Talk:Terror management theory

wtf is weltanschauung?

The link directs to "world view" so that's probably what it means. I have no idea why the german word is used in the article though. Poktirity 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In academic writing and literary criticism, the term "weltanschauung" is often used for a person or group's overall philosophy or outlook on the world, it implies something rahter more comprehensive and all-encompassing than the english "world view". See wittionary's entry. Like "Gestalt" and manyu other German-derived technical, scientific, and philosophical terms, this has entered at least technical english. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any references of this theory anywhere? Right now, it looks uncomfortably like a largely-ignored pet theory. 75.73.153.18 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See this google scholar search DES ^(talk) 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, TMT is one of the most widely researched and well-validated research paradigms/theories in Social Psychology. Naysayers and skeptics should conduct an EBSCO (or Google Scholar) keyword search for "Terror Management Theory" or "Mortality Salience." 76.30.175.119 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) catcholden@gmail.com

Slightly related, the article says "Experiments supporting the two hypotheses above have been conducted in the US, Canada, Israel, Japan and the Netherlands." I have in my hand right now a research article studying mortality salience in Bielfield, Germany and the in the US so maybe Germany should be added? The title is "Whistling in the Dark: Exaggerated Consensus Estimates in Response to Incidental Reminders of Mortality" by Tom Pyszczynski et al, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, University of Bielefield Germany, Skidmore College, and University of Arizona. The two studies (in the US and in Germany) asked randomly selected passerby's a couple politically related questions 100m before passing a funeral home, 100m after passing a funeral home, and at the funeral home (with subjects physically facing the funeral home but having it out of view at the other two locations). 157.182.186.102 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a paper?

Because of the copious references to books, it appears to be a university paper half-converted to a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.153.192 (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is a horrible article, and an even worst discussion page. This is an encyclopaedia, why are we arguing about the merits of the theory. Secondly, the article contains many factual innacuracies and conceptual misrepresentations; I don't know why we are arguing about the merits of the theory on the discussion page when it is not even presented correctly.

The bulk of the theory comes directly from Becker, the acknowledgment of Freud, Rank, and (in the article) "the paradox" (which is really the "Existential Paradox" found in Kierkegaard by Becker in the denial of death.

also, the theory does not talk about ideas of religiosity and mysticism directly, these are secondary. TMT is all about self-esteem and culture. Religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and cosmology are all components of human cultures. The point is the consciousness of our finitude leads us adopt an attitude of 'heroism', we want to be meaningful participants in a meaningful culture. Why? because culture survives us, it gives us a symbolic immortality (language is very important here for TMT researchers AND Becker). Religion becomes important simply because it is a potent source of heroism, and it is a cultural factor that varies geographically with a strong tradition in all human societies (the entire theory rests on Becker's cultural anthropology). It stands to reason that the presence of other cultures is a threat to our own (and therefore a threat to our symbolic immortality); this, Sam Keen argues, is Becker's "Science of Evil".

Also this theory is primarily not concerned with explicit threats to life (as mentioned in the article). This is a misrepresentation that leads to the banalization of Becker, and of an outright strawman rejection of these theories. Reminders of death permeate the environment; these effects are unconscious! Funeral homes, Cemeteries, Hospitals, Illness, Aging; the importance of symbolic representation cannot be separated from an interpretation of this theory.

I've been using Becker for 3 years, and I conducted an empirical TMT study for my Honours thesis in psychology (with TMT lit. review); I know the theory in and out. This is an Encyclopaedia article, please don't argue with me about the merits of the theory (well you can, but do it on my talk page), but feel free to correct me on my interpretation (for the article). The points I make here are just mistakes I have seen in passing over the article. I would love to improve it but i don't want to put some time into it if there are interested editors who will just revert the changes. I think we should all start collaborating on an exposition of this theory and not a discussion about it. If you guys agree let me know and I'll start suggesting some changes on this discussion page... Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"the one gain"?

I don't understand this phrase from the 3rd paragraph: "...a place where the one gain rests their hopes on symbolic immortality..." It reads like a passage copied incorrectly from another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.85 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

The result was keep. Bearian 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

lack of empiricism

"Unlike other biological species, humans are the only creatures who are aware of their own inevitability of death." - and this has been empirically proven how?

