Talk:Tin foil hat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:23, 16 June 2006

General Discussion (old)

Ive been wearing the aluminum paper liner to a package of corn pops I find that it blocks much psychic communication which makes the user feel like a Z I urge anyone with patterned thoughts to wear a tinfoil hat. My particular issue is a bit like Asimov's character the Mule that is able to use psychic powers to overstimulate a technician to produce valuable technologies. Anyway during the 20th century there were up to 2 million United states schizophrenics I think te effect of the tinfoil hat is beneficial if the wearers believe n the rest of society just says "well, even a placebo makes a difference" Treon Verdery

When designing experiments, modelling proteins or writing computer programmes, I regularly wear a tin foil hat and this helps concentrate my cerebral vibrations and block extraneous mental signatures from interfering with my thought processes. In fact, my scientific career is quite reliant on regular tin-foil hat wearing and I am quite offended at some editors suggestions that I am a nut!!!! user:mxpule

Um, my roommate isn't afraid of aspartame in his food because he's paranoid; he's allergic to it because it causes him to have seizures. Perhaps we could find some other ingredient to mention.

I think it's better to simply specify why paranoids fear aspartame. It's possible to fear aspartame for multiple different reasons, some of them reasonable and some of them delusional. Bryan Derksen

I don't like the implication that being concerned about Echelon automatically labels someone as stereotypically paranoid. I have no trouble with the idea that paranoid people are stereotypically concerned about being watched (e.g. the TV is looking back at them), I just don't like this example. I haven't changed the article as I thought I'd see if anyone agrees first. - S

So what are the non-stereotypically paranoid fears of echelon?

Ummm - how about the erosion of civil liberties that routine surveillance of private communications implies? That is a real concern, and is definitely not something that can be dismissed as "paranoia". Graham 06:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Replaced "as with all pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason" with "as with much pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason". I continue to believe that the devils are in the details. --Moiche 04:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think the digression into "paranoid concepts" belonged here, so I removed it. It belongs in paranoia or some other article. —Ashley Y 18:28, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Was the term actually coined by humorists? "Tinfoil hat" seems like a pretty neutral description of "headgear lined with aluminum foil"; couldn't it perhaps have been used by serious wearers of such headgear first? --Delirium 00:04, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, change it. —Ashley Y 06:50, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

3M Velostat would probably be ineffective. It is a conductive packing material designed to prevent packaging friction induced static electricity build-up which can damage electronic components. The film of conducting material is very thin and would probably not stop external electromagnetic radiation. There was a story some years ago of airline pilots lining their caps with tinfoil to counter the effects of increased particle bombardment at higher altitudes. Some science in that, but the protection would be negligible compared to the thickness of the skin of the plane. Probably just airline urban legend, like the flight-attendants who started growing feathers instead of body hair. Anjouli 06:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I added a notice about the appearace of tinfoil hats in "signs", I don't know if that's where if came from originally though, feel free to correct em on that one and just change it toa mention that it's appeared there.

--Obli 21:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This term was definitely in the lexicon prior to 2002!! People have been using it online for years and years. Moncrief 21:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move??

Why oh why was this moved to "tin foil hat"?? "Tinfoil" is one word. Google has 22,900 hits for "tinfoil hat" and 15,800 hits for "tin foil hat." Personally, I find it really irritating when people move much-worked-upon articles without any discussion, particularly when the move is unnecessary. Moncrief 19:47, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

According to the normal rules of the English language, "tin foil" is two words - just like "paper cup" or "brick road". Your google results are probably due to Tinfoil Hat Linux, which is spelled that way (a take on Red Hat Linux.) Mkweise 21:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, tinfoil is one word, and the word dates from the 14th century. It is also spelled as a single word in the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's not an American/British issue. -- Nunh-huh 21:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tinfoil is absolutely one word. Of course it started out as two separate words but, like many compound words that have since become one word, it is now commonly spelled as one word. Look at any dictionary published in the past 40 or 50 years and tell me that they don't spell it as one word. I will take this to a larger vote if you don't agree because I am certain your moving this article was a mistake. Moncrief 23:47, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, we have a precedent in the location of tin foil [sic]. If this page is moved, that one should be moved as well for consistency. Beyond that I don't care too much about the issue, though my dictionary does list it as "tin foil, also tinfoil". Mkweise 00:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not precedent. Both "tin foil" and "tinfoil hat" are idiomatic. English is weird like that. —Ashley Y 04:26, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Devastating comments from a reader of another forum

" "....It should be added that, as with all pseudoscience, there is a kernel of truth or reason to be found in the tin-foil hat story. A well constructed tin-foil hat would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (notionally harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation that would otherwise pass through the subject's brain....."

