Talk:Dream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
This article has an assessment summary page.


Universities, institutes and scientific disciplines where dreams are studied?[edit]

The article could be more useful if there was a paragraph or section elaborating in which universities dreams (and what aspect) are studied, and also which disciplines study dreams in what way (i.e. do all dream studies fall under psychology, or cognitive science, or biology, etc). Since dreams are studied extensively nowadays I am sure they are attached or within the framework of one (or more) of the sciences. An example would the article on cognitive science where at the end there is a list of universities where it is studied, degrees they award in the field and what aspects or perspectives of the field they specialize in. Capricornis (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality issues with section Dream theories[edit]

This section has several problems: It does not distinguish between proven scientific findings (as in Neurology) and theoretic speculation which avoids falsifiability (as in Philosophy). It does not give dates for the theories, so the reader can not distinguish a theory from over a hundered years ago, when the function of different brain regions was virtually unknown, from modern results e.g. from a EEG or fMPI. It prominently features several theories, while putting others into a list without showing the special notability of these prominently featured theories. Especially, it starts out with a longish explanation of a theory of a philosopher who does not even have a Wikipedia page. --84.178.77.48 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge[edit]

In an Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (to quote its own article) "It is revealed that Farquhar never escaped at all; he imagined the entire third part of the story during the time between falling through the bridge and the noose finally breaking his neck." Under alternative definitions of dream this might be acceptable, however the primary one of most dictionarys and the definition at the start of the article mandate a dream occur while sleeping. Therefore I deleted from Popular Culture Section. If anyone has alternative thinking to this matter go ahead and speak it Joshua Phillips (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oh my God, awesome, I totally read that story for English 11CP back in high school!
2. More to the point, the experience of the character Farquhar in that story would probably fall under either wishful thinking or flash forward. Therefore, I agree with you. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of material in dream[edit]

Is it possible to add the following article on dream. The author talks about how dreams could be modified by yoga.[1]

Akraj (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I think it is of significance that frequent marijuana users report being unable to recall their dreams. Also that a study in 1975 revealed that THC in marijuana reduces REM sleep. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/200906/marijuana-sleep-and-dreams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 (talkcontribs) 07:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Horomones and dreaming[edit]

http://www.websciences.org/cftemplate/NAPS/archives/indiv.cfm?ID=19970654 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u80rw03101144q22/

What we dream and how much we dream also seems to be effected by hormones. Legit source. Not sure where to add.... which may be why more women remember dreams than men.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Merge[edit]

I may not fully understand the difference but I think the same section of dreams is covered twice. The section "Dreaming and the 'real world'" and "Dream incorporation" seem to cover the same idea. I think these should be merged. If no one protests in the next couple days I will do so. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Merged! Åkebråke (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"12% only dream in B&W"[edit]

This is a ridiculously high number and seems to be bogus. I'm also not sure where this statistic is coming from. The article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353504/Black-and-white-TV-generation-have-monochrome-dreams.html states that "Only 4.4 per cent of the under-25s' dreams were black and white. The over-55s who had had access to colour TV and film during their childhood also reported a very low proportion of just 7.3 per cent". However, (1) you cannot just add 4.4% to 7.3% and say that approximately 12% of the entire population only dream in B&W - percentages do not work that way, (2) the experiment was not conclusive enough (e.g. having a small sample population, etc.) to state this claim in such a factual manner. At most, you could only say that particular experiment(s) suggest that possibly only x% of the population dream in B&W. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "a small minority", which seems to be reasonably well-supported by the sources. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a term for the matter-of-fact acceptance of different personal history?[edit]

One of the strangest things I find about dreams is that it is so easy to accept that one has an entirely different history than in real life. For example, dreaming that one lives in an apartment over an intersection in some unknown city; that one has a roommate who compulsively organizes all her food in plastic containers labeled neatly with tape. And as the dream goes on, gradually the incongruities one accepts without thinking at the beginning seem to become more and more jarring: the containers are all labeled in Spanish; the people out on the city streets all have a somewhat Asian appearance; the prize possessions of your own you'd like to retrieve after one wall begins to collapse seem to have no place in the building. And none of these things seem directly based on any previous real experience. I think it moves usually in this direction, from acceptance of the fictional to more and more expecting the known from real life. But where do the original pseudohistories come from? Wnt (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't the right place to ask questions like this -- that's what the Science Reference Desk is for. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Looie is basically right, but I think that Wnt's comment has the potential to stimulate some article improvement, chiefly by bringing to light a particular source. That source would be (of all people) Friedrich Nietzsche, who theorized that dreaming is an evolutionary adaptation whereby the mind relaxes from higher-order processing and accepts what it perceives, instantly (if inaccurately) deducing cause from effect through a sort of primitive, efficient logic. The Asian-looking people on the street, for example, might not correspond to the people on your real-life street(s), but they do correspond to the colours and shapes that are physiologically perceptible with eyes closed and in a state of sleep. So, according to Nietzsche, you first attune to the colours and shapes themselves, and only then deduce that they derive from the most apparently available causes (i.e., Asian-looking people). So basically, if I understand Nietzsche right, dreaming is firstly a physiologically derived phenomenon, and secondly an immediate psychological imposition of explanatory order (which, due to its immediacy and rapidity, often seems entirely disorderly) upon the perceived phenomenon. My point is, Nietzsche had an interesting theory about dreams, and it might (with a proper citation) warrant mention in the article. (And the proper citation would be of pp. 17-19 of this book.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