---> That does not matter! It was a common view when the theory developed, and is still a contended issue. This is an article about what TMT researchers think and argue, you clearely disagree with the theory, but that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article.Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Added some criticism to Becker's Denial of Death page which could be useful here as well... would like to see what is there already cleaned up and cited first though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.253.242 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC) ----> You added criticisms about the accuracy of the article's representation of Becker's theory? or about the merits of Becker's theory? If the latter is true, you might want to just start posting on philosophy forums. I don't have the courage to go look.Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Much of the latter part of this article reads like advocacy for TMT. Although I happen to believe that TMT is a good and useful theory with much supporting evidence, I think the article needs to be edited to provide a more dispassionate treatment of the subject to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. -- Gigacephalus 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

TMT

Animals are born with instincts. They have a predetermined notion that jumping from a cliff might not be good. Humans have these similar instincts, however they are aware that death is a possible result of the fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.155.187 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know that animals are not aware that death is a possible result of the fall? Dlabtot (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the animal knows it will die of old age if nothing else. cyclosarin (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

actually elephants have mass graves and studies show that they willingly go there to die when they "fell they will die", meaning they KNOW THEY WILL DIE. in my opinion animals are aware of death but we humans have a different understanding of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.1.20 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about this? The theory was developed in light of the phenomenon of knowing we will one day die (projected consciousness, which Greenberg attributes to Heidegger, probably incorrectly). To say that only human beings have this ability is simply a rhetorical technique that was used at a time when such a thing was 'common sense'. There is a lot of merit in bringing this assumption to explicit scrutny; however, it does not matter here, and it does not render the theory obsolete.Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

question...

This article is curiously devoid of references -- our style of references.

I started to do some work improving the references -- when it struck me that these are hints that an article might be a {{copyvio}}.

So, why is it devoid of references? Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Experiments supporting the theory

I think that up to date, already more than 300 experiments support the theory <but those "experiments may be of very poor quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.187.11 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the count is probably much higher than 300 today, There are at least 1 or 2 articles on TMT being published in the JPSP every volume (an APA journal). They may appear to be of poor quality to those who are used to biopsych articles, but this is not new... Every social psych theory has been called "poor" by some researcher throughout the history of the discipline. The methodology is different, it has its weaknesses and strenghts... Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a rationale for the motivational catalysts of human behavior

"a rationale for the motivational catalysts of human behavior "

I can give no clear meaning to this phrase ( and I have heard Ilya Prigione lecture on catalysts and myself have taught college courses in adolescent behavior )

I have added notes to the Ernest Becker page detailing the unscientific hoopla in his book (regardless of its winning a Pulitzer - a P. Prize is NOT a social scientific or medical imprimatur)

I have met one psychologist who was a follower - rather like meeting followers of Ayn Rand with their particular disregard of philosophy, psychology, history and economics.

Had E.B. lived he might have rivaled L. Ron Hubbard with a "Church of Repressed Heroism".

The view that all culture is religion either redefines culture or religion or both. They are not philosophical categories let alone psychoanalytic concepts to define to suit the symptoms: they are as useful as we permit them to be in distinguishing what features cut across which societies across time and which practices have the requisite family of features which distinguish some ritual as a religious practice and some as not religious, etc etc

Persons convinced by "Denial of Death" need to shed their homophobia, learn some psychiatry, and visit a country such as Vietnam which does not fit the Rank/Fromm mold (Becker seems curiously ignorant of differences between Freud's Vienna and Kierkegaard's Copenhagen - which is odd in a cultural anthropologist.)

Demographics also contradict assertions presented as fact in the book which conflate the practice of psychotherapy with the practice of psychiatry (which a sociologist might have avoided.)

Ranks students were awed by their master, which may not have been his intent.

The absence of Binswanger, Jaspers and Dostoievsky from "Denial of Death" is baffling - not to mention Heidegger in the extensive reliance on Tillich.

Overall, Becker is a bad mix of wholesale adoption of neo-Freudian doctrine and dubious protestant theology - which leads me to wonder if "a rationale for the motivational catalysts of human behavior " is not more in the same pseudo-scientific self-serving vein.

I cannot see much in Becker to "disprove" as many of his claims are non-refutatable/indefeasible theory dressed as facts with his extensive use of "seems" etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant, but nonetheless: death

I feel that I should add that I have 3 times faced the prospect of death - once in a river, once in a demolished vehicle (no seat-belt, no airbag, multiple fractures) in a deep rocky ravine and once when abducted by two gunmen and taken to a dark, secluded spot to be killed (knocked to my knees, told to beg for my life, pistol barrels pressed against the back of my head - after one nickel-plated semi-A was cocked in my face, making a memorable tiny blue spark in the dark.) Nothing in these experiences has changed my view of E.B.'s book, the "psychology of death" or the claims by Medard Boss on fear. My one experience with torture leaves me utterly opposed to the use of torture although I have had to listen to military braggarts retelling their exploits of interrogating the victims of "scouting" missions abducted for "military information gathering".

