Talk:Reactive mind/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Looks pretty good. Terryeo 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem with verifiability

There is a problem with this:

"What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on, down the whole catalog of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classified as psychosomatic, such as the common cold." - L. Ron Hubbard, What is the Reactive Mind? [1] which is sourced to http://tuberose.com/What_is_the_Reactive_Mind.html

Is there are proper citation for this paragraph? Was this an essay by LRH? Was it a chapter of a book? When was it written? Is it copyrighted by the church? I don't care if it is being presented as a convenience link to information available elsewhere, but I want to know where the elsewhere is. How do I verify the authenticity of this quote? Because all our additions need to be verifiable. Vivaldi (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's from Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health. I'll add the reference to the article. wikipediatrix 16:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was, but I didn't want to try to find it myself. Thanks. Vivaldi (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to tuberose.com isn't a personal site, but a business site (apparently). Why not include the link and the citation to Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health?Terryeo 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What you to do a reactive mind

The article presently says, "E-meter to work on removing one's engrams and ultimately, destroying one's reactive mind." but may I suggest "Discharge" rather than "Destroying" because "discharge" is easily linked and used while "destroying" would be more difficult to substantiate. Possibly couldn't be substantiated from primary sources, though possibly some secondary source opinion might use the word "destroy" rather than "discharge". In any event it is less original research to use the word which turbroc com uses, "discharge".Terryeo 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

anon edit 65.143.42.117

The recent edit, [1] which runs on and on without the least hint of any factoid, reference or citation and states, We now know that the brain's neuronets, in fact, do act like Hubbard's "engrams".' should simply be removed. No source of information is given, "neuronets" are not defined, the statement is placed early in the article. It has little logical lead in and no reference for what appears on the surface as outlandish original research. Terryeo 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I don't think I can put it better than the text itself from {{primarysources}} :

This article needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications.
Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Emphasis from original. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

2 secondary sources were added - but I still think the article relies too heavily on primary sources and the {{primarysources}} tag should remain. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Freud as primary source violates WP:OR/WP:SYN

I removed the Freud cite, as it is being used as a primary source and as such violates WP:OR/WP:SYN. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of sources and citations

[2], [3] -- this addition of citations to sources which do not back up the material or discuss the concepts in this article is inappropriate. Please stop adding sources in this manner. What would be appropriate here would be secondary sources that conform to WP:RS and WP:V and discuss "Reactive mind". Cirt (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First sentence issues

I just revised the first sentence from:

"In Dianetics and Scientology, the reactive mind is a discovery made by L. Ron Hubbard, referring to that portion of the human mind that is unconscious and stimulus-response..."

to:

"The reactive mind is a concept in the Dianetics and Scientology systems of L. Ron Hubbard, referring to that portion of the human mind that is unconscious and stimulus-response..."

First of all, JDPhD should never have changed "concept" to "discovery" in the first place, because calling something a "discovery" makes a clear POV claim that the thing in question exists. We do not say that Fleischmann and Pons "discovered" cold fusion; we do not say that Schiaparelli "discovered" the canals of Mars. It is POV to say that cold fusion exists; it is POV to say that the canals of Mars exist; it is POV to say that the reactive mind exists. Therefore it is POV to claim that any of these things was "discovered" or was a "discovery".

To anticipate a possible objection: someone might try to argue that "the reactive mind" must exist because "the reactive mind" can be regarded solely as a definition by predicate. That is, if Hubbard said "the reactive mind is the portion of the human mind that is unconscious and stimulus-response", then it could be argued that the reactive mind must exist unless there is no portion of the mind that is unconscious and stimulus-response. This argument does not hold up, because Hubbard did not define "the reactive mind" solely by predicate; he said "this is the reactive mind, and these are the properties it has." If the reactive mind as he defined it does not have those properties then it does not exist as he defined it and he did not "discover" it.

As for the rest of the changes to the sentence, the "In Y, X is a ..." formulation is only needed when X exists in multiple Ys. To use a classic disambiguation example, one says "In Roman mythology, Mercury was..." because "Mercury" is something else in things that aren't Roman mythology. The reactive mind, however, exists in Dianetics and Scientology and nowhere else; there is no need to use the more cumbersome formulation "In Y, X is" when "X is a Z in Y" is perfectly acceptable. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Still too much reliance on primary sources

Primary sources and sources directly affiliated with the Church of Scientology and associated websites are not necessary, nor is interpretation from primary sources. This should all be replaced in favor of reliance on secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble maintaining NPOV, so I'm refraining from directly editing the article, but here's a list of 3rd party sources for reactive mind after a quick search. Keep in mind that these references should be investigated as to whether they are actually talking about it in a way that can be quoted, and they should only be referenced in context. Don't just paste this list into a "references" section!

"CLEAR YOUR MIND - AND YOUR BANK ACCOUNT; SCIENTOLOGY HAS VALUE, LIKE ENCOURAGING HIGHER SELF-AWARENESS, SAYS MARIANNE MEED WARD, BUT REQUIRES A LARGE FEE TO DO SO" The Toronto Sun, July 31, 2005 Sunday, LIFESTYLE; Pg. 47, 829 words, BY MARIANNE MEED WARD (syndicated at: http://www.icsahome.com/logon/elibdocview.asp?Subject=Clear+your+mind+%28and+your+bank+account%29 )

"SCIENTOLOGY'S FOOTPRINTS IN DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER" St. Petersburg Times (Florida), July 18, 2004 Sunday 0 South Pinellas Edition, NATIONAL; Pg. 11A, 1328 words

"HUBBARD LOVE; COVER STORY; Inside the Church of Scientology Barry Didcock puts his scepticism aside and goes in search of the truth behind one of the world's most controversial religions" The Sunday Herald, February 18, 2007, 7 DAYS; Pg. 4, 4082 words, Barry Didcock http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1200747.0.hubbard_love.php

64.131.243.173 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Fact

For anyone that has read dianetics, L Ron Hubbard does say that all he mentions is scientific fact. You won't find a source on the internet, it's simply in the books.--71.184.6.62 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins quote is off topic, Gardener quote in wrong place

The Dawkins criticism is directed to the e-meter, not the "reactive mind," which is the subject of this page. It should be removed. The Martin Gardner cite is criticism so it should be in the Controversy section instead of the main article. Anyone mind if I correct these problems? Speak soon please, and I will apply edits. Slade Farney (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)