XKCD[edit]

Dreams were mentioned on today's XKCD, which is the most popular webcomic in the world read by thousands of people. I'm sure that even scientists of dreams read the comic, because it is a very intellect oriented comic. Requesting that we add a "trivia" or "dreams in popular culture" section that mentions this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.56.68 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me - one time in Peanuts, a popular print comic that has been read by literally millions of people, Charlie Brown had a dream. Neither this nor XKCD should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.217 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The second editor is right. WP:TRIVIA sections are discouraged, and can easily get out of hand. If the article noted every time that dreams came up in popular culture, the article would be a million miles long. (Having said that, though, I've gotta check out this comic...) Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised there is not a whole category on dreams in religion and the prominence of dreams in modern religion. I am not religious but surely this is an important part of the concept of dreams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.72.217 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. R. Farhat and Platagnooze[edit]

I just googled the word "Platagnooze": It only appears in this article (Dream#Other hypotheses on dreaming). At the risk of sounding judgmental, I wonder if this is a legit addition to this article. (It was added on 13:08, 5 August 2010.) I'm new at this, so I'll leave this content alone in case I'm not looking at this in the right way. Peytonbland (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed (as unsourced, even if not vandalism, which I'm fairly sure it is.) Added by an anon yesterday. Thanks for pointing it out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Inception[edit]

"Accelerated thought processes while dreaming allowed characters to perceive time orders of magnitude more slowly; it is implied that two lead characters experienced decades of dreaming in hours of real-world time." - should it not be clarified that this does not actually happen, as stated earlier in the article? 80.42.246.207 (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream world[edit]

In the "dream world and real world" section, the connection between incorporating external stimuli into dreams and the idea that the entire world is a dream is very tenuous. Either this should be explained more, or these should be split up into different sections.

Dreams not fully understood[edit]

The intro states "The content and purpose of dreams are not fully understood." I'm no expert, but from reading the article and other stuff I understood that the content and purpose of dreams are not understood at all and this field of study is rife with speculation, which is mostly unsubstantiated. The current line gives the impression that we already figured it out, but not quite. I suggest replacing the word "fully" with the word "yet", which I think summarizes the issue as presented in the article more appropriately. I would have edited it myself, but the page is protected. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'Only Faces That One Has Already Seen Appear In Dreams' Claim[edit]

What study(ies) made this claim? I've heard it several times, without sources, was hoping I might find it mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Well, the claim is in all probability grossly incorrect or a gross over-generalization... if it's not cited, it should be tagged or removed. If it is cited from a reliable source, then it should be left - and perhaps a counter study found. I've created entire environments (landscapes, cities, etc) in my head. I've got no doubt that anyone with any artistic creativity can create faces - just as an artist would - of people they have not seen. I've personally done that, and rarely dream a face I can ever remember seeing. But, of course, changing it due to that would be original research which is not permitted. So, I'd look for a study that says otherwise, and/or tag/remove the uncited content - or find a cite to support the claim. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a term for this? And if so it should be in the Article[edit]

In my own dreams, I generally do have full control of my own actions within the dream. Unlike what is described here of lucid dreamers, however, I generally have no greater control over my environment (locations, other people, objects) than I do in real life. Is there a special term for this type of dreaming? If so, it should also find its way into the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also called Lucid Dreaming. The level of control someone has in lucid dreaming varies. If you look at the article page on it, where it goes into more depth, you will notice it describes many types of dreaming that are considered lucid. The correlating factor is that the person is aware, to some extent, that it is a dream. From that, the level of control (personal, surroundings, environment) varies depending on the ability of the lucid dreamer. I have full control of myself, and large control (which I usually choose not to exercise) of my environment when I dream. I am also almost always fully aware I am dreaming and suppress that to a certain extent. I've reset time (this I think was the most difficult to learn), changed my environment or the dream entirely, invalidate the laws of physics, etc... So, we are both lucid dreamers, and our level of control is simply what varies.
Because the section on lucid dreams (in this article) points to the full article on it, it's only a short summary to give people an idea of what lucid dreaming is - with the link to the full article so they can learn more (assuming they are interested). So, in that respect, proper balance and weight is being given in this article by not making the section on lucid dreams too large. With that in mind, I'd be all for a bit more clarification on the key points of what determines whether someone is having a lucid dream - as long as it does not mean expanding that section into something that gives it undue weight in an article that is largely not about it. Hope that helps. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Animals and dreams[edit]