While this is strictly irrelevant, the backers of E.B. are very big on their personal "insights".-> Not the actual researchers, only the layman Beckerian. Any serious Beckerian knows that its absurd to justify a theory of the unconscious using personal experience....Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that when told to beg for my life at gunpoint by reputed killers (their modus operandi in the area were known), I concluded the brutal attackers (only one was masked) were most likely raised Christian and did my best to recite the "Lord's Prayer" thinking they might recall a lecture from a grandmother on "thou shalt not kill [kidnap and murder]"

Women - especially psychologists - who have been raped at knife-point or gunpoint are also likely to differ with the published views of E.B. ->They would be mis-reading Becker, His research has nothing to do with violent crimes, or sexual offences...Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The days and hours that I have spent sitting with dying in hospice have also not changed my view that those afraid to live were [paradoxically !?!?] those most afraid to die - this was no more than a clever quip by Medard Boss and not phenomenologically confirmed within either adolescent psychiatry or gerontology or the experience of paliative-care nurses with lucid child cancer victims. The "I was afraid to live" has been repeated as a Hollywood cliché by script writers with no experience in thanatology [ I was once consulted by a Pasadena script writer on Nietzsche's view of death, but casual improvisation with what is "known" to sophomores is more the norm. ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with these near death experiences; however, it shows a great deal of missunderstanding of Becker theory. E.g. televised military caskets or scenes of suicide bomb carnage=relevent to Becker...Treating a soldier for PTSD who got shot in the arm and saw his friends head blow up NOT AT ALL WITHIN BECKER'S THEORY. Some aspects may be relevent, but they would be secondary (if used) within a larger existential or humanistic paradigm, like Rogers or Frankl. Even at that, it would not be used, because there are much better paradigms and techniques for the treatement of trauma. The problem with Becker is that he was not a psychologist, he was trained as an Existentialist (philosopher) and then a cultural anthropologist. The best way I could put it is that Becker's theory is not about abnormal psychology (a clinical term, don't be insulted, I dislike this label too). TMT researchers simply set out to confirm the ideas in Becker that are empirically verifiable, they too have nothing to do with abnormal psychology or psychotherapy. (this is a tad misleading, Becker did write a book on psychotherapy, he saught to give an account of transference in terms of existential ego-psychology as opposed to a psychodynamic perspective, but it has nothing to do with TMT, and is only marginally important to Becker's overall work).Pessimistic Realist (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

personal stories, nothing more

A proclamation of being comfortable recounting ones personal experiences with death cannot possibly be a valuable contribution to a scientific theory. Does Terror Management Theory not simply explain why, how and where we would tell said story, thus supporting the theory? How does one feel when they boast their experiences prior to their upcoming death... silly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.209.86 (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would not predict why and where you would tell your story (this would be absurd). It would be a stretch to say it would explain 'how'. TMT basically states that unconscious reminders of death will result in less acceptance of cultural difference and stronger defence reaction of ones system of values. The first level of defence is simply ignoring the other culture (or immortality project), i.e. we walk around in complete ignorance of the value of other cultures (a basic postulation in anthropology). The second level is bannalization, e.g. "what does the african know, he dosent own a TV and he prays to the sun God" The third level is assimilation, e.g. Religious conversion (if you can convert someone that is a HUGE 'validation' of your culture, i.e. your immortality project) a more fun example is blue jeans... They were originally used by workers, then it was assimilated into the hippy culture in a show of solidarity, it was then assimilated within the larger scope of capitalist value system (we now have designer jeans). The cultural significance is lost through assimilation at each step. The fourth level is the most important. This is what TMT researchers call 'annihilation'. Basically it is at this level that most religious (cultural) wars arise: e.g. "the only good Arab is a dead Arab"...Think of the suicide bomber, who believes he is blowing himself up in order to join Alah in heaven (transcending his finitude)...

I know, it sounds outrageous to scientists, but this does not make it "silly", such statements make you seem incredibly pretentious.Pessimistic Realist (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Göring Quote

Somehow this needs to be incorporated: Herman gave away the game at Nuremberg:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.202.72 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)