies the prophecy in myth and provides the irony its hearers sense, needs to be kept distinct. The self of "self-fulfilling prophecy" invariably must refer to an inherent aspect of the prophecy itself."

It is completely unreferenced, and is laying down the law in a manner that contradicts readily observed facts: the prophecies in myth and legend are called self-fulfilling prophecies. Distinguishing between two usages must not declare that one of them is the legit one. Goldfritha 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was going to post something about that section here last night, but wondered if anyone would see it. My opinion is to remove it. It strikes me as highly unnecessary information for a lead, hard to follow, and it appears to be original research. Not that I disagree with it, but the wording is unnecessarily esoteric and grandiose and it just doesn't give the reader that much valuable information (especially for a lead).

I don't know if it is so much a neutrality issue as it is a grammar and tone issue. I was tempted to remove it last night based on my feeling that it conveys very little information and is poorly written. Whatever the issue, I support the removal of it. daveh4h 00:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you and I agree and no one disagrees. Out it goes. Goldfritha 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The "real-life" example seems a bit far fetched. I tried checking around, but I couldn't find a reliable cite... Bonekhan 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moses?

Moses is listed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sounds fairly contrived the way it's written. If someone is attached to it, could you please clarify how it is self-fulfilling? Otherwise, I'll delete. --JeremyStein 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it out and 4.239.114.188 put it back. Why? --JeremyStein (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Real-life examples

Only one... Any more? Or self-fulfilling prophecy occur only in fiction? --Varnav (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Only in fiction? of course not! Self-fulfilling prophecy's occur often in real life. imagine for example something like this

A banking expert claims on TV that "bank XYZ is going to be in trouble"
as a result the clients of the bank XYZ withdraw their money
which off course brings bank XYZ in deep trouble. 

Another example (a bit generic, and contrived, but bear with me):

a person grows up always hearing that he is a bad person and "is heading straight for the gallows"
as a result the person loses all self-esteem, drops out of school, and becomes a criminal
He is caught, and ends up in the gallows.

So the act of forecasting directly results in the forecast becoming true. These are just a few examples, there are many such situations in real life. Actually I think the article should focus much more on real events like this than in fictional events. Mahjongg (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Any run on a bank is a sfp, take Northern Rock for example. There were reports a run could happen, so the bank shut, so people queued causing a run. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ISTM a good example of SFP in the real world is "tickets will sell quickly".... -- Smjg (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article states that, "...a person expecting to be lucky, may enter many more competitions and thus increase their chances of winning." But entering more contests does not increase the chances of winning, but rather the total number of wins. So not only is the statement inaccurate, but it draws into question whether it truly fulfills the "lucky" prophesy. 216.16.236.90 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't wrong. If you enter more competitions, you are more likely to win something. That's obvious. If it stated that it increases your chance of winning each competition, then that would be wrong. But you're right that it doesn't really fulfil the "lucky" prophecy. -- Smjg (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Baldr

I disagree with the inclusion of Baldr and Loki: This was not a case of a self-fulfilling prophesy, but of the typical mischief making of the latter. (He may very well have tried to kill Baldr regardless. The cited causality is doubtful.) In contrast, had the spear/arrow been made out of mistletoe by coincidence, then the prophecy would have been self-fulfilling. 88.77.159.88 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pruned the Greek section.

I deleted the excerpt below:

This motif is repeated in other Greek legends, as in Telephus, a son of Hercules prophesied to kill his uncle. His grandfather had him abandoned, which led to his being raised in ignorance of his birth. He met his uncle and his uncle's men, who taunted him with this ignorance, and in anger, he killed his uncle."

The story of Zeus and Cronus is unusual in that Zeus is aware of the prophecy; usually the prophesied child commits the predicted acts in ignorance, whereas Zeus deliberately sets out to overthrow his father in fulfillment of the prophecy. After learning he was destined to be overthrown by his son, Cronus swallowed his children after they were born to prevent them from rising against him. His attempts to preempt the prophecy angered his wife, Rhea, when she became aware of his actions. To gain revenge for her stolen children she hid Zeus until he was old enough to free his siblings and overthrow Cronus.

Zeus is also able to forestall similar prophecies for himself. When he hears that Metis's second child will be a son who will destroy him, he tricks and swallows her, preventing her from ever conceiving this son. When he is wooing Thetis, he is warned (by different oracles in different legends, including the titan Prometheus) that her son will be greater than his father, and so marries her off to the mortal Peleus; Peleus's son Achilles then proves to be greater than his father.

The Telephus myth is not an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Cronus-Zeus-Metis stuff is also unrelated. As the article states, in Greek myth a self-fulfilling prophecy is one which inspires someone inadvertently to achieve its fulfillment though expressly trying to avoid doing so. I added the bit about Croesus, as it's a variant. Ifnkovhg (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're keeping this article on-target.--Wetman (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Joseph in the Koran

Does this also classifies as self fulfilling prophecies?

http://noblequran.com/translation/index.html

The Surah(Chapter)12. Surah Yusuf (Prophet Joseph)in verse no.4

4. (Remember) when Yusuf (Joseph) said to his father: "O my father! Verily, I saw (in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves to me."

5. He (the father) said: "O my son! Relate not your vision to your brothers, lest they arrange a plot against you. Verily! Shaitan (Satan) is to man an open enemy!

and after series of event mention in the chapter, it is written in the verse no.100:

100. And he raised his parents to the throne and they (--his father,his mother and his bothers--)fell down before him prostrate. And he said: "O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream aforetime! My Lord has made it come true! He was indeed good to me, when He took me out of the prison, and brought you (all here) out of the bedouin-life, after Shaitan (Satan) had sown enmity between me and my brothers. Certainly, my Lord is the Most Courteous and Kind unto whom He will. Truly He! Only He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.

It means that : The Sun = Prophet Joseph's father The Moon= Prophet Joseph's mother Eleven stars= Prophet Joseph's eleven brothers.

-- 07.58 AM GMT 30 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.123.2.217 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)