how about adding an section about animals and dreams,since sleeping pets commonly display dream-like behavior of various sort i think it would be an interesting topic to add to this otherwise superb article--212.181.199.36 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just interesting, but relevant - IF we can find experts in that field with published articles in reliable sources. If you're up for that challenge, go for it. You will find the egotistical nature of humankind may make that difficult, as many things were once (and in some cases, still are) ascribed to being "human only" actions/occurrences. Just remember not to give it undue weight - balance the amount of content you add with the amount already in the article on other aspects of dreams. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


I created a "Dream in animals" sections. Please further this section with more examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafafc91 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro blurb[edit]

Is it just me or do the first few lines of this page seem rather lame? I think it could be cleaned up to summarize the concept better. Unfortunately, I don't really know how exactly this might be done. 72.29.211.19 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the lead is too short. If you would like to take a shot at improving it, go ahead -- the worst that can happen is that your changes get reverted. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)




Publish the study on introvert dreams vs. extrovert dreams, a.k.a., thinking in dream and/or talking in dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fever Dreams?[edit]

I've been sick the past week which has led me to have some of the most terrible fever dreams I can recall in sometime. I came here hoping to find something on the topic but there doesn't seem to be any information about it. Is it possible that someone could try to add this information? I am hardly qualified to do it myself. Thanks!

Organize the whole article[edit]

Information is repetitive. Some paragraphs are scattered across the article. Please organize into well developed sections that have transitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafafc91 (talkcontribs) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Drugs - Champix and Dreams[edit]

I not that the Dream article is protected against editing. I suggest adding a sub-section, perhaps called Drugs, in which information can be laid on the effect of drugs upon dreams. I have been prescribed a course of Varenicline (Champix) and I have had many vivid dream as a result, and there are many similar references from a Google search. DRG2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg2010 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette[edit]

Reviewing the history of this talk page, there seem to be a number of reversions and deletions of other editor's comments. This sort of practice is discouraged in the talk page guidelines.

I understand that this sort of page, where science meets pseudoscience, is subject to the occasional rambling or irrelevant comment. But in these cases it is better to ignore such comments, and then archive the page, rather than delete another editor's good natured comments. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are meant for discussing how to improve the article. There's no harm done in removing comments that talk about dreams in general or whatever the problem was -- and it saves time for new people who come to the talk page (or its archives) to read discussions about the article, not discussions about the article's subject. It's good etiquette to not waste other people's time.
If you think we have an issue here, take it up in the proper venue (or maybe the talk page of the offending editor(s)), this isn't the right place for it. (You have my permission to delete my comment here if you want to delete this thread.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the default is to keep stuff, but this page in particular could easily get so cluttered with junk as to be unusable. There is certainly no reason to keep things like spam for web pages that are written in Turkish -- to mention the most recent deletion. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts right after you wake up indicative of what you just dreamted about?[edit]

My apologies if this is better on the Reference Desk.

I have noticed at times that unusual, random thoughts will be in my head as I am waking up; not about the thigns I am to do that day, and not the hypnamorphic kind where you dream half asleep. But, like, for an example, I might wake up and be thinking of the 1927 New York Yankees even though it's not baseball season and I haven't thought of them in a long while. (As a baseball fan it's a bad example, but in general... :-)

Does this heppen becasue people don't remember their dreams but do retain some part of them upon waking up, or not? Again, sorry if this should be Red Desked, but it did seem like an excellent thing to add to the article if needed.

Oh, and I also made a small revision concerning the real world in dreams, to clarify that it need not be the same stimuli int he dream, only the same sound, as per my example (metal clanging) which comes from personal expereince. :-)99.109.51.52 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Times[edit]

I think that there should be more information about how dreams were interpreted during the middle ages. I thought it was extremely interesting how they loved getting dreams because they looked to them as messages from their ancestors. Plus, they took their dreams very literally because they also believed they were signs of what to expect in the after life Monica Devin Smith (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More information about how dreams were interpreted in the middle ages would be welcome. However, please see WP:VERIFY. Any information that you wish to add requires a source - a reference to a book or an academic paper that indicates what the information is based upon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dream Length is Inconsistent[edit]

In the lead section it says:

  * Most people have up to 5 dreams per night.
  * Dreams last up to 20 minutes.
  * People spend 2 hours dreaming per night.

