Talk:Fantasy prone personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
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.
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.
 

Early comments[edit]

Use the full names of Wilson and Barber. Possibly find a link for them in Wikipedia? 150.135.92.35 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For the line: Though various other studies have also found this link including, [2], [3], [4], and [5](Lynn and Rhue).

I would change it to something more like: Various other studies support these findings.[2][3][4][5]

Berkriots (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs references[edit]

Please provide evidence that this is considered a personality disorder by mental health professionals and is used as a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Also, persons with personality disorders are not considered "insane". —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But they are considered "mad".

Food For Thought[edit]

This sounds an awful lot like these people are literally "getting high" by act of will using their own brain chemicals. It says they're still aware of what's real, just that they are fantasizing.

Any articles on how they achieved this? It makes sense that it's possible. We alter our brain chemistry with every decision we make so if someone found the right techniques they could experience at least "pseudohallucinations"(most psychedelic and dissociative drug experiences are still discernible from reality and so would fall under the type of experiences an FPP has rather than a schizophrenic). Of course you'd also want to prevent yourself from starting up true hallucinations and losing control.AsItAllTurnsOver&Over (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported claims[edit]

It strikes me that some of this is not very well written in that the author makes causal attributions that are unsupported. (e.g. 'Children who at a young age were involved in creative fantasy activities like piano, ballet, and drawing are more likely to obtain a fantasy prone personality. This is due to the child being emotionally involved into these activities') Chrismartinbrisbane (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. Let's see if anybody comes with a source, and if not, we can eventually delete this statement. Lova Falk talk 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There are still no references for many statements in the article, but it's unclear if perhaps the material was supported by nearby references. In the above statements, for example, the preceding paragraph cited references, then listed this sentence in a followup bullet-point. I don't have easy access to the references to check. For most of the claims in the article that cited references with free online access, statements could not be verified, or were not verifiably related to FPP; I just removed several of those. I'm skeptical about some other statements, but too lazy to trudge to a research library to check the references. Agyle (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Overactive Imagination in opening paragraph[edit]

In this deletion discussion for the former Overactive Imagination article, the consensus decision was to redirect Overactive Imagination to this article. The redirection guidelines at WP:R#PLA instructs that inbound redirects should be mentioned in the first couple paragraphs of the target article, generally in bold. While I disagree with the decision, it seems based on the argument that the term means the same thing as fantasy prone personality, and I'm not sure what else could be said about the term, so I'm including it as a synonym; two references were suggested in the deletion discussion. Agyle (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Famous fantasizers" section[edit]

I don't see the merit of having a section dedicated to one study's speculations about the mental conditions of long-dead people. I'm considering deleting the section, but I figure I'd post here first, in case anyone can come up with a good reason for keeping it.--24.213.201.206 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)