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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I don't think it means what you think it means
I've been taught and have been teaching that magical thinking means a kind of reversed logic, that is, I need it therefore it is available. It's taken some odd cases where users become convinced that an action or some odd combination of switches results in the intended behavior. It's most common with undefined behavior, that is setting a paradoxical set of switches that we failed to block, but sometimes it appears where they've got some strange belief to our eyes as to what something is. In practice, this manner of thinking is reinforcing for a long time because for awhile these things will be things thought of and built before. But sometimes they just aren't and they get stuck with the dissonance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCCF:9039:56A0:50FF:FE57:101D (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed Quantum Psychology from the See Also list. Rather than discussing magical thinking as a phenomenon, it simply seems to promote general pseudoscience, and it doesn't really belong here.
22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The article mentiones the "attribution of synchronicity between events that cannot be justified by observation or reason" as a sufficient criterion for the establishment of that thought process as "magical thinking". I do not think this definition is quite correct; the attribution of synchronicity to events is always justified by observation and attributing synchronicity is in itself a very ordinary thought process. Assigning causation to synchronicity is symptomatic of psychopathology, but even that does not fall under the definition of magical thinking according to any modern broadly-accepted interpretation, neither is the definition given in this article supported by the work cited as reference to that passage; the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology lists "magical thinking" as "Thinking that one's thoughts on their own can bring about effects in the world, or that thinking something amounts to doing it.", which tallies with the definition given in many other medical dictionaries. I will not discount the possibility of a divergent definition in anthropology or ethnology, but that should be separately given and, most importantly, sourced.
--Halemyu (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Or no, let me revise that assessment. I think the general problem with this article is that the author(s) (perhaps there was an original author who was the incipient of putting this spin on it) have taken a term of definite, well-sourced meaning in psychology, and have begun conflating the article on it with matter concering the thought patterns underlying practices recognized as "magic" - which, though perhaps justified from a semantic consideration (i.e. the underlying thought patterns are perhaps really the same, or closely related, and many researchers in the field do acknowledge that) and terminologically not entirely without precedent, is much harder to source in any scientic publication.
" "egocentric," believing that what they feel and experience is the same as everyone else's feelings and experiences." - I am not disputing that he stated this, but believing in universality of experience is in a sense the opposite of ego-centric, it is rather being unaware that ego is an ego (That I am a me). When we use "egocentric" about adults we mean persons who are aware that other people have distinct inner lives, but who dismiss these others as unimportant or irrelevant. By contrast "believing that what they feel and experience is the same as everyone else's feelings and experiences." is quite a different thing.126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It's telling that the "anthropology" section is primarily citing early 20th century research. I see I'm not the only one to point out the obvious racism of cited works, too. ("The Savage Mind"? Yikes) That doesn't reflect current anthropological attitudes or research in any meaningful way and should at least be flagged until it's fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawthornePaws (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)