These statements are inconsistent; the first two imply people dream "at most" 100 minutes per night while the third says they dream on average 120 minutes per night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philleski (talkcontribs) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably this whole thing should be rewritten, since "dreams" per se are quite difficult to quantify. If we are talking about REM sleep episodes, then it looks to me like the standard numbers given are: (1) most people have on average four or five per night; (2) the mean duration is around 20 minutes, but the longest can be nearly an hour; (3) on average people spend 90-120 minutes per night in REM sleep. I got those numbers by glancing around a bit in Google Scholar, but it would be nice for somebody to do enough reading to actually pin this down. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Scientists 'read dreams' using brain scans"[edit]

[2]: "Researchers in Japan used MRI scans to reveal the images that people were seeing as they entered into an early stage of sleep. Writing in the journal Science, they reported that they could do this with 60% accuracy. The team now wants to see if brain activity can be used to decipher other aspects of dreaming, such as the emotions experienced during sleep." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but way too new and unconfirmed (BBC source says: "a study suggests") to add to this article. Lova Falk talk 07:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I agree "60% accuracy" doesn't sound very high, does it. But isn't Science a perfectly good WP:RS? Or is it just not trusted, as it's a "primary source"? Do we need to wait until this practice is commonplace? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would very much like a list of good and not good WP:RS, because this question pops up every now and then. As far as I understand, this kind of BBC article is not a good source at all, because it is written by a "science reporter" who has read a primary source. A good Wikipedia editor can do exactly the same thing... Lova Falk talk 07:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, quite. I guess there is always some variability with press sources even when it’s the BBC. There’s got to be a balance between single studies in peer-reviewed journals (even if they are considered WP:MED/RS), and wider notability recognised by the press in the public arena. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Normally, important articles in Science are accompanied by perspective pieces, and I think those should be usable, with a bit of caution, as reliable sources. In this case the article has not even been published yet -- it's still in Science Express, their online preprint service -- so it would be premature for us to use it. Beyond that, I don't think we should completely rule out articles by the BBC and New York Times as sources. They are usually written by people with some expertise and include some critical discussion. Things like Science News and Science Daily are a different story -- they are often just regurgitated press releases. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wise words Looie496. The BBC article says “Writing in the journal Science, they reported..” so perhaps a little misleading. But thanks for the clarification and corroboration – for a moment there I thought I might have dreamt the whole thing up. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

to wake me up so I’ll breathe again.

Dream Characteristics[edit]

What are the characteristics of dreams? I'm told that most dreams are like silent black-and-white movies. I frequently have dreams, however, that are quite vivid in nature. Things are in color and I have conversations with people. In one such dream, I was in a room in which everything was blue: the walls, my bed, my pajamas, everything. A little blue radio on a blue bedside table was playing a melody I didn’t recognize. Someone looking like a man with blue skin dressed all in blue stood at the foot of my bed, apparently upset and berating me for my presence there. I could hear him yelling but couldn’t understand a word he was saying. Another characteristic seems to be that things happen or exist in vast spaces. Yet another thing about them is that I remember them – vividly – not for a while but indefinitely, like they were actual events in my experience. Are these what are referred to elsewhere as lucid dreams? Are these perhaps symptoms of sleep apnea and the dreams are my oxygen-starved brain trying to awaken me so I'll breathe again? Does the literature provide any insight that should be mentioned in this article? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting questions, but this is not the right place to ask them. This page should be used for focused discussions on how to improve our article, on the basis of reputable published sources. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Succession[edit]

The word succession in the way it is used implies some kind of shared theme, or sequence, or order to dream events. It does not not fit as the best descriptive since dream experiences are not ordered. I am getting my definitions from MW and Wiktionary. What is your argument for using the word in this way? 400 Lux (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither MW or Wiktionary states that the word always implies a shared theme or some kind of order. You can have a succession of things that are essentially unordered and unrelated to each other, like the experiences that occur while dreaming. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I just read how to indent. :) Taken from definition "a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other." Are we asking readers to infer that dream is the shared theme... it reads awkward to me. 400 Lux (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with TheStickMan here. The significant point we try to make seems to be that not every single image is a dream of its own - dreams take some time. I'd say "experiencing it while you sleep" is enough of a shared characteristic for me to accept the term "succession". Huon (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. 400 Lux (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)