That statement is untrue. There isn't the slightest "kernel of truth or reason to be found in this explanation." A "partial" faraday cage (actually there is no such thing) requires grounding to be the slightest bit effective. In matter of fact, an aluminum hat (ungrounded) would become an antenna. That is, it's dimensions will make it an effective antenna at a given wavelength. Again, a tin-foil hat is not electrically grounded, nor is it grounded at RF. So, the wiki citation above is incorrect. Anyone that wears a tin foil hat to stop "radiation" is either grossly misinformed or a loon...... there aren't any other explanations, nor should there be any attempt at such. This is an example, in my mind, of the NPOV going directly against the facts. RF and its behaviors are no mystery, they are very well understood.

To be more specific with regard to a faraday cage. To be a faraday cage and to invoke the "skin" effect, the enclosure must be 360 degrees. In the case of a tin hat beanie, there is no "enclosure" and the only way to keep the rf from "crawling" into the internal part of the "tin" skin is to ground it. Does that make it clearer? THe skin effect will only help if the enclosure fully surrounds the subject. Otherwise an ungrounded piece of metal becomes an antenna (at given wavelengths and their harmonics (odd multiples, in particular).

"TRUE" Faraday cages are reasonably effective at RF up to 100mhz (about midway into the FM band). They are notoriously ineffective at frequencies above 100mhz. THe only exception to this would be a faradday cage with no holes, whatsoever. No air holes, no light, completely sealed metallic structure.

Moreover, a beanie isn't even close to being a faraday cage, so the analogy is quite incorrect.

Add-on after original posting of this one: You have now been peer reviewed, a least a little bit."

Andries 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to Andries

Oh, dear. I seem to have been lumped into the tin-foil hat crowd. Literally! My intention was not to suggest that tin-foil hats were good at shielding from RF. Only that tin-foil hats resemble Faraday cages -- which *do* have the intended effect. I have modified my contribution to emphasise that tin-foil hats are not good Faraday cages.

I should add, however, that your response contains some misunderstandings. A "partial Faraday cage" does indeed exist, contrary to your assertion; indeed, imperfections in conductivity mean that there is no such thing as a perfect Faraday cage.

The skin effect is a local process -- it does not require the enclose to be 360 degrees. Wave guides, for example, are not complete enclosures, but are of course used to channel RF in one direction (along the axis) versus others. Similarly, parabolic reflectors rely on the conductivity of the metal to partially reflect the wave towards the antenna. Before you jump all over me, yes, the skin effect technically refers only to the attenuation of the transmitted wave.

Does the RF "crawl" in through holes in the conductor larger than the wavelength? Yes, of course. But a poor FC does not *need* to be grounded to provide partial shielding. If a wave is arriving from a side of the FC that does not have a large hole, then it will be attenuated/reflected for the exact same reasons that an idealized FC would.

Finally, your assertion that to attenuate FM frequencies, the FC must have "no holes, no light," etc, is completely incorrect. There is nothing magical about 100 MHz. You just need a material with sufficient conductivity, and to make sure any holes in the FC are much smaller than the wavelength of what you wish to block.

(Hmm -- just noticed an error someone introduced into this page: "There is no one frequency at which blocking begins, since electromagnetic radiation can tunnel to a greater or lesser extent through a conductor whose thickness is comparable to its wavelength." This is not true; note that the skin depth for, say, AM, is much much smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. The person who wrote this is presumably thinking of diffraction related effects.)

In summary: this author respectfully disagrees with the comments from his anonymous referee.

Origins of the Tin-foil hat

Anyone have any idea how this reference first started? --Viriditas 09:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The earliest comment I can remember was from a silly movie called "Love Sick" (1983) where Dudley Moore plays a physchiatrist in love with one of his patients (played by Elizabeth McGovern). One of his other patients is a homeless guy who is convinced that the CIA, FBI, DOD, space aliens, etc are transmitting messages into his head. Moore gives him a piece of aluminum foil to play the rays. --Amcalabrese 19:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of the stuffed toy image

I have removbed the stuffed toy image that previously illustrated this page. Tin-foil hats are a deadly serious issue for those paranoid individuals who wear them; many of them are sufferers from schizophrenia, a severe mental illness. This is a serious subject, and cuddly toy illustrations are not appropriate. We can, and should, report on the mockery of the wearers of tin-foil hats that is the most common meme regarding them -- we should not, however, take part in it. -- The Anome 11:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Meissner effect and perfect Supraconductor Faraday Cage.

"Imperfections in conductivity mean that there is no such thing as a perfect Faraday cage."

Superconductor are known to offer no electrical resistance, thus allowing perfect Faraday Cage.

In addition, a Supraconductor actively excludes magnetic fields from its interior; this is called the Meissner effect. One of the theoretical explanations of the Meissner effect comes from the London equation. It shows that the magnetic field decays exponentially inside the superconductor over a distance of 20-40 nm. It is described in terms of a parameter called the London penetration depth.

Therefore, a Supraconductor Faraday Cage might provide perfect shielding against both electric and magnetic fields.

Rational behaviour

I'd like to defend the rationality of the choice to wear such a hat. Clearly these people are suffering in these experiences (presumably, symptoms of mental disturbance), and they find that wearing a "magic hat" makes the suffering stop. Stopping one's own suffering is rational behaviour. —Ashley Y 11:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Are we sure about this?

While there have been and still are many people who believe in the actual utility of such devices...

Is this true, or is the source of this particular phrase just the internet picking up and repeating a pop culture shorthand for paranoia? --Michael Snow 03:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are some people who are serious about this. =)

-- Sy / ^(talk) 23:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a couple of crank websites (either that or parodies - the first one is in the external links section and marked as such). And only the first seems to refer to mind control, the second is more generically about electromagnetic fields. I'm going to tone down the content to better reflect what the actual facts support. --Michael Snow 19:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patent non-sense

~~IMHO, the article Tin-foil hat and this talk page are utter non-sense.--AI 02:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

Candidate for deletion?

Tinfoil hat may be a candidate for deletion according to "incomplete" policy. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Hoaxes.--AI 16:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then take off your tinfoil hat and put it on VFD. I'm certain the aliens won't abduct you before the process finishes. ;) -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AI: you added the "This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion." tag even though your link above (re: hoaxes) has a clear response saying "Articles about a particularly notable hoax may or may not be accepted by the community." and, further, "Hoax articles... are explicitly not speedy-deletable." -- Why, oh why, do you not just put it on VFD?! That would be much more appropriate. abfackeln 03:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems systemic bias prevents this dubious article from being deleted. My opinion of course. Should we try to delete it again? :) --AI 02:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page

lets keep this page, i have heard many people that benefit from this device be it pseudoscience or not

It's need not be about whether it works. People think so and wear them and TFH is a phrase and thus it deserves an article. Weren't those Radio Free Head hats made from Copper Polyester actually blocking a certain spectrum of radio frequency? Although the Radio Free head caps were sold on the Internet in 1998 or so I can find no mention of them anywhere despite still owning one. The copper fabric oxidizes quite nicely to a bright green in spots. -216.171.129.224

Biophoton?

Why does the "See Also" list have a link to biophoton? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, do you were a tinfoil hat? --AI 03:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "wear", AI? As for whether I wear one, or have ever worn one, perhaps you could explain how there would be any possible relevance to the answer, whether it be "yes" or "no". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please put it back on. --AI 21:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)~~ It's just a joke, I apologize. --AI 03:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the biophoton article and you'll understand why someone wants to link the article with the tinfoil hat article. Pseudoscience breeds more pseudoscience. --AI 03:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the biophoton article was the first step I took when I started to wonder "What's the connection between biophotons and tin-foil hats?" I can certainly imagine why someone might want to associate the concept of the biophoton with the tin-foil hat (very nearly the emblem of delusional crank "science"). But that reason really doesn't seem sufficient reason to keep the link, so I was asking if anyone had a better reason. If I had gotten one (for instance, if it turned out that some believers in biophotons advocated tin-foil hats to keep good biophotons in and bad biophotons out) that would have given us an avenue to improve one or both articles by making the connection clearer. As it is, though, it seems like someone just wanted to mock the biophoton concept, and though I frankly suspect that biophotons are typical crank pseudoscience, that's not the way Wikipedia should work. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, this entire article is dubious. --AI 23:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been challenged to detail that assertion and not once have you actually substantiated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, put your tin foil hat back on. --AI 17:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything dubious about the article. It is certainly widely attested that some people use the hat in the belief that it will protect them from various phenomona. ~~~~ 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Al, you will read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and desist from commenting against Antaeus. ~~~~ 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caption under current photo

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not out to get you"? I think we need to be serious, even if we do think certain people are crazy.

I think you're correct -- it's funny, but unfortunately when something's funny on Wikipedia it often (not always) means someone's being slighted. I'm not sure I have a good alternate caption to suggest, though. Any volunteers? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a diagnosed chronic schizophrenic, in my opinion the caption is completely objective. Nothing funny about it at all.

Oracular

Well, whether it's funny or not, it's not very informational. However, what can you say about a guy wearing a tin-foil hat except "here's a guy wearing a tin-foil hat"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This entire article is essentially a ridicule of people who wear tin foil hats. Not very encyclopedic. I've deleted the image, as it's thoroughly ridiculous and a fully inaccurate representation of what people would actually wear, as it's easily four feet high. I've also changed the "Tin foil hats among the delusional" section header to "Tin foil hats and mental illness" as being POV. I was oging to do more extensive NPOV edits, but have currently not the time, maybe I'll do them later. --Blackcap | talk 03:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure you understand the difference between NPOV, which is desired by Wikipedia, and false balance, which is not. What is the difference? NPOV is describing all significant positions on a disputed issue without taking the position that one is right and the others wrong. False balance is describing all positions as if they were all equally likely to be right or wrong.

I read the article and I frankly don't see the "ridicule" that you seem to see (apart from the picture caption, which reading the talk page shows we were already ready to replace if someone had had something informational to substitute.) What I see is a reflection of the fact that no mainstream science supports the notion that there is protective value to be had from a tin-foil hat and many wearers who insist that the headgear is protecting them from weaponry that is not known to mainstream science either are in fact mentally ill and delusional. Even the speculation that the article contains about a tin-foil hat possibly affording the protection of a "partial Faraday cage", I believe, is going a bit too far in trying to give an essentially irrational position as much credit can be given it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's certainly agreed. Of course no mainstream science supports the idea of tinfoil hats, because tinfoil hats are inherently ridiculous. I've re-read the article and am dropping my charges of POV; I think that having an obviously unhelpful and ridiculing photograph skewed the way I took things. The article is reasonably O.K. now, but it seems that the whole Faraday cage bit should be verified. I know nothing about Faraday cages and am therefore not in a position to say anything about it, but I also doubt that any helpful benefit could possibly arise from wearing one of these. Hope that clears things up. --Blackcap | talk 06:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's the SPF, stupid!

the only beams the tinfoil hat is protected the wearer from are sunbeams -- and with a SPF of about a million it's about as good as you're gonna get, this protection inhibits the SOLAR DEGREDATION of KEY MINERALS in the top of the head & face, held in COLLOIDAL SOLUTION throught the body and which COMPLETE the FARADAY CAGE, restoring the wearers' NATURAL ability to filter MC (mind control)-RAISE TELL NO ONE! -Anon 202.142.214.75

Article's Lack of Value

Thankfully I can quit looking for the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever. It's sitting right here. The writing is shoddy, malformed, and rather hoplessly depraved. It is the electronic equivalent of decomposing trash. There's no value in editing it either as this article should not exist. Spending time fixing something that's so hopelessly crappy and for which its very premise of existence is dubious makes no sense. It needs to go. -Anon 192.103.41.201 (talking about this version)

Hi, AI. As we've explained to you before, it is not enough just to assert, in a very loud voice and in obnoxious words, that an article's factual content is "dubious". You need to actually point out some specific element of the content that is not factual, something you were never able to do for the simple reason that mentally ill people sometimes do imagine that hats layered with metal will protect them from imagined CIA superweapons, and that headgear has entered the common discourse as an iconic symbol of paranoia. What you really mean when you say that this article is "worthless", that it's "hopelessly depraved", "should not exist", "needs to go", is that you wish the facts described weren't reality. That's not the standard that applies in the real world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this comment was made by 'AI', but whether or not it was, it probably refers to this version of the article (a vandalized state). -SCEhardt 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the article had been recently vandalized. That makes it possible, I guess, for an anon to happen to wander by just in time to see the article in its vandalized state and go off on a very personal rant on the talk page about how not only is the current content valueless, but that the article "needs to go" as "its very premise of existence is dubious". However, given AI's notorious hatred for this article (he/she tried to get it speedy-deleted three times, even after being made well aware that the article absolutely met no criteria for speedy deletion) and his/her promise to return and destroy Wikipedia through sockpuppets, I find the possibility of AI using one sockpuppet to vandalize the article and another sockpuppet to declare it "the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever" and call for it to be eliminated completely in keeping with his/her goals and tactics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lab Study

I find the MIT Media Lab study to be of dubious scientific value. It has a number of serious methodological flaws. The dominant ones are:

Placing a receiver inside of the AFDB significantly affects the properties of the AFDB. A human brain does not have significant metal (or other conductive) elements inside it. Placing a wire and antenna on the head attached to the AFDB would cause it to work substantially differently.
The transmitter was placed in the near-field of the AFDB, whereas an actual mind-control/mind-reading/etc. device would most likely be in the far field. Doing an experiment over a wide frequency range with the transmitter adequately far away to get good results would land you in prison (or at least with large fines) for breaking FCC regulations.

The only good way to do this sort of study empirically would be either outside of the jurisdiction of the FCC (and similar international bodies). Nevertheless, finite-element modeling software for antennas is exceptionally good these days (and freely available in the ham radio community), and would allow one to solve this problem in simulation. One would need to know the relevant parameters of the brain, but those should be easy to come by.

A second claim is that the AFDB is not there to stop E&M waves, but rather some for of psychotronic waves, which behave substantially differently. If this is, indeed, the case, then there is no good way to do this sort of study, since there is no known scientific method to measure psychotronic waves. Indeed, there is no scientific basis for believing they exist.

One more minor point: Partial Faraday cages can work very well, depending on the frequency range. In PCB design, one often uses a ground plane for shielding (a single layer of the PCB that is a continuous piece of copper connected to ground). In IC design, one often uses guard rings, which as the name implies, form a ring, rather than a box around the portion of the circuit being shielded. Old Sony monitors, from the days when Sony made high quality products, had a Faraday cage that covered 5 sides of the monitor, but for obvious reasons, missed the part you look through (for a while, there was an area of research to develop good transparent shields). There is a dramatic improvement in going from a partial Faraday cage to a continuous, unbroken one (indeed, large sums of money are spent on special connectors in instrumentation electronics so that the shield is unbroken where the cables enter and leave), but a partial one can still be very, very effective, as compared to no cage. Also, in general, breaks in the cage that are substantially smaller than the wavelength in question do not matter (and, as a result, many cages are made out of aluminum screening, or at very low frequency, they literally look like a cage). Someone made some reference about partial cages needing to be connected to ground -- that is patently false -- 95% of electronics out there goes through an isolation transformer, and has no real ground reference. The exception are a subset of the things that use the three-prong connectors -- for safety reasons, everything with 2-prong connectors will not connect the shield to the house ground. A good reference on this is "Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Circuits" by Orr.

Protection against UV rays?

While I won't comment on the "traditional" topics revolving around the tin foil hat, I was just wondering, would such a hat protect you from heat and UV rays? Would it be a good idea to wear one in the desert to protect oneself from sunstroke and sunburn?

(yes, wearing one is generally silly, but if no other articles or materials are available...)

Sure, just as much as an ordinary floppy hat would. Perhaps would be a little cooler because of the reflectivity? But that's just speculation. Would want to make toilfoil "brims" to protect the neck as well. Anyway, not something we should include in the article. Sdedeo 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for documentation of references

This article could definitely benefit from proper documentation of the claims it makes. The only specific reference is to the Media Lab experiment. There are some general references, but it is unclear what facts they are there to document. It seems many of the claims made by the article are not sourced. -- 69.110.144.144 09:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for documentation of references

This article could definitely benefit from proper documentation of the claims it makes. The only specific reference is to the Media Lab experiment. There are some general references, but it is unclear what facts they are there to document. It seems many of the claims made by the article are not sourced. -- Beland 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general references and sources are good things. On the other hand, a lot of the article is just statements of rather uncontroversial scientific and psychological facts (placebo effect, Faraday cages.) Not saying these or others shouldn't be sourced, but what statements or facts in particular do you want to see sourced? Sdedeo (tips) 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

contributions by Oracular

I would like to dispute the assertion made by some here that the wearing of such headgear is an indicator of chemical imbalance or biologically caused mental illness.

Psychiatry is yet to scientifically validate any so-called mental illness as having a medical etiology. Psychiatric diagnosis and labeling is nothing more than ideology, a means of social manipulation and control.

To the Yami tribe of the Orchid Islands the wearing of such headgear to protect them from evil spirits is a cultural norm. The people of the Yami Island have been described by anthropologists as a living museum.

The origins of wearing such headgear did not originate in a Dudley more film! Nor does it indicate a sign of mental illness anymore than a procession of Catholic priests parading behind a crucifix. I think this article and its references to "mental illness" reeks of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.

I believe the traditional beliefs of the Yami tribe must be included in this article to give it some balance.

I apologise for not having great informational links to the culture of the Yami but here’s what I can supply at present. I will do more research if requested. Assistance in researching Yami culture in view to adding the Yami perspective on wearing such hats would be appreciated.

Firstly, here is an excellent picture of a Yami tribesman http://www.blasderobles.com/Varia/Kircher/images/yami.gif

And other link to a photo of a Yami tribesman wearing headgear. http://www.iov.org.tw/english/p_03e_2_9.htm

Here is another link to an untitled anthropological study of Yami Culture. http://www.uga.edu/~asian-lp/jpn_html/yami/chpt.1.html

My point is, the concept that wearing tin foil hats/deflector beanies is a mental illness is culturally specific and not constant throughout the world, especially in indigenous cultures.

Oracular 25/04/06

If you have verifiable sources linking tinfoil hats with the cultural norms of the Yami, then they could be included in the article. However, please be aware of what Wikipedia is not -- if your reason for wanting to include the beliefs of the Yami is to promote in turn your own beliefs about Western psychiatry, then it could lead to a lot of disappointment on your part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do further research, is it crucial that the hat be made of tinfoil? Or is the point that these hats are worn by the Yami tribe to gain a similar effect as tinfoil (faraday cage) in eliminating head noise or in the case of the Yami eliminating evil spirits effecting the mind?

The documentary I watched showed a tribal elder’s hat that had been made from silver that was found on a Spanish ship wreck. According to the Yami it was the most powerful hat on the island.

It seems the Yami make these hats out of whatever metal they can find. I doubt tinfoil is used because of it's poor durability or lack of availability. However, the purpose of these hats are similar to the effect desired in both Yami and Westernised cultures.

Oracular 26/04/06

That is true, but since you've clearly studied in the social sciences, you must realize that cultural context places very different meanings on what would otherwise be the same actions. Earlier, you stated that wearing a tin-foil hat does not "indicate a sign of mental illness anymore than a procession of Catholic priests parading behind a crucifix." Here is the thing, however: Catholic priests and their rituals, such as making a procession with the crucifix at the beginning of a mass, exist in a culture where Catholicism exists. Likewise, Yami tribespeople who wear metal hats to protect them from the malign influences of evil spirits are doing so in the context of a culture in which evil spirits are believed to exist and metal headgear is believed to ward them off. However, the Western individual who wears a tin-foil hat in the belief that it will protect him from the mind-controlling "beams of muons" aimed at him by the CIA is still exhibiting culturally abnormal behavior; neither his native culture nor the Yami culture recognize the "beams of muons" that he believes himself to be defending against. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to voice my concerns that ethnocentrism and cultural relativism were "muddying the waters" on this issue above.

The interesting thing is, when power and telephone cables were installed on Yami Island, the whole village became extremely concerned that these cables-enabled phantoms to travel through these cables from hut to hut. I suppose if the technology and culture on the Island increased to a point where a covert intelligence gathering organisation was established on the Island, the cultural norm of wearing reflective headgear, to eliminate any mindcontrol "beams of muons" would make even more sense to the Yami.

We can talk about social constructionism and linguistic determinism until we are blue in the face.

My question's are:

1 Is Wikipedia a culturally specific encyclopedia or doe's it take a worldview?

2 You didn't answer my question above. So again, does the headgear have to be made of tinfoil?

Oracular 27/04/06

Here is link to another Picture of Yami Tribesmen wearing traditional headdress. Scroll down to picture 316.

http://www.weta.org/pressroom/globetrekker3/?p=Images

Oracular 28/04/06

Other particles

This is a great article. But the discussion of the hat's effectiveness seems to focus solely on its ability to block photons. Can or should there be some comment on the hat's efficacy against beams of:

neutrons
neutrinos
raw quarks
kryptonite particles (both red and green)
tachyons (perhaps coming from behind you)
the corresponding antiparticles to all the above
other unknown alien particles

This is just a quick list off the top of my (unprotected) head —Kymacpherson 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we have that information from reliable sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]